why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[1robin]

You shouldn't be since virtually all experts who support homosexuals know that homosexuals generally have more health problems than heterosexuals do.

That has nothing to do with it. It is surprising when anyone from the non-theist side will grant what even those of that side have concluded if it is inconvenient.

But we have already discussed this many times. For months I have asked you for evidence that environment primarily causes sexual identity, and you have never provided any. I also told you that even if sexual identity was caused 100% by environment, children have very little control over their environments.

We have not discussed anything new of any type on this subject for months.

If environment primarily caused sexual identity, most children who are raised by homosexuals in an environment that accepts homosexuality would turn out to be homosexuals, but the majority of them turn out to be heterosexuals.

I have only had a hunch about this issue in the past. I have been looking into it recently and believe my hunch will prove correct. It is however far more complicated than I thought and still need time to investigate it. That is why since it was your claim I asked you for the proof. Instead of doing that you demanded I show proof that your claim is wrong. That is invalid.

College psychology professor Warren Throckmorton is a widely acknowledged expert on homosexuality. In an article at J. Michael Bailey on twin research and sexual reorientation, Dr. Throckmorton discusses a well-known twin study on homosexuality by Dr. J. Michael Bailey, who is widely acknowledged as an expert on sexual identity. Dr. Bailey provides reasonable proof that genetics are an important part of sexual identity, and he said that if proponents of homosexuality provide him with enough research money, there are scientific ways to show who is right. Or, opponents of homosexuality could do their own research with some assistance from Dr. Bailey. All that you side has to do is to come up with enough money to conduct the proper research.

I said genetically mandated not an important part. The difference is crucial and should be very distinct. It should be 100% genetic or 100% environmental (choice) not a hybrid of both, at least for your argumentation to have a foundation. You have still not shown genetics mandate homosexuality. I am still looking into my hunches' validity but it is your burden and unlike faith your burden is proof.

 

[Agnostic75]

How do homosexuals who never get any STDs cause any deaths?

For the last time of saying this you can't know who would do what. Until you do there is no argument here. Unless your argument is that the gratification of lust for a hundred million is worth the deaths of 5 million others.

One just flew over the cuckoo's nest. You certainly know for a fact that millions of homosexuals will die without ever having had any STDs, so your comment about millions of deaths is completely irrelevant to those homosexuals. It is not at all necessary to know which homosexuals they are in order to know that. If they play the game, they will not harm anyone, and if they practiced abstinence, that would not reduce STDs among homosexuals who get STDs. Since it is homosexuals who get STDs who are the problem, your comments are utter nonsense.

You have said that you do not have anything personally against homosexuals who have died, and never had any STDs since they did not harm you. Well, a hundred years from now, millions of other homosexuals will also not have harmed anyone.

Do you recommend that all heterosexuals over 40 years of age practice abstinence?

I am through with any argument that compartmentalizes these issues.

That's ok since based upon your previous comments, I can answer for you. You have said that all risky sex is wrong. Lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do. You have recommended that lesbians should practice abstinence, and you have said that their sexual behavior is wrong. If you really believe that, you must also believe that heterosexual men and women over 40 who have sex should practice abstinence, and that their sexual behavior is wrong, but you do not want to embarrass yourself by admitting that.

 

[Agnostic75]

You shouldn't be since virtually all experts who support homosexuals know that homosexuals generally have more health problems than heterosexuals do.

That has nothing to do with it. It is surprising when anyone from the non-theist side will grant what even those of that side have concluded if it is inconvenient.

It has everything to do with it if we are discussing what experts say. All major medical associations know that the world would be better off if everyone was a heterosexual. Even some homosexuals who have unsuccessfully tried to give up homosexuality have said that is sexual identity was a choice, they would have chose to be heterosexuals in order to avoid persecution.

I have only had a hunch about this issue in the past. I have been looking into it recently and believe my hunch will prove correct. It is however far more complicated than I thought and still need time to investigate it. That is why since it was your claim I asked you for the proof. Instead of doing that you demanded I show proof that your claim is wrong. That is invalid.

I said genetically mandated not an important part. The difference is crucial and should be very distinct. It should be 100% genetic or 100% environmental (choice) not a hybrid of both, at least for your argumentation to have a foundation. You have still not shown genetics mandate homosexuality. I am still looking into my hunches' validity but it is your burden and unlike faith your burden is proof.

