Homosexuality and genetics

[Agnostic75]

The major issues for me regarding factors outside of the womb are claims by some Christians that 1) factors outside of the womb primarily determine a person's sexual identity, that 2) those factors can be manipulated in formative years of sexual identity to produce a heterosexual sexual identity, and that 3) reparative therapy, or abstinence for life are the best solutions for homosexuality. Regarding those issues, all major medical associations agree with me, and oppose those claims.

Not quite. I would say that all major medical associations agree with points 2 and 3. However, regarding point one, they are split, and there is evidence to suggest the opposite point of view.

What evidence have you posted that suggests that factors outside of the womb primarily determine a person's sexual identity? What major medical organization has said that? Surely not the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, or the American Medical Association. And certainly not the CDC, or PubMed.

 

[captainbryce]

I skimmed through that article. It refers to gay white males, this does not apply to all gay people. It is from a site about gay youth, so I am a bit skeptical on the age range. I also notice there doesnt seem to be a date on that article either and the latest study is dated 10 years ago so I am not sure how accurate that would be right now.

That's really besides the point. My point is that there ARE studies that have shown homosexuals to be more promiscuous. I was just using that one as an example. Whether you choose to accept the validity of these studies is up to you, but to pretend they don't exist is disingenuous. There are no studies to suggest that I'm aware of which indicated that most homosexuals are better off in monogamous relationships (which was the original claim).

Promiscuity is not just found amongst white gay males but also amongst straight people. Yet I do not see any comparison of stats relating to that.

Well they're out there, you just have to do the research. In any case, that's all kind of besides the point as well.

I would not say that all share the position, but many do whether you like it or not.

And many others also DON'T, whether you agree with it or not. The fact that many supposedly share such a position is irrelevant. Unless you can demonstrate to me that this so-called shared belief is actually a doctrine taught by Jesus Christ or the Apostles, then you have no case!

 

[captainbryce]

Please provide evidence that the God of the Bible exists, that he inspired some Bible writers to write some things about same-sex behavior, and that he preserved what he inspired about same-sex behavior.

Why? What purpose could this possibly serve?

You can't be serious with this request!

I believe that some Bible writers falsely assumed that God opposes same-sex behavior, and were merely attributing their personal prejudice.

Okay. For the record I don't believe that. However, I am willing to admit that some translators of the bible have done exactly that over the years. And I am willing and able to provide proof of this bias concerning scriptural translation.

If you wish, I will start a separate thread on these issues, and we could limit discussions in this thread to scientific issues since the title of this thread is "Homosexuality and genetics."

That would probably be in everyone's best interest here. Although, I'm not sure it's necessary to actually start a NEW thread. I've already been commenting on your other thread about homosexuality and the bible.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/150794-bible-homosexuality-semantics.html

 

[captainbryce]

But PubMed contradicted your claim that child abuse is a major contributor to homosexuality.

That was never MY claim. I was merely providing a link to a study which provided possible evidence that there were environmental factors outside of the womb which may contribute to homosexuality. I have not chosen to endorse the specific claims of any one scientific study over another.

Regarding your last quote, please note "which, in combination with sufficient homosexual potential." Sufficient homosexual potential would no doubt include epigenetic factors inside the womb. You can read about epigenetic factors inside of the womb in the second post. Evidence shows that epigenetic factors inside the womb are an important part of homosexuality.

Again, that is not in dispute here. I'm not attempting to discredit the fact that epigenetic factors play a role in sexuality. I am simply pointing out that they may not be the sole cause of it, and that environmental factors outside of the womb may also play a role in it.

That definitely does not support your claims that child abuse, and other factors outside of the womb are the primary cause of homosexuality.

That was never MY claim.

But you have acknowledged that I have said on a number of occasions that genetics and environment are both important.

Right, but you only consider environment (inside the womb) to be important and deny that environmental factors outside of the womb are important correct?

