Are homosexuals really born that way?

[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?

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

Please do share what you're thinking.

After all, this is the place for it.

[Mavorpen]

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".

You should get used to this. He will make a claim, then backpedal and say, "Oh no, I only said I believe it!"

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

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".

You should get used to this. He will make a claim, then backpedal and say, "Oh no, I only said I believe it!"

Oh, I'm used to it. The frustration is negated and exceeded by the hilarity.

[Mavorpen]

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

Please do share what you're thinking.

After all, this is the place for it.

If you're insinuating that something environmental will change the hormones that create the onset of puberty and then affect your sexuality, I don't see how that's plausible.

[Mirage]

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".

That in the worst case scenario, would make me a bisexual.

[Anachronous Rex]

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?

In some ways, yes. This does seem to be how fetishism in males develops (typically, whatever a boy is into at 13 will be his obsession forever.)

But this is not what most homosexuals report as their experience. I know it's a tired cliché, but the "I always knew I wasn't like the other girls" motif exists for a reason.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

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".

That in the worst case scenario, would make me a bisexual.

wat

I don't see how what you posted is linked to, or a response to, what I posted.

[Mirage]

That in the worst case scenario, would make me a bisexual.

wat

[Esternial]

Please do share what you're thinking.

After all, this is the place for it.

If you're insinuating that something environmental will change the hormones that create the onset of puberty and then affect your sexuality, I don't see how that's plausible.

If temperature can determine the sex of a crocodile, then there might be other environmental factors that influence our own gene expression. It might not be as simple as temperature, but the possibility can't be ignored either.

Your early years in life could determine your sexuality. After all, it's during those years that your brain is the most malleable.

[The Nihilistic view]

They are born gay i believe.

[Euroslavia]

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.

No, I got the point. You clearly missed mine. You don't debate and simply put google as a source. That's basically you saying that you can't find a specific source, so you're going to link to google as a desperate attempt to continue the debate (even though at that point, you'd rightfully be labelled as ....well, someone that no one will want to debate with. There's a term for it, but we won't go there.)

I did. Read

You clearly didn't, because you have yet to acknowledge any of it.

[Solsteim]

Actually there isn't a 'gay gene', but this does not mean homosexuals are not born that way, i would recommend this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM

[Mavorpen]

If temperature can determine the sex of a crocodile, then there might be other environmental factors that influence our own gene expression. It might not be as simple as temperature, but the possibility can't be ignored either.

Of course it can't be ignored. That in no way means that it's actually plausible. Plus..we aren't crocodiles. We are mammals. We don't use eggs to reproduce.

Your early years in life could determine your sexuality. After all, it's during those years that your brain is the most malleable.

And there isn't a shred of evidence to support this.

Look, I get what you're doing. But, it's not how science is conducted. I'm not here to entertain your guesses that sound nice.

[DesAnges]

If temperature can determine the sex of a crocodile, then there might be other environmental factors that influence our own gene expression. It might not be as simple as temperature, but the possibility can't be ignored either.

Of course it can't be ignored. That in no way means that it's actually plausible. But...we aren't crocodiles. We are mammals. We don't use eggs to reproduce.

Speak for yourself. I happen to know for a fact that I'd make a fabulous handbag.

[Mirage]

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.

No, I got the point. You clearly missed mine. You don't debate and simply put google as a source. That's basically you saying that you can't find a specific source, so you're going to link to google as a desperate attempt to continue the debate (even though at that point, you'd rightfully be labelled as ....well, someone that no one will want to debate with. There's a term for it, but we won't go there.)

I did. Read

You clearly didn't, because you have yet to acknowledge any of it.

Wrong in both cases.

You still missed the point as i was saying he should just give google as his source if he is going to give so many as i am not patient enough to read all of them.

And i did acknowledge it. Not my fault if you missed it.

[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?

In some ways, yes. This does seem to be how fetishism in males develops (typically, whatever a boy is into at 13 will be his obsession forever.)

But this is not what most homosexuals report as their experience. I know it's a tired cliché, but the "I always knew I wasn't like the other girls" motif exists for a reason.

My answer is in the cliché. "Like the other girls".

You're expected to like the other sex. The mind is incredibly powerful, and it's possible that you inhibit the expression of your own inherent sexual preference by telling yourself you like the other sex. Since sexual preference is regulated from your own mind, the mind itself can probably inhibit it.

