1robin said:
I have heard two other explanations for homosexuality. One given by another poster and one I looked up. Neither mentioned a single detail you did. In fact neither were the slightest bit similar and gave a completely different explanations. Forget that indicates that evolutionists will say anything to apply evolution to whatever reality coughs up, lets examine your version among the myriad out there. Nothing evolves that fast. When an insect group is noticed to be resistant to the same chemical that killed thousand of them a few years earlier that is not evolution. It can't possibly be evolution. Though it was a very common example given of evolution constantly. There exists almost no chance that a bug will have the exact mutation needed to resist a chemical at the exact moment needed, and there exists no chance that will occur over and over again. What actually occurs is the bugs that already had a resistance to the chemical are the only ones left to breed. No new genetic information. Nothing evolved. One of two things must be true in your explanation. Homosexuality is mandated by choice alone and in certain circumstances large groups choose to be gay to avoid over population. BTW how are monkeys calculating all this? Or homosexuality is genetically caused and would not happen in the time needed to allow for the pond drying up. That also would not explain why it is a common practice within a species (or whatever group name is correct)n and not only true of regions. We could test your theory by taking away resources from fast reproducing forms of life and see if all the fruit fly's turn gay or something. Try it and give me the data. Since your claim lies within all mighty, arbiter of all truth science then that is your burden.
If genetics had nothing to do with the first homosexual acts among humans tens of thousands of years ago, why did the acts occur, and why do they still occur? Quite obviously, because a large percentage of the participants derive pleasure from it? How can genetics not be a major cause of the pleasure? Many heterosexuals sometimes have sex solely for pleasure. Do you object to that? If not, why would you find it strange that some people derive pleasure from same-sex experiences?
You must believe that heterosexuals derive pleasure from having sex largely because of genetics.
A good number of homosexuals have given up same-sex behavior, but very few no longer have any strong, frustrating same-sex urges.
Regarding heterosexual men who have no sexual interest in women at all, you know very well that most of them would not be able to change their sexual identity even if they were paid a million dollars to do so. Why then would you believe that more than a relative handful of gay men who have no sexual interest in women at all would be able to change their sexual identity?
Dr. Warren Throckmorton is a college professor, and he is an expert on sexual orientation. According to Wikipedia, John Michael Bailey "is an American
psychologist and
professor at
Northwestern University. He is best known among scientists for his work on the etiology of
sexual orientation, from which he concluded that
homosexuality is substantially inherited.
The Wikipedia article also says that Bailey has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology.
Bailey did a famous study on gay twins. In an article at
J. Michael Bailey on twin research and sexual reorientation, Dr. Throckmorton discusses Bailey's twin studies, and provides direct quotes of some letters that he and Bailey exchanged. Both Bailey, and Throckmorton believe that homosexuality is caused by genetics, and environment, and that genetics play a very important role in sexual orientation.
Dr. Throckmorton quotes Dr. Bailey as saying:
"The folks who insist that (male) sexual orientation can be changed should put their money where their mouths are and fund you and me (and the researcher of their choice) to do a study with objective (i.e., penile and neural) pre-post measures."
So, all that people who claim that genetics is not an important factor have to do is provide enough money to fund scientific research that they hope will show that genetics are not an important factor. If such research was done, and the results showed that genetics are an important factor, you would quickly claim that the research did not matter since God opposes homosexuality. If future research on sexual identity wouldn't matter to you if it did not agree with you, why does the issue of sexual identity matter to you now?
You are no more in a position to judge scientific research about sexual identity than you are to judge scientific research on common descent. You have refused to debate an expert on common descent since you know that you would lose the debate. Michael Behe, Ph.D., biochemistry, says:
small might change the way we view the less small."
Darwin's Black Box, pp 5–6.
"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.”
The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.
And yet you would presume to lecture Behe about common descent, and the over 99% of other experts who agree with him, in spite of the fact that at this time you would not be able to pass a first year of college final exam in biology.
In another thread, you said that even if common descent is true, that would not change your religious beliefs. Well, even if creationism is true, I would not accept the Bible.
Theistic evolutionists present you with a big problem since you cannot claim that they are not Christians. Some Christians do make that claim, but I do not believe that you would in public even if that is what you believed.