 

[captainbryce]

What evidence have you posted that suggests that factors outside of the womb primarily determine a person's sexual identity? What major medical organization has said that? Surely not the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, or the American Medical Association. And certainly not the CDC, or PubMed.

Forgive me, I misread your quote. I didn't see the "primarily determine" the first time. In skimming it, I thought you were implying that these external factors had NO impact at all. In that case, I retract my statement and I apologize for my error.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation


No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

Another example of picking and choosing in terms of who you want to believe. Apparently the APA didn't consider the results of this peer reviewed study.

Comparative data of childhood and adolescence... [Arch Sex Behav. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.

Ok, but even if we go with the child molestation statistics in your PubMed article, in a much more recent article, PubMed says that there is not a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality. The PubMed article that you mentioned is dated 2001. The American Psychiatric Association article that I mentioned is dated 2012. Maybe PubMed no longer accepts what they said in their 2001 article. At any rate, your assumption that there is a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality was wrong. The PubMed article on child molestation that you mentioned would only have been pertinent to our discussions about environmental causes of homosexuality if you assumed that there was a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality. If you misinterpreted the article, no problem since everyone sometimes misinterprets articles, but if you tell me that you did not at that time intend to imply that there is a correlation between child molestation and homosexuality, I will not believe you. The entire paragraph that I quoted was about the causes of homosexuality, so it is reasonable to assume that you assumed that there is a correlation between child molestation and homosexuality. You cleverly tried to divert attention away from your misinterpretation of PubMed's article on child molestation by discussing the APA's statistics on child molestation. Even if the APA is wrong, the entire paragraph from their article was about the causes of homosexuality, nothing else. When you quoted PubMed, you were surely trying to imply that there is a correlation between child molestation and homosexuality. Common sense indicates that if the APA is wrong about child molestation statistics, that has no bearing upon what causes homosexuality, as PubMed would surely agree since their 2013 article that I mentioned says that there is no such correlation.

I resent your comment "Another example of picking and choosing in terms of who you want to believe." The American Psychiatric Association is an excellent source. As far as I know, all of the sources that I have quoted in this thread are very reputable sources. They might be mistaken on occasions, but they are definitely very reputable sources. The first sentence in what I quoted says "No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality." That is an accurate statement, which you agree with, so all that you have to complain about is their comments on child molestation statistics.

I want to believe the truth about anything, whatever the truth might be, and so do billions of other non-Christians, but the truth is often difficult to find. What people believe is the truth is largely determined by chance, and circumstance. If you had been transported at bird back in time to the 1600's, it is reasonably possible that you would not have become a Christian, and that you would have approved of colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women.

Even if the PubMed article that you mentioned is right, it shows that 54% of male homosexuals, and 78% of female homosexuals, were not victims of child molestation.

.......you only consider environment (inside the womb) to be important and deny that environmental factors outside of the womb are important correct?

No, I agree with the many experts who believe that environmental factors outside of the womb can be important. I only object to the misuse of those factors by people such at NARTH. Until several days ago, I had never heard of epigenetic factors inside of the womb, and had previously believed that all environmental factors occurred outside of the womb. Earlier in this thread, I did question the claim that environmental factors are important, but I really meant "very important," or "the primary cause of homosexuality."

At least several times in this thread, I posted evidence from experts who say that genetics and environment are both important factors regarding sexual identity. For years, at this forum, and at other Internet websites, I have said the same thing. I only got temporarily confused because I misinterpreted an article about epigenetics.

Forgive me, I misread your quote. I didn't see the "primarily determine" the first time. In skimming it, I thought you were implying that these external factors had NO impact at all. In that case, I retract my statement and I apologize for my error.

Ok.

If you do not object to Christian churches allowing openly homosexual people to join their churches, such as the United Church of Christ, then I am content to end our discussions on homosexuality.

