So your kid turns out to be a gay...

[SPATCH]

...

edit: you gotta beat it out of him, right?

another edit: forgot.... the power of prayer will take care of it too

[SPATCH]

Originally Posted by Demonpenz

God made adam and eve, not adam and steve

so. the VY sign? yes? no?

[Ultra Peanut]

Maybe the gays just aren't ready for that kind of vag talk.

[Thig Lyfe]

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Spicy McHaggis

Hmmm. Are there any camps where you praise Jesus AND get to kill woodland animals?

There sure-as-Hell should be! Someone call Ted Nugent.

[JohnnyV13]

Actually, the best scientific evidence with respect to homosexuality are twin studies. In twins raised apart, studies have shown that there is a 30 to 50 percent correlation that if one twin is gay that the other will also be gay.

This percentage indicates that there are both genetic and environmental factors involved in expressing homosexual behavior. If homosexualitywere purely genetic, the correlation would be close to 100 percent. If homosexuality were purely a learned behavior, the correlation would be just about the base homosexuality rate in society.

Now, whether homosexuality is a "choice" is another issue.

I suspect that there is "sexual imprinting" that occurs during a human's "critical period" (in animal behavior a period in which certain experiences must occur or else the adult animal will not develop certain behaviors). In human sexual imprinting, i suspect this period is around 12 to 15.

Evidence that homosexual behavior is somewhat malleable, comes from adult prisons. Incarcerated men express high levels of homosexual behavior. Many only demonstrate homosexuality while incarcerated, while being purely heterosexual outside of prison. Combining this evidence with "critical period" theory, suggests that young men who find women socially or psychologically unavailable during their critical peroid, might develop a homosexual orientation.

This mechanism might help explain why twin studies do not show either a pure genetic or purely environmental basis for homosexuality.

Of course, human psychology is far more complex than most mammals. Once this imprinting occurs, i'm not sure it can be changed later.

One of the problems with the "genetic" basis for homosexuality is that the behavior is essentially a genetic lethal in terms of getting your genes into the next generation. Consequently, harsh natural selection pressure against homosexuality "genes" should make this trait very rare over time.

However, a new study has shown that the sisters of gay men have higher fertility rates than normal females. This study suggests that there is a 'male attraction" secquence that causes homosexuality in male children and higher fertility and sex drive in females from the same parents. This study, if correct, provides a theoritcal basis to explain how genes which push people toward "gayness" have been maintained in the human gene pool.

[SPATCH]

gayness

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

Actually, the best scientific evidence with respect to homosexuality are twin studies. In twins raised apart, studies have shown that there is a 30 to 50 percent correlation that if one twin is gay that the other will also be gay.

This percentage indicates that there are both genetic and environmental factors involved in expressing homosexual behavior. If homosexuality were purely genetic, the correlation would be close to 100 percent. If homosexuality were purely choice, the correlation would be just about the base homosexuality rate in society.

Now, whether homosexuality is a "choice" is another issue.

I suspect that there is "sexual imprinting" that occurs during a human's "critical period" (in animal behavior a period in which certain experiences must occur or else the adult animal will not develop certain behaviors). In human sexual imprinting, i suspect this period is around 12 to 15.

Evidence that homosexual behavior is somewhat malleable, comes from adult prisons. Incarcerated men express high levels of homosexual behavior. Many only demonstrate homosexuality while incarcerated, while being purely heterosexual outside of prison. Combining this evidence with "critical period" theory, suggests that young men who find women socially or psychologically unavailable during their critical peroid, might develop a homosexual orientation.

This mechanism might help explain why twin studies do not show either a pure genetic or purely environmental basis for homosexuality.

Of course, human psychology is far more complex than most mammals. Once this imprinting occurs, i'm not sure it can be changed later.

One of the problems with the "genetic" basis for homosexuality is that the behavior is essentially a genetic lethal in terms of getting your genes into the next generation. Consequently, harsh natural selection pressure against homosexuality "genes" should make this trait very rare over time.

However, a new study has shown that the sisters of gay men have higher fertility rates than normal females. This study suggests that there is a 'male attraction" secquence that causes homosexuality in male children and higher fertility and sex drive in females from the same parents. This study, if correct, provides a theoritcal basis to explain how genes which push people toward "gayness" have been maintained in the human gene pool.

Excellent post.

