It's not a problem for animals to have sex with the same sex

[Dan From Smithville]

I see you are not willing to engage in a reasoned argument. Okay, your choice. This is what happens when a person's accusations are groundless.

There is nothing further to argue. You just refuse to accept the facts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Giant study links DNA variants to same-sex behavior

"Overall, he said the findings reinforce the idea that human sexual behavior is complex and can’t be pinned on any simple constellation of DNA. “I’m pleased to announce there is no ‘gay gene,’” Ganna said. “Rather, ‘nonheterosexuality’ is in part
influenced by many tiny genetic effects.” Ganna told Science that researchers have yet to tie the genetic variants to actual genes, and it’s not even clear whether they sit within coding or noncoding stretches of DNA. Trying to pin down exactly what these DNA regions do will be among the team’s difficult next steps."

Giant study links DNA variants to same-sex behavior

I never said genes didn't play a part. I said genes can't be the only thing, that THAT theory doesn't hold water any more than the "they choose to be gay" theory does. In identical twin studies, we do NOT find that both twins are always gay, so no, there is no "gay gene." But on the other hand, if one identical twin is gay, there is a higher statistical probability that the other will be gay. So obviously, at least for some gays, genes (or at least epigenetics, which is different) do play some sort of role. But that's complicated, not simple.

Again, my argument is for complexity of causation, rather than a single factor.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see you are not willing to engage in a reasoned argument. Okay, your choice. This is what happens when a person's accusations are groundless.

Since you seem to be having trouble understanding, here is what you did.

You are arguing against a genetic basis for homosexuality as the sole basis. That is fine. I have no issue with that argument or the basis for it. I neither agreed nor disagreed with that in its entirety.

Here is your problem.

You did not establish that the women in your first example were not part of the group of women that would have become lesbian regardless of abuse. You simply declared it, because you see them as representing the outcome you want. In order to actually use them as evidence to demonstrate your conclusion, you would need to eliminate the possibility that they would have become lesbian naturally. You did not do that. All you did was provide sketchy assertions that are easily challenged.

I am not saying that your entire thesis is wrong, just that this piece of evidence does not demonstrate what you think it does and is weak.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But you did not show that those women became lesbians by choice.

I showed that SOME lesbians become lesbians by environmental factors, and that some lesbians become lesbians by choice, which is all I need to do to show that we cannot make the statement that all cases of homosexuality are purely biological. I don't understand why you don't get this.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There is nothing further to argue. You just refuse to accept the facts.

I am the one that GAVE facts. You have yet to offer any, or to even show where the fallacy of my arguments lie.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I showed that SOME lesbians become lesbians by environmental factors, and that some lesbians become lesbians by choice, which is all I need to do to show that we cannot make the statement that all cases of homosexuality are purely biological. I don't understand why you don't get this.

No. You declared it. You showed confirmation bias. You see. I do get the error you made.

You connected abuse with being a lesbian for some women. You did not establish that abuse as the cause of the lesbianism. You assumed it.

I would agree that some lesbians choose that sexuality, but I would not use your evidence to demonstrate it for the reasons I have stated. You have not established that it was by choice and you have not eliminated that it would have naturally arisen in those women you reference. You have one fact about the women's history and one fact about their sexuality, but you have not established that those are connected and one follows the other in their cases.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Since you seem to be having trouble understanding, here is what you did.

You are arguing against a genetic basis for homosexuality as the sole basis. That is fine. I have no issue with that argument or the basis for it. I neither agreed nor disagreed with that in its entirety.

Here is your problem.

You did not establish that the women in your first example were not part of the group of women that would have become lesbian regardless of abuse. You simply declared it, because you see them as representing the outcome you want. In order to actually use them as evidence to demonstrate your conclusion, you would need to eliminate the possibility that they would have become lesbian naturally. You did not do that. All you did was provide sketchy assertions that are easily challenged.

I am not saying that your entire thesis is wrong, just that this piece of evidence does not demonstrate what you think it does and is weak.

There is NO EVIDENCE of any other reason that they became lesbian other than the abuse and subsequent negative viewing of men/inability to have normal relations with them.

In the other case, the lesbian *by her own testimony* stated that she chose to move from heterosexuality to lesbianism.

If you agree that some cases of homosexuality are not biological, or not fully biological, why are you even arguing with me?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am the one that GAVE facts. You have yet to offer any, or to even show where the fallacy of my arguments lie.

I have helped you all I can, you are being irrational and in denial and there is nothing more I can do for you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No. You declared it. You showed confirmation bias. You see. I do get the error you made.

If I had confirmation bias, I would not accept that there are many ways that biology, including genetics, plays a role, many times a dominant role. Your theory about me is obviously false as evidenced by my many posts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have helped you all I can, you are being irrational and in denial and there is nothing more I can do for you.

I could say the same.

Let's give it a rest. We are only repeating ourselves at this point.

Be well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is NO EVIDENCE of any other reason that they became lesbian other than the abuse and subsequent negative viewing of men/inability to have normal relations with them.

That is the point. You did not bother to look for other evidence, so you cannot state with any certainty that your conclusion is correct.

In the other case, the lesbian *by her own testimony* stated that she chose to move from heterosexuality to lesbianism.

There was no previous mention of testimony, but that is still very weak. It still does not establish abuse as the cause and eliminate other possible causes.

If you agree that some cases of homosexuality are not biological, or not fully biological, why are you even arguing with me?