What do you mean by "genetically mandated"?

Do you agree with virtually all experts that initial sexual identity is not a choice?

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[1robin]

It has everything to do with it if we are discussing what experts say. All major medical associations know that the world would be better off if everyone was a heterosexual. Even some homosexuals who have unsuccessfully tried to give up homosexuality have said that is sexual identity was a choice, they would have chose to be heterosexuals in order to avoid persecution.

No it has nothing to do with my surprise at your admission. I took it to be true when you stated it so confirmation was unnecessary. The point was folks from you side are hard to get to admit anything inconvenient no matter how true.

What do you mean by "genetically mandated"?

That genetics produce 100% unavoidable homosexual orientation alone. I believe that genetics do tend to make some things more attractive. For example Genetics may make my like or be susceptible to alcohol or drugs as a Native American but it will never mean I was addicted to either out of the womb or destined to ever be. We would both agree that genetics mandates heterosexuality. I demand that you prove Homosexuality is generated by genetics to the same absolute extant. How would you even know if it did? What is the gay test? Is there one? How do you tell the difference between all the pretenders you said had switched later on and the true gays who can't?

Do you agree with virtually all experts that initial sexual identity is not a choice?

Not for homosexuality and I even doubt it is the opinion of virtually all experts.

 

[1robin]

One just flew over the cuckoo's nest. You certainly know for a fact that millions of homosexuals will die without ever having had any STDs, so your comment about millions of deaths is completely irrelevant to those homosexuals. It is not at all necessary to know which homosexuals they are in order to know that. If they play the game, they will not harm anyone, and if they practiced abstinence, that would not reduce STDs among homosexuals who get STDs. Since it is homosexuals who get STDs who are the problem, your comments are utter nonsense.

The debate when it was about only one lump group was far far far too long and now your attempting to subdivide that into about 6 groups so far. Not only am I not going to do that at this time, I have no idea what it is you think it helps your case by doing so. Most of t he time I disagree with claims but they have a clear purpose. I can't see even your theoretical gain by what your doing right or wrong.

You have said that you do not have anything personally against homosexuals who have died, and never had any STDs since they did not harm you. Well, a hundred years from now, millions of other homosexuals will also not have harmed anyone.

I can't do this argument any more. I have no idea what it is even supposed to mean. I think your premise sort of true but of no practical value for your argument. I always want to type a So what? at the end.

That's ok since based upon your previous comments, I can answer for you. You have said that all risky sex is wrong. Lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do. You have recommended that lesbians should practice abstinence, and you have said that their sexual behavior is wrong. If you really believe that, you must also believe that heterosexual men and women over 40 who have sex should practice abstinence, and that their sexual behavior is wrong, but you do not want to embarrass yourself by admitting that.

Maybe you could have the entire debate without me if you know what I would have said.

 

[Agnostic75]

What do you mean by "genetically mandated"?

That genetics produce 100% unavoidable homosexual orientation alone.

I have never said that, nor does any major medical organization.

As I told you, Dr. Bailey has told opponents of homosexuality that there are scientific tests that can conclusively prove whether or not genetics is a major cause of sexual identity if enough money was available for the research.

Dr. Bailey's twin studies reasonably prove that genetics is an important part of determining initial sexual identity. And, I have told you that even if homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, children have very little control over their environment.

Do you agree with virtually all experts that initial sexual identity is not a choice?

Not for homosexuality and I even doubt it is the opinion of virtually all experts.

Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

American Psychological Association

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. 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; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

.......the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice.[13][14][15] There is no simple, single cause for sexual orientation that has been conclusively demonstrated, but scientists theorize that it is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1][13] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[14] Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.[1]

Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

Where is your research about what causes initial sexual identity? If sexual identity is a choice, why is it often very difficult even for religiously motivated homosexuals to change their sexual identity?

 

[Agnostic75]

That's ok since based upon your previous comments, I can answer for you. You have said that all risky sex is wrong. Lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do. You have recommended that lesbians should practice abstinence, and you have said that their sexual behavior is wrong. If you really believe that, you must also believe that heterosexual men and women over 40 who have sex should practice abstinence, and that their sexual behavior is wrong, but you do not want to embarrass yourself by admitting that.

Maybe you could have the entire debate without me if you know what I would have said.

