Homosexuality could be nature's way of population control (organization, differences, seven)

[SuperSoul]

Asheville,
Your insults only reflect that you have nothing better to share.
Human brains are only developed 25% at birth, so that our brains may continuing developing & adapting along with environmental influences.
The developing brain | Developing Childhood

As mentioned, IF... we were to accept that homosexuality ("sexual relations with persons of the same sex") is nature's doing, why don't we just blame all behavior on nature? If it is accepted that one can't help how they act, they were just "born" that way... what does that imply for those with other sexual deviations?

"Recent changes in the APA's diagnostic manual may have encouraged pedophile advocates."
The APA's and the Pedophilia Controversy

"The Movement to Legitimize Pedophilia

In 1981, Dr. Theo Sandfort, co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, interviewed 25 boys aged 10 to 16 who were currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. The interviews took place in the homes of the men. According to Sandfort, "For virtually all the boys ... the sexual contact itself was experienced positively..." Could an adult-child sexual contact, then, truly be called positive for the child? Based on the research presented, Sandfort answered that question in the affirmative."
On the Pedophilia Issue: What the APA Should Have Known

We are largely influenced by environmental influences & thus have response-ability for our behavior. No excuses.

[Jaymax]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Don't get the wrong impression, now!

Where does someone go for factual, unbiased information? That's an important question, indeed. Unfortunately, everyone brings their own biases (no matter how large or small) to the table - even in scholarly journals. It's hoped that the peer-review system will help expunge such biases, but these same peers have their own biases. It happens, and you know it. I'm not condemning all groups or studies - just pointing out that humans are humans, and despite our best efforts at scholarly objectivity, this goal is not always met. To use an example from archeaological studies: is the current emphasis by Israeli archaeologists digging in the Holy Land informed by current political issues of land ownership, or are they digging out of purely scholarly intent with a completely non-biased quest for knowledge? Well - a little bit of both: it's been clearly shown that some scholars are digging with preconceptions of a modern political nature. Not all of them - but some of them. And these scholars are published in peer-reviewed journals, and in charge of major digs. The origins of this practice can be found in a further example: Take this a little further back into the heyday of Biblical Archeaology, where the famous saying tells us that the scholars went diggging "with a Bible in one hand, and a shovel in the other" - they very clearly were relying on certain preconceptions and yet they were published in scholary, peer-reviewed journals.

The important thing to note here is that in scientific, scholarly research - the very nature of peer-review (in the pre-publication process) tends to lead later to the possibility of disagreeing with the results. It happens very frequently. So that needs to be understood, when you're quoting from articles and studies: there are almost always other scientists who will disagree with the findings, produce their own interpretation of the results, or conduct their own studies. The very nature of science precludes absolutely firm results, in many cases. And I don't think you're mentioning this at all. You mention older articles, then dismiss them with the advent of a new article - many times not mentioning that the very same article has been 'dismissed' by yet another article. Nothing is as cut-and-dry as it appears to be - especially in an area so explosive as the topic of this thread.

Now - just so we're clear, I never meant to give the impression that any publication or group that is openly 'anti-gay' is automatically 'pro-gay and biased'. I merely was pointing out that you chastise your opponents for using biased sources, while at the same time you clearly are getting some of your information from biased sources. Not ALL of your sources, but some of them. And this applies to some of the links you have provided - not just the actual studies themselves. Studies may be biased, and so may websites linking to these studies - as you studiously point out as evidence against your opponents, but fail to mention in regards to some of your own links.

All I'm trying to say is that ad hominem attacks do not work. Just because a website is openly "Anti-Gay" and run by religious zealots, does not automatically make every statement they claim, or article they reference, or study they point to, faulty and biased. Of course - it happens, but it's not guaranteed. Conversely, one could use the same ad hominem attack on you - you're very clear on what 'side' of the issue you stand on, so one could automatically say "Well, all these arguments and links to studies and articles are coming from a very pro-gay poster - Jaymax - so we can just dismiss them as .....etc"
It appears to go both ways, and it's just what I've noticed in these several threads on the subject. You're very quick to jump in with ad hominem attacks. They may be merited, or not - but I think you're using them too much. I guess it depends on what you're trying to accomplish - you speak as if every 'anti-gay' argument has been squashed by previous posts, or articles, or studies and anyone who disagrees is just using biased sources, or are ignorant. If the issues were so concretely decided by now - these threads wouldn't even exist, right?