Edit: I just found out that I misinterpreted your intentions. In another thread, you said:

"I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, which is as you said something that people don't 'choose'. People don't choose who they are attracted too anymore than they choose what their favorite flavor of ice cream is. You like what you like! Outside of 'original sin', any personal sin necessitates a 'choice of action'".

If I had known that before, there would not have been any need for these discussions. If you tell everyone in this thread that you said that, I think that you will have far less opposition here.

In this thread, you said:

"My worldview is that I am not qualified to judge the sins of other human beings. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is of not my concern."

However, I still assumed that you believed that homosexuality is a sin. Now I know otherwise, so there is no need for us to discuss homosexuality further.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Completely gay?

Non-personal examples please?

Yes, completely gay. She has a biological child.

How about Ted Haggard, for another example.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The American Psychological Association stated, "Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles." However, according to Royal College of Psychiatrists, there is "no substantive evidence" which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role.

- wikipedia

Environment and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This whole page is about things researchers have found that point towards it being an environmental factor.

What they appear to be saying there, is that there isn't a single factor involved, rather multiple factors are involved, as they are in most things. Mostly everything about human development is a mixture of nature and nurture.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Influenced by genetics is unlike a gene itself.

Not if you know how genetics work.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not quite. I would say that all major medical associations agree with points 2 and 3. However, regarding point one, they are split, and there is evidence to suggest the opposite point of view.

They don't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What's even MORE interesting to me is that in the 2013 article that you've posted, it is largely supporting the idea that environmental factors outside of the womb DO INDEED play some role in sexual orientation.

"negative family environment weakens normative controls and increases counternormative thinking and behavior, which, in combination with sufficient homosexual potential and relevant, reinforcing experiences, can produce a homosexual orientation"

Actually, it says this (the part you quoted is in bold):

" It is argued that Roberts et al.’s “abuse model” is incorrect and an alternative is presented. Male homosexual behavior is common in primates and has been common in many human societies, such that an evolved human male homosexual potential, with individual variation, can be assumed. Cultural variation has been strongly influenced by cultural norms. In our society, homosexual expression is rare because it is counternormative. The “counternormativity model” offered here holds that negative family environment weakens normative controls and increases counternormative thinking and behavior, which, in combination with sufficient homosexual potential and relevant, reinforcing experiences, can produce a homosexual orientation. This is a benign or positive model (innate potential plus release and reinforcement), in contrast to Roberts et al.’s negative model (abuse plus emotional compensation or cognitive distortion). The abuse model is criticized for being based on the sexual victimological paradigm, which developed to describe the female experience in rape and incest. This poorly fits the gay male experience, as demonstrated in a brief non-clinical literature review. Validly understanding male homosexuality, it is argued, requires the broad perspective, as employed here."

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was referring solely to the last part of his comment when I replied: "and for most of them, the best that they can do is to practice monogamous sex in a loving relationship."

This is the part that I considered open for debate. I wasn't saying that I believe sexuality was a choice for all homosexuals. I apologize for the confusion.

Oh okay. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Idunno, I guess it just seems like fiction to think that thousands of homosexuals, each generation, had the full process of sex with something unattractive to them, just by imagination. But, just seeming like fiction doesn't exactly make it fiction.

My female cousin who has now come out as a lesbian, spent most of her life dating males. It happens.

 

[captainbryce]

Ok, but even if we go with the child molestation statistics in your PubMed article, in a much more recent article, PubMed says that there is not a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality.

That's not what it says. It merely publishes an article that posits an alternate theory based on a different model. It challenges the interpretation of results by Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen, that homosexuality is linked to child abuse, but it doesn't refute it! By the way, the model that they are challenging is from 2013 (which is also fairly recent).
Does Maltreatment in Childhood Affect Sexual Orientation in Adulthood? - Tags: CHILD sexual abuse ABUSED children

Anyways, the only way to invalidate the results of the previous study is if you can prove that the previous model is flawed in some way (which is something that is suggested, but not demonstrated or proven). So at the end of the day, WE STILL DON'T KNOW. But right now you are endorsing a model that you want to believe, over examining ALL of them objectively.