You are evasive since you know that I made some good arguments. Risk is your main secular argument against homosexuals. It also ought to be your main secular argument against heterosexual men and women over 40, heterosexual black American men and women, heterosexual black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries, and heterosexual men and women who live in poverty since all of those groups of people have more risk than lesbians do.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Since I have combined my most recent posts into this post, please disregard all of my previous posts. Since this post is large, I will need to use two posts. This is part 1.

That's ok since based upon your previous comments, I can answer for you. You have said that all risky sex is wrong. Lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do. You have recommended that lesbians should practice abstinence, and you have said that their sexual behavior is wrong. If you really believe that, you must also believe that heterosexual men and women over 40 who have sex should practice abstinence, and that their sexual behavior is wrong, but you do not want to embarrass yourself by admitting that.

Maybe you could have the entire debate without me if you know what I would have said.

You are evasive since you know that I made some good arguments. Risk is your main secular argument against homosexuals. It also ought to be your main secular argument against heterosexual men and women over 40, heterosexual black American men and women, heterosexual black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries, and heterosexual men and women who live in poverty since all of those groups of people have more risk than lesbians do.

What do you mean by "genetically mandated"?

That genetics produce 100% unavoidable homosexual orientation alone.

I have never said that, nor does any major medical organization.

As I told you, Dr. Bailey has told opponents of homosexuality that there are scientific tests that can conclusively prove whether or not genetics is a major cause of sexual identity if enough money was available for the research. Dr. Bailey's twin studies reasonably prove that genetics is an important part of determining initial sexual identity. And, I have told you that even if homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, children have very little control over their environment. In an article at http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/07/j-michael-bailey-on-twin-research-and-sexual-reorientation/, college professor Warren Throckmorton, who is a widely acknowledged expert on homosexuality, discusses some of Dr. Bailey's research. He also quotes another expert, who said:

The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

If necessary, I have some other evidence from identical, and fraternal twin studies that reasonably proves that genetics is a major influence on sexual identity.

In Dr. Throckmorton's article, he quotes Dr. Bailey as saying:

Studies of the rare conditions of penile ablation and cloacal exstrophy (in which hormonally normal males are reassigned and reared as females from a very early age) show that such males grow up to be attracted to females, as per their biological, but not their social sex. To repeat something I’ve said many many times (and have never had a good answer), if you can’t make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis and rearing him as a female, how likely is any social hypothesis?

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.

Do you agree with virtually all experts that initial sexual identity is not a choice?

Not for homosexuality and I even doubt it is the opinion of virtually all experts.

Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

American Psychological Association

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. 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; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

.......the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice.[13][14][15] There is no simple, single cause for sexual orientation that has been conclusively demonstrated, but scientists theorize that it is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1][13] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[14] Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.[1]

Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

Where is your research about what causes initial sexual identity?

The majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. That would be true even in the most gay friendly cities in the world. If homosexuality was primarily caused by environment, that would not be true.

An article at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm says:

"The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it, 'If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay'. 11 Studies asking the children of gay fathers to express their sexual orientation showed the majority of children to be heterosexual, with the proportion of gay offspring similar to that of a random sample of the population. An assessment of more than 300 children born to gay or lesbian parents in 12 different samples shows no evidence of 'significant disturbances of any kind in the development of sexual identity among these individuals'". 12

 

[Agnostic75]

Part 2

One just flew over the cuckoo's nest. You certainly know for a fact that millions of homosexuals will die without ever having had any STDs, so your comment about millions of deaths is completely irrelevant to those homosexuals. It is not at all necessary to know which homosexuals they are in order to know that. If they play the game, they will not harm anyone, and if they practiced abstinence, that would not reduce STDs among homosexuals who get STDs. Since it is homosexuals who get STDs who are the problem, your comments are utter nonsense.

The debate when it was about only one lump group was far far far too long and now your attempting to subdivide that into about 6 groups so far.

But the debate has never been about one lump group of homosexuals, partly because lesbians have much different anatomy than gay men do, and that accounts for their much lower risk. When you compare lesbians with gay men, you are comparing apples to oranges.

You were perfectly willing to discuss homosexuals who will never get any STDs until you got into trouble. Harm is done by individual homosexuals, not by all homosexuals. You have committed the "fallacy of composition."