You are the one that is arguing. I merely pointed out a flaw in your evidence and that it is not good evidence for your argument. Then you went all ballistic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I had confirmation bias, I would not accept that there are many ways that biology, including genetics, plays a role, many times a dominant role. Your theory about me is obviously false as evidenced by my many posts.

That is not evidence against the confirmation bias in your argument. Your argument is that homosexuality is not solely by biology and your abuse/lesbianism example is used to confirm that.

There is nothing more that I can say about it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I could say the same.

Let's give it a rest. We are only repeating ourselves at this point.

Be well.

When I first read your post with your enumerated evidence, upon reading point one, my first thought was "I wonder how you would determine if these women did make a choice and were not part of the proportion of the female population that would have become lesbian as adults anyway". There was nothing in your point that would eliminate that possibility and it appears to be confirmation bias that has not established a causative link between condition 1 and condition 2. That is all I am saying. The evidence you chose as a case clincher is actually rather weak. That your entire argument has merit does not matter to the validity of that piece of evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I could say the same.

Let's give it a rest. We are only repeating ourselves at this point.

Be well.

I am not trying to destroy your position. Merely pointing out a flaw in your argument. It was constructive criticism.

 

[Valjean]

ummmmm what?

What don't you understand?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

I know you are very convinced of your opinion, so I will be very gentle. I have no wish to pick a fight with you.

1. No, if a person's sexual orientation is not genetic, it does NOT necessarily mean that they would have to choose. For example, I have known women who have been severely traumatized by childhood molestation. Whereas before the molests, they had typical straight thought associations, they came to associate men with the monsters who brutalized them and cannot have normal sexual relationships with them. Their normal heterosexual development was arrested and diverted. They have LEARNED to substitute lesbian love in its place. I have met these women, so don't tell me they don't exist. They have NO CHOICE in this matter, even though there is no genetic interplay. This is only one of many examples I could have given.

Of course situations like this exist...where the women CHOOSE to enter a same-sex relationship because of severe trauma. That does not mean that they "became homosexual." They are still heterosexuals who have CHOSEN to enter into a same-sex relationship because that's where they feel safe. It's possible, also, that these women were bisexual to begin with and CHOSE to stay with same-sex relationships. Still genetic and natural.

2. There are many reasons why a person can be gay due to biology that is not genetic. For example, it could be womb environment (hormones) at specific times during fetal development. This would not be a genetic thing, but an epigenetic condition or something to do with the mother. Surely you can see how this could be a possibility?

Yes, this could be a possibility, however, homosexuality caused by hormonal effects while in the womb still means that it is a natural thing over which the person has no control and their desire to be with someone of the same sex is not a "lifestyle choice." Surely you can see how this negates the entire concept of "sin" and "choice"?

3. In most cases, people are set in their orientation just as you have described. But that is not true for all people. Some people are sexually amorphous, and have gone back and forth between one orientation and another. This is particularly common among females. We have many testimonies to this effect. I remember listening to a leader member of the LGBT community be interviewed by Dennis Prager -- she was very up front about how she had once been thoroughly straight, and had changed to being a lesbian in her college years. Those who are more amorphous are most prone to the influence of modern politics and media cullture--they are now more likely to develop a gay orientation where in ages past they would simply have defaulted to a straight orientation.

You're correct, and if you look back at my posts, you will note that I stated that sexual orientation is not 100% heterosexual and 100% homosexual, although some humans do fit those categories. There is a lot of diversity with regard to sexual orientation, with some people homosexual, most people heterosexual, some people bisexual, and several variations of degree one way or the other. That doesn't make any orientation sinful or disgusting...it's just normal.

4. Your "genetic theory" is disproven by basic science. If genes were the end all and be all of homosexuality, then an identical twin who is gay would always have a gay twin. Right? Yet that is clearly not the case.

I'm not even saying that there is no genetic component. All I'm saying is that it is more complicated than ascribing being gay to one factor alone.

No, it hasn't been "disproven" although it hasn't yet been totally proven. They do know that there are basic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, for instance, in brain structure, with male homosexuals having brains that are more similar to female heterosexuals than male heterosexuals.

There may never be conclusive evidence on this subject mainly because there isn't much research being done. And, to be honest, even if at some point researchers did find that there is definitely a genetic component, people who are wedded to the idea of "God hates homosexuality" wouldn't believe it anyway, would they?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

sexual act of homosexuality = same sex. Not sure how that so hard for your to figure out.

Sexual acts are not sexual orientation. Not sure how that is so hard for you to understand. Sexual acts engaged in by homosexuals are exactly the same sexual acts engaged in by heterosexuals.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

And I disagree with that statement. When a person says they disagree, they are referring to what you previously remarked.

As I previously stated in this thread, I do not have to prove that all lesbians are environmentally formed, or even that this is predominant. I only have to show that SOME are. And I did. It makes the case that is SOME cases, environment is a determining factor, or at least one of the determining factors. My evidence is fine.

No, environment is NOT a determining factor. If it were, then any woman who suffered sexual abuse would become a lesbian, and that is obviously not the case. Many women who have been sexually abused as children enter into a regular heterosexual relationship later in life. Those who CHOOSE to limit their relationships to other women were most likely bisexual or somewhere on the orientation curve that leaned toward homosexuality. Environment has nothing to do with it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"I wonder how you would determine if these women did make a choice\

Not arguing here, just clarifying what I said.

I never said the molested women made a choice. I only said that it was a non-biological factor.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am not trying to destroy your position. Merely pointing out a flaw in your argument. It was constructive criticism.

oh ok, i see. In that case your posts do have a good reason behind them.