Are homosexuals really born that way?

[Neo Art]

I mean, dreams are good and all, but come on, do you really expect me to believe that?

There's a terrible sort of irony to the, "I'm in my 20s" claims.

Presumably the people who make them think that it lends a sort of credibility to their person. When, in fact, it just makes them seem sort of especially sad.

You know I was JUST thinking that. Only someone in their early teens, when choosing an age to pretend to be, would go with 22. Because only someone in their early teens would think "22" was an age one should pick to actually lend credibility to what they're saying.

Whereas after one reaches a certain age, one starts to view 22 year olds as "well, you're still a little boy, aren't you?"

[Krakosov]

I think its interesting that some people think
gays choose to be alienated, mentally abused and persecuted.

[Mirage]

You know I was JUST thinking that. Only someone in their early teens, when choosing an age to pretend to be, would go with 22. Because only someone in their early teens would think "22" was an age one should pick to actually lend credibility to what they're saying.

Whereas after one reaches a certain age, one starts to view 22 year olds as "well, you're still a little boy, aren't you?"

Who said anything about not being young. I don't want to get old. Nor do i think it offers any credibility. It is not like saying i have a phd on the subject or something.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

"The researchers found that stronger than average epi-marks, epigenomes that are wrapped tightly around the DNA sequence, convert sexual preference in individuals without altering genitalia or sexual identity"

"This research gives support to the hypothesis that homosexuality stems from the under expression of certain genes on the DNA sequence involved with sexual preferences."

That doesn't mean that that alone causes it.

There's no evidence for choice as a cause, and so assuming that choice has a role to play without evidence to support that assumption is silly.

Also i am interested in learning a bit more about the actual research. Can you direct me to a detailed version. (See, now things like this, i like to read in detail)

This'd be the basics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA

It doesn't even have any written words, so no need to skim and miss out things that undermine your argument.

[Russadonia]

There's a terrible sort of irony to the, "I'm in my 20s" claims.

Presumably the people who make them think that it lends a sort of credibility to their person. When, in fact, it just makes them seem sort of especially sad.

You know I was JUST thinking that. Only someone in their early teens, when choosing an age to pretend to be, would go with 22. Because only someone in their early teens would think "22" was an age one should pick to actually lend credibility to what they're saying.

Whereas after one reaches a certain age, one starts to view 22 year olds as "well, you're still a little boy, aren't you?"

Jesus. I'm 23 and I still feel quite young when I go anywhere in public. My friends say I should like my age.

[Mavorpen]

This'd be the basics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA

It doesn't even have any written words, so no need to skim and miss out things that undermine your argument.

$10 he comes back whining that it's too complicated and you should summarize it.

[Mavorpen]

It doesn't even have any written words, so no need to skim and miss out things that undermine your argument.

BUT...BUT... IT'S SEVEN WHOLE MINUTES!

[Immoren]

We exist only on imaginary axis of a complex plane. *nods*

Bisexuals only exist in the minds of fanfic writers.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoBisexuals

Same difference.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

You know I was JUST thinking that. Only someone in their early teens, when choosing an age to pretend to be, would go with 22. Because only someone in their early teens would think "22" was an age one should pick to actually lend credibility to what they're saying.

Whereas after one reaches a certain age, one starts to view 22 year olds as "well, you're still a little boy, aren't you?"

Jesus. I'm 23 and I still feel quite young when I go anywhere in public. My friends say I should like my age.

I'm 16. You think you feel young.

[Thaipursia]

Are straight people really born that way ? When did you choose to be straight ?

[Mirage]

That doesn't mean that that alone causes it.

There's no evidence for choice as a cause, and so assuming that choice has a role to play without evidence to support that assumption is silly.

Also i am interested in learning a bit more about the actual research. Can you direct me to a detailed version. (See, now things like this, i like to read in detail)

This'd be the basics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA

It doesn't even have any written words, so no need to skim and miss out things that undermine your argument.

I am on my laptop and the net is well..., so can't watch videos.

And like i said, there is no evidence invalidating it either. If it has not been proven nor disproven...

[Esternial]

Are straight people really born that way ? When did you choose to be straight ?

That's an interesting questions.

It's very likely that we're all born asexual and develop our sexuality during puberty (or not at all, in same cases)

[Euroslavia]

...

You honestly think i am going to bother reading all that. That wiki link doesn't contradict it. If you find something that does, link it and if it is a really long one a quote from it so that i can find out where. Otherwise it might be easier to just say :

Here is my proof :

http://www.google.com

All of that, being maybe 3 minutes of reading, at most? God forbid. I mean come on, why are you involving yourself in a 'debate' when you have no desire to even read sources from the opposite side? It makes me wonder why you would even join this site. To think that you could convince others to change your mind with the epic 'google' source? Get over yourself.

[Mavorpen]

There's no evidence for choice as a cause, and so assuming that choice has a role to play without evidence to support that assumption is silly.



This'd be the basics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA

It doesn't even have any written words, so no need to skim and miss out things that undermine your argument.

I am on my laptop and the net is well..., so can't watch videos.

And like i said, there is no evidence invalidating it either. If it has not been proven nor disproven...

"Give me evidence!"

"AHA! YOU'VE GIVEN ME A VIDEO THAT I CONVENIENTLY CAN'T WATCH! YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCEIFJEOENFIRNWOEN! 1! 1! 1! 1! 1!!"

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

There's no evidence for choice as a cause, and so assuming that choice has a role to play without evidence to support that assumption is silly.



This'd be the basics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA

It doesn't even have any written words, so no need to skim and miss out things that undermine your argument.