You have said that you do not have anything personally against homosexuals who have died, and never had any STDs since they did not harm you. Well, a hundred years from now, millions of other homosexuals will also not have harmed anyone.

I have no idea what it is even supposed to mean. I think your premise sort of true but of no practical value for your argument. I always want to type a So what? at the end.

If you think that my premise is sort of true, then you do have an idea what it is. You are an intelligent person, so you know exactly what I meant. You know that you once said that you do not have anything personal against homosexuals who have died, and did not harm you, or anyone else. A hundred years from now, millions of homosexuals who have died will never have had any STDs, and will not have harmed anyone.

If I had made my most recent arguments at the beginning of this thread, you would have made very few posts in this thread.

Since you have definitely lost these debates regarding your secular arguments against homosexuality, now would be a good time for you to concede defeat. I would respect you much more for doing that than I would if you came up with some flimsy excuses that would be evasiveness disguised as flimsy excuses, such as you are too busy with other threads, and that I have been repeating myself, and I that I have not replied to your arguments. It would be completely impossible for you, or for anyone else, to have valid secular arguments against all homosexuals. You could bring any expert that you like to this forum, and none of them could ever have any valid secular arguments against all homosexuals. So it is not so much that you are not adequately prepared to debate homosexuality from a secular perspective as it is that no opponent of homosexuality is adequately prepared to debate it from a secular perspective.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that from a secular perspective, at least some homosexuals would be much better off having sex than they would be practicing abstinence, or trying to change their sexual identity. And, you have plenty to do in some other threads, especially regarding your debates with Muslims. I am on your side regarding your debates with Muslims.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[1robin]

You are evasive since you know that I made some good arguments. Risk is your main secular argument against homosexuals. It also ought to be your main secular argument against heterosexual men and women over 40, heterosexual black American men and women, heterosexual black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries, and heterosexual men and women who live in poverty since all of those groups of people have more risk than lesbians do.

I really wish you would quit claiming to know motives you have no access to. I simply do not shy away from a claims based on merit unless it is away from bad claims. I appreciate a challenge and that is one of the major reasons I debate. The only point about homosexuality you have made so far is the one about heterosexuals over 40 and abstinence. I am thinking on that one and will reply. Nothing else has been a challenge apart from the sheer volume of stuff you type. I will get to it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This "secular" argument against homosexuality is ridiculous to me anyway.

If the reason that homosexuality is "bad" or "wrong" is supposed to be because homosexual activity causes harm to homosexuals and to others (e.g. according to Robin it causes STD's and weird medical problems), then following this line of logic, you could reasonably say that heterosexual activity causes harm to heterosexuals and to other people (e.g. STD's, it leads to unwanted pregnancies followed by abortions), and therefore heterosexuality is "bad" and "wrong."

So where's the argument??

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference. Since this post is large, I will need to post it in four parts. This is part 1.

Argument #1

You have said that you do not have anything personally against homosexuals who have died, and never had any STDs since they did not harm you. Well, a hundred years from now, millions of other homosexuals will also not have harmed anyone.

I have no idea what it is even supposed to mean. I think your premise is sort of true but of no practical value for your argument.

If you think that my premise is sort of true, then you do have an idea what it is. You are an intelligent person, so you know exactly what I meant. You know that you once said that you do not have anything personal against homosexuals who have died, and did not harm you, or anyone else. A hundred years from now, millions of homosexuals who have died will never have had any STDs, and will not have harmed anyone.

Argument #2

I really wish you would quit claiming to know motives you have no access to. I simply do not shy away from a claims based on merit unless it is away from bad claims. I appreciate a challenge and that is one of the major reasons I debate. The only point about homosexuality you have made so far is the one about heterosexuals over 40 and abstinence. I am thinking on that one and will reply. Nothing else has been a challenge apart from the sheer volume of stuff you type. I will get to it.

On the contrary, you do not have any valid secular arguments against the millions of homosexuals who will die over the next 100 years who will never get any STDs.

And it isn't just heterosexuals over 40 years of age in the U.S. who should practice abstinence, but heterosexuals over 40 years of age all over the world, all heterosexuals in countries that are overpopulated, black American heterosexual men and women, black heterosexual men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries, and all heterosexual men and women in the world who live in poverty since all of those groups are at risk, and you main secular argument against homosexuals is risk.

