Homosexuals admit: We recruit

[_Droopy]

So BC, you seem to think that homosexuality is a choice. Did you choose heterosexuality?

I was born with male equipment that, according to Evolution theory, was made to interface with female equipment. Homosexuality therefore, at best, can only be an abberation or a just choice as it would have long ago been bred out of the gene pool as fast as it appeared.

While I'm not a proponent of using the far overextended theory of evolution to explain human behavior of any kind to any salient degree, the statement bc has made here is true as stated.

Any phylogenetic line of homosexual organisms (above the level of simple, asexual reproducing organisms such as earthworms) would have auto-destructed very rapidly.

Human homosexuality (the only true homosexuality in nature, despite popular TV talk show/mainstream media propaganda to the contrary) is, along with the other psychosexual distortions of normative sexual perception (and like sexual fetishes that concentrate on some focused desire or perceived compensatory need outside of normal loving heterosexual behavior), not a fixed biological characteristic but a manifestation of the plasticity of human sexuality in the presence of free will and a society providing numerous options for exploration and indulgence of perceived psychological/emotional needs.

[_Droopy]

There's also not a shred of evidence in the brain sciences supporting the "born that way" argument. We've been over all this time and time again, and nothing has changed on this wise.

[_Drifting]

There's also not a shred of evidence in the brain sciences supporting the "born that way" argument. We've been over all this time and time again, and nothing has changed on this wise.

Is there anything in the brain sciences that supports that heterosexual's are 'born that way'?

[_Buffalo]

not a fixed biological characteristic but a manifestation of the plasticity of human sexuality in the presence of free will

No straight man would ever make a statement like that.

[_Buffalo]

There's also not a shred of evidence in the brain sciences supporting the "born that way" argument. We've been over all this time and time again, and nothing has changed on this wise.

http://newsnet.BYU.edu/story.cfm/49488
http://www.ldsresources.information/profession ... onse.shtml

There is a vast body of evidence from empirical scientific studies supporting the conclusion that biological processes, especially those operating prenatally to regulate the sexual differentiation of the brain, influence a person's sexual orientation. These data have been derived from a variety of disciplines including genetics, biochemistry, and neurobiology. Among the subjects of these investigations are twin and sibling studies, brain anatomy, hormones and their cellular receptors, correlates of homosexuality in handedness and hearing, cognitive (brain function) studies, and the behavior of humans with genetic defects that alter gender characteristics. Of special significance is the demonstration that for measures that are sexually dimorphic, that is, different between heterosexual men and women, homosexual persons are atypical for their gender. Homosexuality is heritable and imprinted early (often embryonic ally) in human development. It is also important to note that when genetic studies demonstrate that there is some component of the variability in sexual orientation not directly attributable to genes, and therefore "environmental," this does not necessarily refer to influences, such as social interactions, outside the individual. Such influences could well be biological (for example, hormonal influences that operate within the environment of the individual, but are derived from, and exert their effects upon the genetic constitution of that person, and hence are epigenetic). The fact that no single unified theory can as yet explain all of the data, and that the responsible processes are probably not the same in gay men and lesbians, does not diminish the fact that the biological evidence is compelling. Space here does not permit the citation of the voluminous scientific information. Instead, we invite the reader to carefully examine the data, beginning with review articles that summarize the results of the various studies. These are summarized at http://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.html as well as in the articles listed in this footnote.3

You lose.

[_Droopy]

There's also not a shred of evidence in the brain sciences supporting the "born that way" argument. We've been over all this time and time again, and nothing has changed on this wise.

http://newsnet.BYU.edu/story.cfm/49488
http://www.ldsresources.information/profession ... onse.shtml

There is a vast body of evidence from empirical scientific studies supporting the conclusion that biological processes, especially those operating prenatally to regulate the sexual differentiation of the brain, influence a person's sexual orientation. These data have been derived from a variety of disciplines including genetics, biochemistry, and neurobiology. Among the subjects of these investigations are twin and sibling studies, brain anatomy, hormones and their cellular receptors, correlates of homosexuality in handedness and hearing, cognitive (brain function) studies, and the behavior of humans with genetic defects that alter gender characteristics. Of special significance is the demonstration that for measures that are sexually dimorphic, that is, different between heterosexual men and women, homosexual persons are atypical for their gender. Homosexuality is heritable and imprinted early (often embryonic ally) in human development. It is also important to note that when genetic studies demonstrate that there is some component of the variability in sexual orientation not directly attributable to genes, and therefore "environmental," this does not necessarily refer to influences, such as social interactions, outside the individual. Such influences could well be biological (for example, hormonal influences that operate within the environment of the individual, but are derived from, and exert their effects upon the genetic constitution of that person, and hence are epigenetic). The fact that no single unified theory can as yet explain all of the data, and that the responsible processes are probably not the same in gay men and lesbians, does not diminish the fact that the biological evidence is compelling. Space here does not permit the citation of the voluminous scientific information. Instead, we invite the reader to carefully examine the data, beginning with review articles that summarize the results of the various studies. These are summarized at http://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.html as well as in the articles listed in this footnote.3

You lose.

