Hades: I explained it before: cellular signals during development activate the wrong sets of genes. Put simply. Now if there are any alleles that increase one’s disposition to be this way, I don’t know. Also, its a lot harder to get rid of nefarious non-lethal alleles than you think, in the event there is one or more.
Cless: I tweeked it for shits and giggles. Nevertheless, the point is the same. The book is a summary of the research on the topic and said research points this direction.
I think he means that by saying it’s a genetic order…maybe you meant to be insulting. Although I should keep quiet and don’t mean to put words in his mouth.
So, what are you saying, there are more lesbians than homosexual males? I knew I should’ve listened to math class…what does inverse mean again?
Your first 2 points are wrong.
Not necessarily. But whatever, we’re talking on MSN about it 
They argue that the 2% to 4% of people in the population who are gay are born that way, and this proportion does not seem to vary across societies.
Ohh ho ho, I definately read this wrong. I knew 4% was far too high. If 4% of gays are born gay, that means that the other 96% choose to be gay, which implies that anyone can choose.
It doesn’t say 4% of gays are born gay. 4% are that way on a population level.
He said there was no evidence that people could “learn” to be gay, for example children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay than their peers.
“Our sixth-graders are only being gay at the third-grade level!”
I might try and pick up the book, even though I wouldn’t understand half of it. I’d like to know exactly what the ‘chromosomal differences’ are though.
No. If this were true, the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation that describes this relationship would be A = 0.8, B = 0.2, and one in five people carrying the allele for homosexuality is already pretty high.
I agree, but it’s a very badly worded sentence.
Now you’re just making shit up.
I read something wrong.
You all knew i would post,but im not going to post anything else in this thread. I have noticed, that you all dont like me because i bash the gays and i say things you all dont like. Well you are basically bashing me because im a christian. Genetic my butt. Thats just a whole bunch of crap. You my as well say that being a christian is genetic, but its not. neither is homosexuallity. People choose to be gay or lesbian, because they are blind and havent been told the truth. You all bash me because im a christian, and yes you do, so dont say you dont. Except for a few of you. Yes i knw i am sometimes hypocritical, but im still trying my hardest to live a better life. Well thats all i have to say. If you want to prove me wrong, just PM me. Ill be sure to read and reply to them all.
That doesn’t make any sense. Religion is a life choice, not sexual orientation. Did you choose to like girls? Did you sit down one day and say “Gee, you know… I think that I’d much rather have sex with females than males… quite.” Or did you just… like them. Like it or not, love and lust are completely irrational biological mechanisms, not things you can pick and choose. The reason that is different than your belief in Christianity is that belief is (to some extent) a choice, rather than something that is passed on.
However, you COULD argue, since you believe that homosexuality is evil, those who have these urges should suppress them because they are bad. That would be a more valid argument. In fact, even though I have no problem with homosexuality, that is largely my view on pedophilia. People are born pedophiles, but they should not have sex with children because it is wrong. Since it is wrong, they should not engage in sexual activity with minors no matter how much they want to. This is why some pedophiles go through voluntary castration. But trust me on this one: they don’t choose to have sex with children anymore than a heterosexual chooses to have sex with women or a homosexual chooses to have sex with men. Does that make it clearer?
And I don’t think that anybody hates you here, Nightmaregun. I don’t hate or care about nearly anyone here, to be honest. The vast majority of you are faceless people that I have never met- it would be foolish of me to judge you based on your online persona, which could be vastly different from how you act in real life. Not only that, but a lot of what we judge online (grammar and such) would not really have much of an impact on how people would view you if they knew you. Please stop being so silly, there is no use despairing over people who shouldn’t even concern you.
This article didn’t change my views much. I never thought being gay was a choice and I still don’t. But it has shed some light on it by saying it’s gene related. What if homosexuality was a side-effect of some genetic trait that was beneficial to humans? Like how sickle-cell anemia is a side-effect of the gene that controls the shape of our red blood cells.
Calvinists would argue that it’s not a choice. >.>
No, its because you’re a goddamn close-minded, opinionated prick.
edit: Well, I feel better 
Thats the biggest crock of shit I’ve ever heard. Every gay man or lesbian woman I’ve ever met said they preferred the same sex since they were small. Small as in kids. You don’t just get up one day and say “Hmm, I think I’ll go plow another guy’s ass and see how I like it.” And we don’t bash you because you’re a christian, I’m a christian and I think you’re a moron. DO us all a favor and pull your head out of the pope’s ass before you post. Oh, and if you’re not a pope believing christian then pull it out of your pastor’s ass then give us a ring.
Guys, he politely asked if people would take this to private messages, and I suggest that we do so. Obviously, I’m not a moderator or anything, but I don’t see how a religious debate is going to help any of us.
You may think it’s not a ganetic “variation”, but that (^^^) is a little too much IMO…
And, I (just an example) don’t remember making any choices about sexual preferences. Genetic or not, I don’t (and didn’t) think it’s a choice. My 2 cents.
Then he shouldn’t have posted an inflamatory statement then wussed out about it.