I think that there are roughly 3 million lesbians in the U.S. Since they have less risk than heterosexual men and women do, in order to be fair, at least an equal number of heterosexual men and women should practice abstinence. The same would be true of heterosexual men and women all over the world.

Argument #3

Do you have any statistics about homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and give up monogamy?

You mean the numbers that are unfaithful or that transact a disease after being unfaithful?

I mean the ones who have been monogamous for at least ten years. Why shouldn't they have sex? Do you have any statistics that show that the majority of homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years give up monogamy?

Argument #4

But I am only referring to the millions of homosexuals over the next 100 years who will die without ever having had any STDs.

And why is that a valid practice in a debate about a behavior in general?

All homosexuals are irrelevant to the millions of homosexuals over the next 100 years who will die without ever having had any STDs. If those homosexuals play the game, no harm will be done.

Even if they did not play the game, most other homosexuals would still play the game, and STD rates would not change at all. Even though they do not know who they are, the fact remains that even if they did not play the game, most other homosexuals would still play the game, and STD rates would not change at all. That alone refutes your arguments since nothing would be gained if they did not play the game.

Argument #5

Even though the odds are against them, they will beat the odds, and that will reduce medical costs since long term abstinence has proven health risks. Also, those homosexuals will enjoy significant health benefits from having sex.

You often say that the quality of skeptics' arguments at these forums is poor, but you would do poorly in debates with most skeptic experts in biology, physics, philosophy, and religion regarding many issues.

Argument #6

In 2010, about 15,000 people died from AIDS, and about 600,000 people died from heart disease. Since heart disease is largely preventable, and since heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, heterosexuals could do far more to reduce health care costs than homosexuals ever could, and that does not include preventable deaths from other causes. Surely heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals.

Costing less than something else means it still costs plenty and is not an argument.

You are right that two wrongs do not make a right, but what I was referring to is your investment of a lot of time criticizing a much smaller group of people who cause far less harm than a much larger group of people do. That does not make any sense if you really care about people. In 2010, heterosexuals who died from heart disease alone caused about 4,000% more deaths in the U.S. than all people who died from AIDS.

It costs plenty, but I was comparing who is more at fault for high health care costs, homosexuals, or heterosexuals, and it is heterosexuals.

Argument #7

What do you mean by "genetically mandated"?

That genetics produce 100% unavoidable homosexual orientation alone.

I have never said that, nor does any major medical organization.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: This is part 2 of a four part post.

Argument #8

Do you agree with virtually all experts that initial sexual identity is not a choice?

Not for homosexuality and I even doubt it is the opinion of virtually all experts.

I meant the vast majority of experts. Consider the following:

Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. 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; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

.......the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice.[13][14][15] There is no simple, single cause for sexual orientation that has been conclusively demonstrated, but scientists theorize that it is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1][13] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[14] Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.[1]

Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton is a college professor of psychology, and is widely acknowledged as an expert on sexual identity. In an article at
J. Michael Bailey on twin research and sexual reorientation, he discusses a well-known gay twin study by J. Michael Bailey, who is one of the world's top experts on sexual research. Consider the following from the article:

http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/07/j-michael-bailey-on-twin-research-and-sexual-reorientation/

Francis Collins made this same point when reacting to how Dean Byrd at NARTH quoted his book The Language of God:

"The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable."

Dr. J. Michael Bailey:

"Studies of the rare conditions of penile ablation and cloacal exstrophy (in which hormonally normal males are reassigned and reared as females from a very early age) show that such males grow up to be attracted to females, as per their biological, but not their social sex. To repeat something I’ve said many many times (and have never had a good answer), if you can’t make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis and rearing him as a female, how likely is any social hypothesis?

"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 there you have it, as Dr. Bailey said, all that your side has to do to prove whether or not their claim is true is to fund the proper research. Of course, in the opinions of most experts, there is already overwhelming scientific evidence that in the vast majority of cases, genetics plays an important role in sexual identity.

Following is some more research:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

A new study of twins provides the strongest evidence yet that homosexuality has a genetic basis, researchers say, though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important.

The study, published in the December issue of The Archives of General Psychiatry, adds to evidence that sexual orientation does not result from a maladjustment or moral defect, one author said.

"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers," said J. Michael Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, "which is exactly the kind of pattern you would want to see if something genetic were going on." By "unrelated," Dr. Bailey was referring to brothers by adoption.