The PubMed article that you mentioned is dated 2001. The American Psychiatric Association article that I mentioned is dated 2012. Maybe PubMed no longer accepts what they said in their 2001 article.

It doesn't matter what the date is on the article I posted before because there are more recently peer-reviewed studies in which the same conclusion is drawn.
Homosexual Orientation-From Nature, Not Abuse... [Arch Sex Behav. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

Yes, I'm aware that the model you presented posits an alternative theory, but again this is not a refutation of the data presented here, it's just a different model.

At any rate, your assumption that there is a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality was wrong.

This is a straw man argument! I never made such an assumption.

The PubMed article on child molestation that you mentioned would only have been pertinent to our discussions about environmental causes of homosexuality if you assumed that there was a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality.

Negative, I think you're missing the point. My intent wasn't to declare that child sex abuse causes homosexuality, and that because of this it therefore counts as proof that environmental factors cause homosexuals to become gay. My intent was simply to show you that there are OTHER PEER-REVIWED STUDIES out there that have provided scientific evidence (accepted by psychologists as accurate and legitimate) that contradicts the notion that sexuality is NOT caused by external environmental factors. There are models out there based on these studies (both old and recent) which posit that homosexuality MAY sometimes be the result of external environmental factors. Just because their happen to be conflicting models that reject this interpretation, that doesn't invalidate the statistics or the methods used in the previous studies.

If you misinterpreted the article, no problem since everyone sometimes misinterprets articles, but if you tell me that you did not at that time intend to imply that there is a correlation between child molestation and homosexuality, I will not believe you.

I don't know if there is a link between child molestation and homosexuality (and frankly neither do you). But that is all completely besides the point! The fact is, I am simply pointing out to you that NOBODY KNOWS for sure what causes homosexuality because there are many possible reasons that could cause it. There have been many conflicting studies, with conflicting interpretations of conflicting models. So you can't say for sure that A causes homosexuality and B does not!

The entire paragraph that I quoted was about the causes of homosexuality, so it is reasonable to assume that you assumed that there is a correlation between child molestation and homosexuality.

No, that is not reasonable based on what I have been saying on my posts. This suggests that you're not actually paying attention to what I'm saying about what I post, but ONLY on the links themselves. Please stop making assumptions and read what I actually say so that you can understand my position. Again, I never claimed that child molestation causes homosexuality.

I resent your comment "Another example of picking and choosing in terms of who you want to believe." The American Psychiatric Association is an excellent source. As far as I know, all of the sources that I have quoted in this thread are very reputable sources.

Nevertheless, I stand by my comment because it wasn't a reference to the APA at all. I agree that the APA is an excellent source. My comment was a reference to YOU and your willingness to endorse peer-reviewed articles that you agree with, and reject peer reviewed articles that you do not. When different peer-reviewed articles offer conflicting models, it is important to evaluate them objectively before ruling anything out.

I want to believe the truth about anything, whatever the truth might be, and so do billions of other non-Christians, but the truth is often difficult to find.

That's exactly my point! Yet, you seem to think it you have found it based on your acceptance of some models and your rejection of others. That is not consistent with someone who wants to believe the truth (whatever the truth might be).

No, I agree with the many experts who believe that environmental factors outside of the womb can be important. I only object to the misuse of those factors by people such at NARTH.

Fair enough. I understand that now. But the way you had framed the argument initially led me to believe otherwise (which is why I was challenging you with other peer-reviewed articles that suggest that they ARE important).

Earlier in this thread, I did question the claim that environmental factors are important, but I really meant "very important," or "the primary cause of homosexuality."

Understood!

If you do not object to Christian churches allowing openly homosexual people to join their churches, such as the United Church of Christ, then I am content to end our discussions on homosexuality.

Rest assured, I do not object to churches allowing anyone they want to join their church.