[The Blaatschapen]

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.

Speak for yourself, I was having a "girlfriend" when I was 5.

[Nailed to the Perch]

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?

Ehhh...somewhat, but not entirely.

Here's the thing: when I was in preschool, I had a crush on a little boy in my class and wanted him to be my "boyfriend." I tried to get him to "marry" me. I wanted to hold his hand every time the class had to hold hands with each other. I'm a straight woman.

One of my gay male friends has described the exact same experience.

Now, I'm not saying that this proves sexuality is set in stone when one is three. I think sexuality is in many ways as much a process as a state, and that it can evolve over time (up to a point, anyway) - but I think there is a LOT of evidence that small children have sexual orientations, just not sexual orientations that tend to involve desire for intercourse so much as for hand-holding and mock wedding ceremonies.

[Esternial]

If temperature can determine the sex of a crocodile, then there might be other environmental factors that influence our own gene expression. It might not be as simple as temperature, but the possibility can't be ignored either.

Of course it can't be ignored. That in no way means that it's actually plausible. Plus..we aren't crocodiles. We are mammals. We don't use eggs to reproduce.

Your early years in life could determine your sexuality. After all, it's during those years that your brain is the most malleable.

And there isn't a shred of evidence to support this.

Look, I get what you're doing. But, it's not how science is conducted. I'm not here to entertain your guesses that sound nice.

Actually it is. You make a hypothesis and research it. Submitting it to feedback from your peers is a normal process.

Don't flatter yourself, though. I'm sure you make a great scientist.

[Mavorpen]

You're expected to like the other sex. The mind is incredibly powerful, and it's possible that you inhibit the expression of your own inherent sexual preference by telling yourself you like the other sex. Since sexual preference is regulated from your own mind, the mind itself can probably inhibit it.

That's nice, but... we aren't talking about sexual preference. We are discussing sexual orientation, which are two separate areas of study.

[Euroslavia]

Actually there isn't a 'gay gene', but this does not mean homosexuals are not born that way, i would recommend this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM

Interesting viewpoint. I've never seen that perspective before.

[Krakosov]

i know a guy with a gay dog with a missing testicle(the dog is a missing testicle not the guy).
if there is a gay gene, is there a missing testicle gene?

[Mavorpen]

Actually it is. You make a hypothesis and research it. Submitting it to feedback from your peers is a normal process.

...No. You don't pull a hypothesis out of your ass. You make observations or state facts, then formulate hypotheses to make predictions. If they don't agree with the predictions, the possibility of your hypothesis being correct decreases.

It isn't as easy as, "STORKS EXIST!" and throwing out websites on the internet dedicated to supporting this.

Don't flatter yourself, though. I'm sure you make a great scientist.

Of course I will. Because I won't entertain ideas that have utterly no evidence to back them up.

[Euroslavia]

No, I got the point. You clearly missed mine. You don't debate and simply put google as a source. That's basically you saying that you can't find a specific source, so you're going to link to google as a desperate attempt to continue the debate (even though at that point, you'd rightfully be labelled as ....well, someone that no one will want to debate with. There's a term for it, but we won't go there.)


You clearly didn't, because you have yet to acknowledge any of it.

Wrong in both cases.

You still missed the point as i was saying he should just give google as his source if he is going to give so many as i am not patient enough to read all of them.

And i did acknowledge it. Not my fault if you missed it.

I'm glad that we've gotten to the "No, you!" point in the debate. Your intellectual prowess is just too overwhelming for me.

[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?

Ehhh...somewhat, but not entirely.

Here's the thing: when I was in preschool, I had a crush on a little boy in my class and wanted him to be my "boyfriend." I tried to get him to "marry" me. I wanted to hold his hand every time the class had to hold hands with each other. I'm a straight woman.

One of my gay male friends has described the exact same experience.

Now, I'm not saying that this proves sexuality is set in stone when one is three. I think sexuality is in many ways as much a process as a state, and that it can evolve over time (up to a point, anyway) - but I think there is a LOT of evidence that small children have sexual orientations, just not sexual orientations that tend to involve desire for intercourse so much as for hand-holding and mock wedding ceremonies.

Ah, then maybe my concept was a little too simple. I'm sure it's a very complex system, otherwise I'm sure someone would have figured it out by now.

Makes it thus more intriguing, only I hope knowing the cause won't inspire people to "fix" it.

Maybe the world is better off not knowing.