"The genetically most similar brothers were also the ones most likely to be gay, by a large margin," he added.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: This is part 3 of a four part post.

http://hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html

University of Hawaii

Title: Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets

Authors: Frederick L. Whitam, Ph.D., Milton Diamond, Ph.D.,and James Martin, BA.

Published in: Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1993

Twin pairs in which at least one twin is homosexual were solicited through announcements in the gay press and personal referrals from 1980 to the present. An 18-page questionnaire on the “sexuality of twins” was filled out by
one or both twins. Thirty-eight pairs of monozygotic twins (34 male pairs and 4 female pairs) were found to have a concordance rate of 65.8% for homosexual orientation. Twenty-three pairs of dizygotic twins were found to have a concordance rate of 30.4% for homosexual orientation. In addition, three sets of triplets were obtained. Two sets contained a pair of monozygotic twins concordant for sexual orientation with the third triplet dizygotic and discordant for homosexual orientation. A third triplet set was monozygotic with all three concordant for homosexual orientation. These findings are interpreted as supporting the argument for a biological basis in sexual orientation.

http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality

Epigenetics - how gene expression is regulated by temporary switches, called epi-marks - appears to be a critical and overlooked factor contributing to the long-standing puzzle of why homosexuality occurs.

According to the study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, sex-specific epi-marks, which normally do not pass between generations and are thus "erased," can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son.

From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a trait that would not be expected to develop and persist in the face of Darwinian natural selection. Homosexuality is nevertheless common for men and women in most cultures. Previous studies have shown that homosexuality runs in families, leading most researchers to presume a genetic underpinning of sexual preference. However, no major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection.

In the current study, researchers from the Working Group on Intragenomic Conflict at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) integrated evolutionary theory with recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development to produce a biological and mathematical model that delineates the role of epigenetics in homosexuality.

Epi-marks constitute an extra layer of information attached to our genes' backbones that regulates their expression. While genes hold the instructions, epi-marks direct how those instructions are carried out - when, where and how much a gene is expressed during development. Epi-marks are usually produced anew each generation, but recent evidence demonstrates that they sometimes carry over between generations and thus can contribute to similarity among relatives, resembling the effect of shared genes.

Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized – some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.

The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring.

"Transmission of sexually antagonistic epi-marks between generations is the most plausible evolutionary mechanism of the phenomenon of human homosexuality," said the study's co-author Sergey Gavrilets, NIMBioS' associate director for scientific activities and a professor at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

The paper's other authors are William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: This is part 4 of a four part post.

Argument #9

Where is your research about what causes initial sexual identity? If sexual identity is a choice, why is it often very difficult even for religiously motivated homosexuals to give up homosexuality, let alone change their sexual identity, which is much more difficult?

The vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexual. How do you explain that? That is probably true even in San Francisco, and Key West, which are very gay friendly cities.

Argument #10

You asked me for evidence that long term abstinence has proven health risks. I provided you with the following evidence:

Sexual abstinence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Queen's University Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal found that "men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards". The report also cited other studies to show that having sex even a few times a week may be associated with the following: improved sense of smell; reduced risk of heart disease; weight loss and overall fitness; reduced depression; the relief or lessening of pain; less frequent colds and flu; better bladder control; and better teeth. The report cited a study published by the British Journal of Urology International which indicated that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.

There have been numerous studies indicating that excessive repression of the sexual instinct leads to an increase in the overall level of aggression in a given society. Societies forbidding premarital sex are plagued by acts of rage and tend to have higher rates of crime and violence. There may be a link between sexual repression and aggression, insensitivity, criminal behaviour, and a greater likelihood of killing and torturing enemies.

THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE.

If we confine ourselves to modern times and to fairly precise medical statements, we find in Schurig's Spermatologia (1720, pp. 274 et seq.), not only a discussion of the advantages of moderate sexual intercourse in a number of disorders, as witnessed by famous authorities, but also a list of results—including anorexia, insanity, impotence, epilepsy, even death—which were believed to have been due to sexual abstinence. This extreme view of the possible evils of sexual abstinence seems to have been part of the Renaissance traditions of medicine stiffened by a certain opposition between religion and science. It was still rigorously stated by Lallemand early in the nineteenth century. Subsequently, the medical statements of the evil results of sexual abstinence became more temperate and measured, though still often pronounced. Thus Gyurkovechky believes that these results may be as serious as those of sexual excess. Krafft-Ebing showed that sexual abstinence could produce a state of general nervous excitement (Jahrbuch für Psychiatrie, Bd. viii, Heft 1 and 2). Schrenck-Notzing regards sexual abstinence as a cause of extreme sexual hyperæsthesia and of various perversions (in a chapter on sexual abstinence in his Kriminalpsychologische und Psychopathologische Studien, 1902, pp. 174-178).