Edit: I just found out that I misinterpreted your intentions.

No harm no foul. This is partially (perhaps even mostly) my fault because I led you on a little bit and was intentionally cryptic on how I answered some of your questions. I could have just came out and said "I fully support homosexuality and do not believe it is a sin". But I wanted to get you to use some critical thinking and try to evaluate your own position from a more objective point of view. I also didn't want to hijack the thread and turn it into something that it wasn't meant to be. If I had identified as a pro-gay rights supporting CHRISTIAN, that might have led to a whole other discussion having nothing to do with "causes of homosexuality".

However, I still assumed that you believed that homosexuality is a sin. Now I know otherwise, so there is no need for us to discuss homosexuality further.

Perhaps not on this thread. Although I'm sure that as a Christian, taking such a position opens up a whole new can of worms for me on other threads. :yes:

 

[captainbryce]

Actually, it says this (the part you quoted is in bold):

" It is argued that Roberts et al.’s “abuse model” is incorrect and an alternative is presented. Male homosexual behavior is common in primates and has been common in many human societies, such that an evolved human male homosexual potential, with individual variation, can be assumed. Cultural variation has been strongly influenced by cultural norms. In our society, homosexual expression is rare because it is counternormative. The “counternormativity model” offered here holds that negative family environment weakens normative controls and increases counternormative thinking and behavior, which, in combination with sufficient homosexual potential and relevant, reinforcing experiences, can produce a homosexual orientation. This is a benign or positive model (innate potential plus release and reinforcement), in contrast to Roberts et al.’s negative model (abuse plus emotional compensation or cognitive distortion). The abuse model is criticized for being based on the sexual victimological paradigm, which developed to describe the female experience in rape and incest. This poorly fits the gay male experience, as demonstrated in a brief non-clinical literature review. Validly understanding male homosexuality, it is argued, requires the broad perspective, as employed here."

Thank you, I'm aware of that. I took out the part that was relevant to the point I was making. What's your point?

 

[ZooGirl02]

I know I posted in here before but I can't find my post and so I don't know what I posted.

Anyway, I believe that homosexuality is caused by epigenetics and the environmental situation in which a child is raised in. I also believe that things like sexual abuse during childhood can influence homosexuality.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to captainbryce: The first article that you mentioned about child molestation of children is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300l. We had been talking about environmental causes of homosexuality. I said:

http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation


No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

Please remember that we were discussing environmental causes of homosexuality, and what I quoted from the American Psychiatric Association was about the causes of homosexuality. You replied:

Another example of picking and choosing in terms of who you want to believe. Apparently the APA didn't consider the results of this peer reviewed study.

Comparative data of childhood and adolescence... [Arch Sex Behav. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.

Regarding "another example of picking and choosing in terms of who you want to believe," what were you referring to? Well, you were referring to what you thought that I wanted to believe about environmental causes of homosexuality. That had to be what you were referring to since the entire paragraph that I quoted from the American Psychiatric Association, which you replied to with your PubMed article about the molestation of homosexuals, was about the causes of homosexuality. You had to have assumed that there was a possible, or probable correlation between child molestation and homosexuality. Otherwise, your PubMed article would not have had any relevance to what we had been discussing, which was environmental causes of homosexuality.

What didn't the American Psychiatric Association consider about what? Well, you had to have meant that they did not consider that there might be a correlation between child molestation and homosexuality since the entire PubMed article that you mentioned was about child molestation of homosexuals.

