i still dont understand how this can be a topic of debate when there is a definitive answer that nobody knows
I see it more as a personality. it all depends on your environment. it is not a gene.
It doesn't matter. When people make homosexuality into an issue, it is very easy to forget about people. I say this from a Christian perspective. Regardless of my views on the issue, I have decided to view it from a people perspective and see that behind the issue are people, that feel love, joy, pain, want friends, want comfort, compassion etc.
Jesus got angry at a few people. The religious right (Pharisees) and his own disciples. The pharisees he got mad at for being so self righteous on the outside, while having no love or compassion for people, as they kept the letter of the law. He got mad at his disciples for stopping people from coming to him. The adulterers, the prostitutes, the lepers, the unwanted, the undesirables. He ate with them. In Jewish customs, eating with someone was saying "I accept you". He loved them and was a friend of sinners.
By arguing the point of whether it is a choice or not completely sidelines the people who are homosexual, making them faceless. It's very easy to hate a faceless crowd. Not so easy when those people are your friends, family, workmates etc.
Lukasaurus has it all right.
Scientifically, we can't say that homosexuality is caused by genes. Genes are a hereditary thing, meaning that something is passed from one generation to another. I believe in the theory that it may be caused by a disorder within a male/female hormones, making them sexually attracted to the same sex, though there hasn't been proof of any biological or genetic differences. Also it could also be by choice and personal experiences at an early age.
Otherwise you're just saying things, with no evidence. I can do that on the Internet too.
Why is there a debating thread about a simple binary fact that has yet to be determined by modern science?
Why the hell would someone choose to be gay with so much hate towards them by narrow minded fucking people. it would be way easier telling everyone you banged some blonde chick.
You dont choose to be gay.
This article is heavily slanted towards decrying any possibility of nature, in favor of nurture arguments, and is infused with indirect homophobia. For instance, the above implies that homosexuality is a disorder, and that any fellow psychologist who disagrees with his findings is merely caving into social pressure.
We know this to be nonsense.
Quotes like these go undisputed in your source, unlike contrary points, which are the only ones to be criticized.
Additionally, the source is not at all a history of homosexuality, as you claimed.
Thank you for explaining the source i found. I appreciate you helping me learn to double check my source and it will help me in the future in other circumstances and debates. I'll be sure to read any sources thoroughly before posting them next time.
And no, we won't take your word for it. You need sources of some form. Peer-reviewed scientific papers preferable.
Oh and fyi, finding the best, most accurate sources is kinda how you win a debate. Short of being the most convincing speaker ever. Which you aren't.
And don't tell me internet sources aren't reliable, they are about as reliable as books these days, unless you are just thinking about Wikipedia.
Saying homosexuality is a gene would be like saying religions or opinions run through blood.
No, it's not. Some people end up turning gay half-way through their lives.
See: one researcher says gay men have feminine ratio, another says excessively masculine ratios are associated with homosexuality etc.
Besides higher levels of prenatal androgen exposure would make more masculine ratios, which is the opposite of what you are saying.
The biological determinist side of a causal mechanism for homosexuality is extremely problematic, and there have been a couple of high profile cases where research published in a major peer reviewed paper (I think it was Nature in the early 90s) was shown to be significantly methodologically flawed.