Pearce Gould, it may be added, finds that "excessive ungratified sexual desire" is one of the causes of acute orchitis. Remondino ("Some Observations on Continence as a Factor in Health and Disease," Pacific Medical Journal, Jan., 1900) records the case of a gentleman of nearly seventy who, during the prolonged illness of his wife, suffered from frequent and extreme priapism, causing insomnia. He was very certain that his troubles were not due to his continence, but all treatment failed and there were no spontaneous emissions. At last Remondino advised him to, as he expresses it, "imitate Solomon." He did so, and all the symptoms at once disappeared. This case is of special interest, because the symptoms were not accompanied by any conscious sexual desire.

The whole subject of sexual abstinence has been discussed at length by Nyström, of Stockholm, in Das Geschlechtsleben und seine Gesetze, Ch. III. He concludes that it is desirable that continence should be preserved as long as possible in order to strengthen the physical health and to develop the intelligence and character. The doctrine of permanent sexual abstinence, however, he regards as entirely false, except in the case of a small number of religious or philosophic persons. "Complete abstinence during a long period of years cannot be borne without producing serious results both on the body and the mind.......

Many advocates of sexual abstinence have attached importance to the fact that men of great genius have apparently been completely continent throughout life. This is certainly true (see ante, p. 173). But this fact can scarcely be invoked as an argument in favor of the advantages of sexual abstinence among the ordinary population. J. F. Scott selects Jesus, Newton, Beethoven, and Kant as "men of vigor and mental acumen who have lived chastely as bachelors." It cannot, however, be said that Dr. Scott has been happy in the four figures whom he has been able to select from the whole history of human genius as examples of life-long sexual abstinence. We know little with absolute certainty of Jesus, and even if we reject the diagnosis which Professor Binet-Sanglé (in his Folie de Jesus) has built up from a minute study of the Gospels, there are many reasons why we should refrain from emphasizing the example of his sexual abstinence; Newton, apart from his stupendous genius in a special field, was an incomplete and unsatisfactory human being who ultimately reached a condition very like insanity; Beethoven was a thoroughly morbid and diseased man, who led an intensely unhappy existence; Kant, from first to last, was a feeble valetudinarian. It would probably be difficult to find a healthy normal man who would voluntarily accept the life led by any of these four, even as the price of their fame. J. A. Godfrey (Science of Sex, pp. 139-147) discusses at length the question whether sexual abstinence is favorable to ordinary intellectual vigor, deciding that it is not, and that we cannot argue from the occasional sexual abstinence of men of genius, who are often abnormally constituted, and physically below the average, to the normally developed man. Sexual abstinence, it may be added, is by no means always a favorable sign, even in men who stand intellectually above the average.

Numerous distinguished gynæcologists have recorded their belief that sexual excitement is a remedy for various disorders of the sexual system in women, and that abstinence is a cause of such disorders.

 

[1robin]

This "secular" argument against homosexuality is ridiculous to me anyway.

If the reason that homosexuality is "bad" or "wrong" is supposed to be because homosexual activity causes harm to homosexuals and to others (e.g. according to Robin it causes STD's and weird medical problems), then following this line of logic, you could reasonably say that heterosexual activity causes harm to heterosexuals and to other people (e.g. STD's, it leads to unwanted pregnancies followed by abortions), and therefore heterosexuality is "bad" and "wrong."

So where's the argument??

It is precisely in the 50% of my 2 primary points given dozens of times. You stated number one correctly but left out the second. Heterosexuality is necessary for the promulgation of the race. It has benefits that compensate for it's harm. Homosexuality does not. Much of heterosexuality is wrong as well and I have stated it as such. Only sex within marriage is right no matter how inconvenient or undesirable that is. If half of reality (the theological half) was not excluded then I could give greater explanation for the reasons behind these claims but even in only a secular realm they the argument works.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.