Nope. This cock sure air of certainty here is clear evidence that he is not speaking as a scientist here, but as a man with an agenda. The fact of the matter is that none of the twin studies, none of the lesbian finger length studies, none of the brain tissue studies, have survived scientific scrutiny. Bradshaw is overstating the strength of the evidence to a fantastic degree, (and the analogy to AGW here is striking) and making claims that are not supportable from the actual evidence. He thinks he can bamboozel non-scientists with his lofty, looking-down-from-the-ivory-tower talk that "Space here does not permit the citation of the voluminous scientific information."

The link to the sources goes nowhere, but it doesn't really matter. I'm well aware of the the major studies that have been done and they've all been discredited as inconclusive and plagued with methodological problems.

Bradshaw is a favorite at the liberal Mormonstories website of apostate cultural Mormon John Dehlin, quite obviously because of his fashionable politically correct views (all simmered in the heady broth of "science," of course) on homosexuality. We went over Bradshaw's claims here years ago, and none of it is anything else that the same old warmed over biological reductionist conjectures (Bradshaw as no clear, empirical evidence to show, none, and that's what makes his great swelling rhetoric of unambiguous certainty so appalling) that have been discredited as good evidence for anything like a "cause" of homosexual behavior for many years.

[_Buffalo]

Nope. This cock sure air of certainty here is clear evidence that he is not speaking as a scientist here, but as a man with an agenda. The fact of the matter is that none of the twin studies, none of the lesbian finger length studies, none of the brain tissue studies, have survived scientific scrutiny. Bradshaw is overstating the strength of the evidence to a fantastic degree, (and the analogy to AGW here is striking) and making claims that are not supportable from the actual evidence. He thinks he can bamboozel non-scientists with his lofty, looking-down-from-the-ivory-tower talk that "Space here does not permit the citation of the voluminous scientific information."

The link to the sources goes nowhere, but it doesn't really matter. I'm well aware of the the major studies that have been done and they've all been discredited as inconclusive and plagued with methodological problems.

Bradshaw is a favorite at the liberal Mormonstories website of apostate cultural Mormon John Dehlin, quite obviously because of his fashionable politically correct views (all simmered in the heady broth of "science," of course) on homosexuality. We went over Bradshaw's claims here years ago, and none of it is anything else that the same old warmed over biological reductionist conjectures (Bradshaw as no clear, empirical evidence to show, none, and that's what makes his great swelling rhetoric of unambiguous certainty so appalling) that have been discredited as good evidence for anything like a "cause" of homosexual behavior for many years.

We all know that BYU is home to agenda-driven leftists trying to force kindergarteners into gay marriages.

By the way, ignoring evidence and claiming it isn't there doesn't actually make it go away.

It's okay, Droopy, let it go. You want it to be a choice so bad. But real heterosexuals know it's not a choice. I was born this way, and nothing could make me attracted to men, even if I wanted to be. If you were straight you'd know that.

[_EAllusion]

Yes, the analogy to human caused global warming is particularly apt in this case for Droopy.

[_Droopy]

Yes, the analogy to human caused global warming is particularly apt in this case for Droopy.

Indeed, as both the "born that way" theory and the hypothesis of DAGW (or CAGW, if you've really drunk the Kool-Aid to the dregs) are pseudo-scientific assertions of truth lacking any actual substantive evidence but heated by the cherry-red coals of ideology and personal agenda.

[_Droopy]

We all know that BYU is home to agenda-driven leftists trying to force kindergarteners into gay marriages.

Its home to a few cranks and ideologues who nurse personal agendas such as Bradshaw and 9/11 truther Steven Jones. Beyond that, great place.

By the way, ignoring evidence and claiming it isn't there doesn't actually make it go away.

There is no evidence of anything but possible bias and predisposition to the eventual generation of SSA (not SSA per se) due to biological/genetic factors. There is not a shred of evidence that any biological factors, of themselves, represent a discreet, identifiable "cause" of homosexual orientation. That's the problem.