In response to your PubMed article from 2001, I posted quotes from a PubMed article from 2013. I said:

The PubMed article that you mentioned is dated 2001. Consider the following from one of their articles that is dated 2013:

Homosexual Orientation-From Nature, Not Abuse... [Arch Sex Behav. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

"Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen (2013), using instrumental variable models, argued that child abuse causes homosexual orientation, defined in part as any same-sex attractions. Their instruments were various negative family environment factors. In their analyses, they found that child sexual abuse (CSA) was more strongly related to homosexual orientation than non-sexual maltreatment was, especially among males. The present commentary therefore focused on male CSA. It is argued that Roberts et al.'s 'abuse model' is incorrect and an alternative is presented. Male homosexual behavior is common in primates and has been common in many human societies, such that an evolved human male homosexual potential, with individual variation, can be assumed. Cultural variation has been strongly influenced by cultural norms. In our society, homosexual expression is rare because it is counternormative. The 'counternormativity model' offered here holds that negative family environment weakens normative controls and increases counternormative thinking and behavior, which, in combination with sufficient homosexual potential and relevant, reinforcing experiences, can produce a homosexual orientation. This is a benign or positive model (innate potential plus release and reinforcement), in contrast to Roberts et al.'s negative model (abuse plus emotional compensation or cognitive distortion). The abuse model is criticized for being based on the sexual victimological paradigm, which developed to describe the female experience in rape and incest. This poorly fits the gay male experience, as demonstrated in a brief non-clinical literature review. Validly understanding male homosexuality, it is argued, requires the broad perspective, as employed here.'

Please note "it is argued that Roberts et al.'s 'abuse mode' is incorrect," and "the abuse model is criticized for being based on the sexual victimological paradigm, which developed to describe the female experience in rape and incest. This poorly fits the gay male experience......."

Either PubMed has changed its position since 2001, or they were never trying to establish a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality in the first place. I suspect that they were never trying to establish a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality in the first place. If they were, reference their 2001 article that you mentioned, they have changed they minds.

You recently claimed that PubMed did not refute the study by Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen, but that is merely your unprofessional opinion. Maybe PubMed was right, and maybe they were wrong, but my point is that at the time that you mentioned your PubMed article, you assumed that there might be a correlation between child molestation and homosexuality, although as you now know, that was not PubMed's intention regarding their article.

When you mentioned your 2001 PubMed article, which was about child molestation of homosexuals, you did not at that time know about the study by Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen that PubMed objected to, and you did not know that PubMed does not believe that there is not a correlation between child molesatation and homosexuality since it was I who later told you about the PubMed article that mentioned the study by Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen that they objected to.

At the time that you mentioned your 2001 PubMed article, you believed that PubMed believed that there is a correlation, or a possible correlation, between child abuse and homosexuality. You later found out that that is not what they believe. You have accused me of jumping to conclusions, but I just showed an example of where you did the same thing. If you did not believe that PubMed believed that there is a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality, then you must have believed that there is such a possible correlation yourself. Otherwise, your mention of the PubMed article about child abuse would not have had any relevance to our discussions about environmental causes of homosexuality.

My comment was a reference to YOU and your willingness to endorse peer-reviewed articles that you agree with, and reject peer reviewed articles that you do not. When different peer-reviewed articles offer conflicting models, it is important to evaluate them objectively before ruling anything out.

When you mentioned the Danish study, I did not say that the study was wrong. I said that an expert, Dr. Throckmorton, contradicted the study, and said that the study's authors said that people should not jump to conclusions about their research. Regarding the study by Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen, I did not say that the study is wrong. I said that PubMed said that the study "poorly fits the gay male experience."

You are arguing that some scientific evidence suggests that there might be a number of environmental factors that influence homosexuality, but I admitted that in my first post in this thread, and I have admitted it a number of more times in this thread, and in some other threads. In the opening post, the first sentence in the first link that I quoted says that "homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins."

In my post #42, I said:

The major issues for me regarding factors outside of the womb are claims by some Christians that 1) factors outside of the womb primarily determine a person's sexual identity, that 2) those factors can be manipulated in formative years of sexual identity to produce a heterosexual sexual identity, and that 3) reparative therapy, or abstinence for life are the best solutions for homosexuality. Regarding those issues, all major medical associations agree with me, and oppose those claims.

Nothing there indicates that I am trying to make a case that homosexuality is not partly caused by environment.