I am on my laptop and the net is well..., so can't watch videos.

How convenient.

And like i said, there is no evidence invalidating it either. If it has not been proven nor disproven...

If it's been neither proven nor disproven, particularly when other theories have evidence behind them, then it makes sense to go with the assumption that the unproven thing doesn't have an impact until such time as proof or evidence in some form comes along.

Do you usually, when presented with a concept for which there's no evidence, assume that it exists as a default?

[Euroslavia]

There's no evidence for choice as a cause, and so assuming that choice has a role to play without evidence to support that assumption is silly.



This'd be the basics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA

It doesn't even have any written words, so no need to skim and miss out things that undermine your argument.

I am on my laptop and the net is well..., so can't watch videos.

And like i said, there is no evidence invalidating it either. If it has not been proven nor disproven...

So then read the wikipedia source that was linked earlier (with sources at the bottom of the page to back up the statements).

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

You honestly think i am going to bother reading all that. That wiki link doesn't contradict it. If you find something that does, link it and if it is a really long one a quote from it so that i can find out where. Otherwise it might be easier to just say :

Here is my proof :

http://www.google.com

All of that, being maybe 3 minutes of reading, at most? God forbid. I mean come on, why are you involving yourself in a 'debate' when you have no desire to even read sources from the opposite side? It makes me wonder why you would even join this site. To think that you could convince others to change your mind with the epic 'google' source? Get over yourself.

Well, I've suggested a hypothesis as to why...

[SaintB]

Jesus. I'm 23 and I still feel quite young when I go anywhere in public. My friends say I should like my age.

I'm 16. You think you feel young.

You must be at least 40 before anyone actually takes you seriously. If you wish to go into politics you must be at least 40 and also stupid.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I am on my laptop and the net is well..., so can't watch videos.

And like i said, there is no evidence invalidating it either. If it has not been proven nor disproven...

So then read the wikipedia source that was linked earlier (with sources at the bottom of the page to back up the statements).

He did. We've since had 5 pages of LOL NO EVIDENCE IN ARTICLE!!!!1111!!!!!!11!!! despite the fact that the evidence is in the first paragraph of the article.

After this was literally given to him sentence by sentence, he switched tack and asked for the original research, presumably aiming for a "LOL YOUR CLAIMS HAVE NO PROOF NO EVIDENCE!1!1!!". However, I did manage to find the evidence upon which it was based, namely the video about epigenetics and homosexuality, but apparently he can't watch this.

So here we are.

[Esternial]

Actually, if you think about it, what seems most plausible is that we're born asexual. During our first years we show no distinct interest in the other sex, but as soon as puberty kicks in we start developing our taste.

There might be a hormone (or several of them) in that pubescent cocktail that triggers the activation of the genes that determine your sexual orientation, which might also rely on environmental or other factors.

Seems plausible, no?

[Mirage]

You honestly think i am going to bother reading all that. That wiki link doesn't contradict it. If you find something that does, link it and if it is a really long one a quote from it so that i can find out where. Otherwise it might be easier to just say :

Here is my proof :

http://www.google.com

All of that, being maybe 3 minutes of reading, at most? God forbid. I mean come on, why are you involving yourself in a 'debate' when you have no desire to even read sources from the opposite side? It makes me wonder why you would even join this site. To think that you could convince others to change your mind with the epic 'google' source? Get over yourself.

1) I read or skimmed through the rest. I don't know how long it will take without reading them now would i ? I prefer not to waste time.

2) You totally missed the google point.

So then read the wikipedia source that was linked earlier.

I did. Read

If it's been neither proven nor disproven, particularly when other theories have evidence behind them, then it makes sense to go with the assumption that the unproven thing doesn't have an impact until such time as proof or evidence in some form comes along.

Do you usually, when presented with a concept for which there's no evidence, assume that it exists as a default?

I consider the possibility of it existing and won't rule it out just like that.

[Mavorpen]

All of that, being maybe 3 minutes of reading, at most? God forbid. I mean come on, why are you involving yourself in a 'debate' when you have no desire to even read sources from the opposite side? It makes me wonder why you would even join this site. To think that you could convince others to change your mind with the epic 'google' source? Get over yourself.

Well, I've suggested a hypothesis as to why...

It's okay, you can say it. You can say that he's a troll. You just can't use it to shut down a debate.

[Mirage]

Actually, if you think about it, what seems most plausible is that we're born asexual. During our first years we show no distinct interest in the other sex, but as soon as puberty kicks in we start developing our taste.

There might be a hormone (or several of them) in that pubescent cocktail that triggers the activation of the genes that determine your sexual orientation, which might also rely on environmental or other factors.

Seems plausible, no?

That does sound likely.

[Mavorpen]

Actually, if you think about it, what seems most plausible is that we're born asexual. During our first years we show no distinct interest in the other sex, but as soon as puberty kicks in we start developing our taste.

There might be a hormone (or several of them) in that pubescent cocktail that triggers the activation of the genes that determine your sexual orientation, which might also rely on environmental or other factors.

Seems plausible, no?

If what you're insinuating what I think you are, then no.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

If it's been neither proven nor disproven, particularly when other theories have evidence behind them, then it makes sense to go with the assumption that the unproven thing doesn't have an impact until such time as proof or evidence in some form comes along.

Do you usually, when presented with a concept for which there's no evidence, assume that it exists as a default?

I consider the possibility of it existing and won't rule it out just like that.

viewtopic.php?p=14472058#p14472058

You appear to be implying that it is a, if not the cause, earlier in this very thread.

It's a little more than "considering the possibility of it existing".