I'm not trying to discredit all scientific studies everywhere - that's not my intention; just trying to point out that ad hominem attacks can be used in the same way against either side. Do you agree? It's difficult for the average person to find a non-biased, completely objective source - and I don't think any exist. I'm not saying that the bias is so large as to be 'pro-gay' or 'anti-gay' - but that biases are present, especially among studies using samples.

Can you not tell the difference between 'bias' and extremist propaganda?

Just spend a little time browsing all the websites SS linked to.

Then read the sources I linked to.

I invite you to deal with the evidence yourself.

Just to start, look up Paul Cameron yourself - he's considered the 'grandfather' of a lot of the anti-gay myths from these type of websites.

I don't "automatically assume" SS's sources are based on lies, propaganda, misinformation and myths. I've been reading these websites for years. Many of them repeat the same malicious nonsense from the same sources. I've read all the legitimate original studies they distort and misrepresent in their 'smear and fear' campaign against gay people. I've also read the 'junk science' articles of people like Paul Cameron the anti-gay crusader who was de-registered as a psychologist many years ago for ethical violations and extreme prejudice against gay people. These sources linked to by SS often base their 'articles' on his "junk science". I've also read all the 'claims' from these groups - claims that have no evidence to support them. Claims that are based on willful ignorance and pure prejudice and bigotry. I've also spent years reading mainstream health and science sources and peer-reviewed Journals. I don't automatically assume that they don't have at least some bias, but that's what peer-review is all about. None of the groups that SS links have ever published in respected peer-reviewed Journals. These propaganda articles are so easy to debunk that they wouldn't get past a junior editor. Heck, they wouldn't get past the janitor.

And I also spent several years as a GLBT crisis Counsellor, so I know first hand the damage this sort of willfully ignorant malicious propaganda can do.

I invite you to deal with the evidence.
Just for starters, look up Paul Cameron yourself - he's considered the 'grandfather' of a lot of the anti-gay myths from these type of websites.

[Jaymax]

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

IF... we were to accept as some in this thread are arguing... that homosexuality ("sexual relations with persons of the same sex") is nature's doing, why don't we just blame all behavior on nature? If it is accepted that one can't help how they act, they were just "born" that way... what does that imply for those with other sexual deviations?

"Recent changes in the APA's diagnostic manual may have encouraged pedophile advocates."
The APA's and the Pedophilia Controversy

"The Movement to Legitimize Pedophilia

In 1981, Dr. Theo Sandfort, co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, interviewed 25 boys aged 10 to 16 who were currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. The interviews took place in the homes of the men. According to Sandfort, "For virtually all the boys ... the sexual contact itself was experienced positively..." Could an adult-child sexual contact, then, truly be called positive for the child? Based on the research presented, Sandfort answered that question in the affirmative."
On the Pedophilia Issue: What the APA Should Have Known

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Evidence shows being gay IS a choice, more linked to environmental influences than to biology...

Science Does NOT Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf

Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts

"1. No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior.
2. In 2 large studies conducted... Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.
3. Older homosexuals often approach the young
4. Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior
5. Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - esp. religious convictions
6. Many change their sexual preferences
7. There are many ex-homosexuals"
Environmental factors may influence sexual orientation | LifeSiteNews.com

The APA changed the definition of homosexuality not because of scientific studies, but because of political harrassment from gay lobbyists.
The Born "Gay" Hoax |

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Many good points.
I hadn't considered it to be a fetish - more of a preference, but I guess it's the same thing.

We know that behavior is mostly environmentally influenced, since our brains at birth are only 25% developed & develop the rest in accordance with environmental influences. This gives us an advantage over other species who may have brains more developed at birth, but are less adapted to environmental influences.

We also know that statistically, (according to the US CDC) homosexual practices present risks... since homosexuals switch partners often, they are more likely to get STDs & AIDS (which 2 friends of mine died from).
STD Increase among Gay and Bisexual Men
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf (broken link)
We also know that anal sex is risky (for anal fissures, colon rupture & anal cancer), even in 2 healthy males.

Those in my extended family & of my friends with homosexual preferences, I love like anyone else. I don't treat them differently - in fact, some of my guy friends who have homosexual preferences have been great friends to me. I won't go lecture them about their lives... but when the opportunity presents itself (like if they ask what I think) or like on this thread... I'll share information regarding homosexuality, in hopes that those with homosexual preferences will make more informed decisions, regarding their sexual practices. Some want to feel or appear like they're being loving by encouraging homosexual practices... but that isn't love - that's caving into peer pressure & promoting a harmful lie.