Expect some "anti-homophobic" neg-rep....as a result of your honesty and acumen though.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

Actually, the best scientific evidence with respect to homosexuality are twin studies. In twins raised apart, studies have shown that there is a 30 to 50 percent correlation that if one twin is gay that the other will also be gay.

This percentage indicates that there are both genetic and environmental factors involved in expressing homosexual behavior. If homosexuality is purely a learned behavior, the correlation would be close to 100 percent. If homosexuality were purely choice, the correlation would be just about the base homosexuality rate in society.

Now, whether homosexuality is a "choice" is another issue.

I suspect that there is "sexual imprinting" that occurs during a human's "critical period" (in animal behavior a period in which certain experiences must occur or else the adult animal will not develop certain behaviors). In human sexual imprinting, i suspect this period is around 12 to 15.

Evidence that homosexual behavior is somewhat malleable, comes from adult prisons. Incarcerated men express high levels of homosexual behavior. Many only demonstrate homosexuality while incarcerated, while being purely heterosexual outside of prison. Combining this evidence with "critical period" theory, suggests that young men who find women socially or psychologically unavailable during their critical peroid, might develop a homosexual orientation.

This mechanism might help explain why twin studies do not show either a pure genetic or purely environmental basis for homosexuality.

Of course, human psychology is far more complex than most mammals. Once this imprinting occurs, i'm not sure it can be changed later.

One of the problems with the "genetic" basis for homosexuality is that the behavior is essentially a genetic lethal in terms of getting your genes into the next generation. Consequently, harsh natural selection pressure against homosexuality "genes" should make this trait very rare over time.

However, a new study has shown that the sisters of gay men have higher fertility rates than normal females. This study suggests that there is a 'male attraction" secquence that causes homosexuality in male children and higher fertility and sex drive in females from the same parents. This study, if correct, provides a theoritcal basis to explain how genes which push people toward "gayness" have been maintained in the human gene pool.

Couldn't the lack of of a 100% correlation just as easily be explained by the epistemology of the closet?

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Couldn't the lack of of a 100% correlation just as easily be explained by the epistemology of the closet?

Only if you presume homosexuality to be a desirable "norm" (in the loosest sense of the word....)

[teedubya]

This thread is gay.

[POND_OF_RED]

I would try to pray the gay away. Then I'd **** all of the hot girls that he shops with.

[Prodigal19]

Originally Posted by RibKing67

So lets see to be politically correct and tolerate that which you disagree with is acceptable but to stand for what you believe is insecurity and ignorance?
And if your in the majority on an issue then you do not have to tolerate the other view point?
I see how this is going now.....
I posted my opinion. I am not asking you to agree with me. I stated what I would do. I am not going to argue the point and basis for what I believe. I will agree to disagree.

You are not posting your opinion, what you are posting is completely false. Saying that fays dont choose to be gay is as flat out wrong as saying that the earth is flat. It is not an opinion thing. I feel truly sorry for any kids you have if you have any growing up in the hope of a bigot.

[Ultra Peanut]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Only if you presume homosexuality to be a desirable "norm" (in the loosest sense of the word....)

Lots of homosexuals keep it on the DL. Ergo, that has to be taken into account.

You, of all people, should understand the "epistemology of the cloth."

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Only if you presume homosexuality to be a desirable "norm" (in the loosest sense of the word....)

I think you missed my point.

What I was getting at is that homosexuality would be in many cases, like "The Bradley effect". Being in the closet can be very tempting for several as there are definitive risks with outing yourself. Thus, the amount of people who are actually gay, as opposed to people who would affirm being gay, would differ. There's little doubt Larry Craig or Ted Haggard are gay men, but they would never admit to being so.

Therefore, how does said study reconcile this extremely common occurrence?

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Couldn't the lack of of a 100% correlation just as easily be explained by the epistemology of the closet?

I'm certain social pressure (the closet) certainly has an effect in supressing homosexual expression. Yet, the fact that gay people can suppress homosexuality to the extent that some have been able to function in long term heterosexual relationships also points out the malleability of this behavior.

The very fact that homosexuality can be supressed or channeled toward heterosexual behavior suggests the mixed nature of the behavior.

I have to point out that, as unpleasant as persecution of homosexuality is, it does serve an evolutionary purpose. A sociobiologist would argue that persecution of homosexuals helps get their genes into the next generation.

Consequently, evolutionary pressure would tend to favor parents who pressure their homosexual children toward heterosexual behavior.