You think you "share information regarding homosexuality, in hopes that those with homosexual preferences will make more informed decisions"?

So why have you never ever linked to reputable science sources/health organizations for your "information"? Like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatricians, the American Psychiatic Association etc, or to any original study from respected peer-reviewed Journals?

Why do you only use anti-gay hate websites for your "information"?

No need to answer....it's because you'll never find all that malicious nonsense you keep posting from reputable legitimate evidence-based sources.

The only non anti-gay propaganda source you linked to about homosexuality and gay people is the CDC - and you completely misrepresented the articles - so much so, that I doubt if you even read them.

[SuperSoul]

Jaymax,
I'll be glad to respond when you give me something to respond to, not just insults that reflect you have nothing else to share & feel weak about your own position so you feel the need to tear another down.

[Jaymax]

Originally Posted by SuperSoul

Jaymax,
I'll be glad to respond when you give me something to respond to, not just insults that reflect you have nothing else to share & feel weak about your own position so you feel the need to tear another down.

How many times do I have to post the same information from credible legitimate health/science sources? How many times do I have to debunk in detail your anti-gay propaganda about gay people and homosexuality or show you how your religious-based sources have deliberately misrepresented and distorted legitimate studies? Or how you have presented junk science nonsense from people like Paul Cameron?


BTW, I don't actually expect you to respond. I expect you will continue posting insulting, willfully misinformed, prejudiced posts about gay people and ignore factual evidence based information as usual.

[Jaymax]

Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist

Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.

The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

"This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says.
Previous studies have also shown differences in brain architecture and activity between gay and straight people, but most relied on people's responses to sexuality driven cues that could have been learned, such as rating the attractiveness of male or female faces.

Brain symmetry
To get round this, Savic and her colleague, Per Lindström, chose to measure brain parameters likely to have been fixed at birth.

"That was the whole point of the study, to show parameters that differ, but which couldn't be altered by learning or cognitive processes," says Savic.

'Striking differences'

"This study demonstrates that homosexuals of both sexes show strong cross-sex shifts in brain symmetry," says Qazi Rahman, a leading researcher on sexual orientation at Queen Mary college, University of London, UK.
"The connectivity differences reported in the amygdala are striking."
"Paradoxically, it's more informative to look at things that have no direct connection with sexual orientation, and that's where this study scores," saysSimon LeVay, a prominent US author who in 1991 reported finding differences(pdf) in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus between straight and gay men.

But as Savic herself acknowledges, the study can't say whether the brain differences are inherited, or result from abnormally high or low exposure in the womb to sex hormones such as testosterone.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0801566105)

[Jaymax]

Brain response to putative pheromon... [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

Here's a layman's article about the study:

"Sexy" Smells Different for Gay, Straight Men, Study Says

The findings suggest that brain activity and sexual orientation are linked. It also supports an opinion held by most scientists, that people are born—not bred—gay.

However, the new studies boost the hypothesis that homosexuality has a genetic basis and is not simply the result of learned behavior. "This, incidentally, is not in any way controversial for biologists," Hamer said. "It's completely expected from the basic tenets of biology. It's only controversial because of the social and political controversy over homosexuality."

[Jaymax]

Sexual hormones and the brain: an essential alliance for sexual identity and sexual orientation (2010)
Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35. Epub 2009 Nov 24. Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF.

The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb.

However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain.

There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation

[Jaymax]

"I demonstrate that the number of biological older brothers, including those not reared with the participant (but not the number of nonbiological older brothers), increases the probability of homosexuality in men. These results provide evidence that a prenatal mechanism(s), and not social and/or rearing factors, affects men's sexual orientation development."

"Biological Versus Nonbiological Older Brothers and Men’s Sexual Orientation," published by PNAS (Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America): Bogaert, A (2006)
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.full.pdf

[Jaymax]

"There's a converging line of evidence between the hormonal studies, the genetic studies , and the neuroanatomical studies. My research has identified candidate genes within these new chromosomal regions that could link together all of these different findings”

Mustanski, B. S.; DuPree, M. G.; Nievergelt, C. M.; Bocklandt, S.; Schork, N. J.; Hamer, D. H. (2005)
A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed result