People are not born gay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alan Freeman

Alan Freeman

Newbie
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
909
Reaction score
0
One of my managers thinks that people are born gay I dont believe that. I need to prove her wrong is there any links to this . I am a christian guy and the bible says that this kind of life style is a sinfull one and was not meant to be this way. I do not believe your born gay, you just change over time because of whatever reason. I dont hate gay people i just dont approve of there lifestyle. Only God can be the judge when the time comes .


Is there A Bible verse that pinpoints the subject(Im still learning the bible)

Or any medical way to find out if someones gay when there born?
 
Wait a second...have you not got evidence for this already? Seeing as you've already made your own opinion on this matter, have you not got the information which led you to form this opinion?
 
I don't even understand how people can be "born gay"....it makes no sense.

It's all a lifestyle choice. CHOICE. You want to be gay, you pork guys. It's what you've thought to be the right way. It's not some innard in your brain that switches from gay to straight. The entire thing seem so illogical..
 
Homosexuality is found in animals so it isn't down to social issues. The fact is, like the first poster posted there's a gene that's flipped in gay people which makes them attracted to people of the same sex. It's down to genetics.

Also no one can really be "cured" from being homosexual, they can be conditioned to think it's wrong just like anyone can be conditioned to do almost anything given enough time. Restraining from having homosexual relations is a lot different from being "cured" of homosexuality.
 
thanks friends for the help .

Born gay." The idea that homosexuality is genetic, or at least biologically predetermined and unchangeable, has received a great amount of media coverage presenting it as "new scientific fact." What is often not known is that this "born gay" idea is not new, not proven, and frequently contradicted by what the researchers actually said. At least as far back as 1899, German researcher Magnus Hirschfeld regarded homosexuality as congenital - meaning, "born that way" - and he asked for legal equality based on this thinking.

Now, a century later, the idea that homosexual persons are born that way has again received a great amount of media attention. As new research studies were published, the popular press presented these as evidence that people are "born gay" and that sexual orientation is therefore unchangable. What has been quietly happening, though, is that the "science" behind this idea is falling apart. Here we briefly examine the three most cited studies, from Simon LeVay, Michael Bailey & Richard Pillard, and Dean Hamer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon LeVay and the INAH-3

"Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."

Simon LeVay in The Sexual Brain, p. 122.

Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist, studied the brains from 41 corpses, including 6 women, 19 homosexual men, and 16 men presumed to be heterosexual. A small area of the brain, the INAH-3, was similar in size in women and homosexual men, but larger in heterosexual men. He suggested that this might be evidence for an actual structural difference in the brains of gay men. There are, however, numerous problems with this study:


The points on the graph represent the size of INAH-3 in the brains from corpses of 6 women (F), 16 men (M; presumably heterosexual) and 19 homosexual men (HM)
In comparing the size of the INAH-3, he presumed that the 16 "heterosexual" men were, in fact, heterosexual. Only two of them had denied homosexual activities; for the rest, sexual histories were not available. Thus, he was actually comparing homosexual men with men of unknown sexual orientation! This, obviously, is a major flaw in scientific method.
The volume of the INAH-3 may not be a relevant measure:
Scientists disagree on the most accurate way to measure the INAH-3. LeVay measured the volume; other scientists claim it is more accurate to measure the actual number of neurons. Clarifying the potential problem, some have suggested that using a volume method to project impact on sexual orientation may be like trying to determine intelligence by a person's hat size.
When different laboratories have measured the four areas of the INAH (including INAH-3), their results conflicted. For example, Swaab and Fliers (1985) found that the INAH-1 was larger in men, while LeVay (1991) found no difference between men and women. Allen et al (1989) found the INAH-2 to be larger in men than in some women, while LeVay (1991) again found no difference. See Byne (1994), page 52.


The above problems aside, even the data from LeVay's study did not prove that anyone was born gay. This is the case for at least two reasons:

Both groups of men covered essentially the same range of sizes. One could be gay (HM) with a small INAH-3 or with a large one. One could also be in the "heterosexual" category (M) with either a small or large INAH-3. Clearly, these men were not held to a sexual orientation by their INAH-3 biology! As the data shows, the INAH-3 size of three of the homosexual men puts them clearly in the "heterosexual" category (with one having the second largest INAH-3!). If all you know about any of LeVay's subjects is INAH-3 size, you could not accurately predict whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, male or female.
A study that showed a clear difference in INAH-3 sizes, would still leave another question unanswered: are men gay because of a smaller INAH-3, or was their INAH-3 smaller because of their homosexual actions, thoughts, and/or feelings? It is known that the brain does change in response to changes in behaviour and environment. For example, Newsweek reported that "in people reading Braille after becoming blind, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger grew larger." As well, in male songbirds, "the brain area associated with mating is not only larger than in the female, but varies according to the season" (Newsweek, Feb. 24, 1992, p. 50).
Return to Top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bailey & Pillard: Twins and Other Brothers

Bailey and Pillard studied pairs of brothers -- identical twins, non-identical twins, other biological brothers, and adoptive brothers -- where at least one was gay. At first glance, their findings looked like a pattern for homosexuality being genetically influenced. Identical twins were both homosexual 52% of the time; non-identical twins, 22%; other biological brothers, 9.2%; and adoptive brothers, 10.5%. A closer look reveals significant problems with a "born gay" conclusion to this study:

"In order for such a study to be meaningful, you'd have to look at twins raised apart," says Anne Fausto Sterling, a biologist. The brothers in this study were raised together in their families.
All the results were different from what one would expect if homosexuality was directly genetic:
Because identical twin brothers share 100% of their genes overall, we would expect that if one was homosexual, the other would also be homosexual, 100% of the time. Instead, this study found that they were both homosexual only 52% of the time.
Although completely unrelated genetically, adoptive brothers were more likely to both be gay than the biological brothers, who share half their genes! This piece of data prompted the journal Science to respond: "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (Vol. 262 Dec.24, 1993).
If homosexuality were genetic, one would expect each number in the column "Results from the B & P study" to be identical to the corresponding number in the "Expectation if genetic" column. Each one is significantly different!
Both are Homosexual:
Shared genes
(overall) Expectation
if genetic Results from
B&P study
Identical twin brothers 100 % 100 % 52 %
Non-ident. twin brothers 50 % 50 % 22 %
Other biological brothers 50 % 50 % 9 %
Adoptive brothers 0 % 1-4 % 11 %

Finally, Bailey & Pillard did not use a random sample. The men in the study were recruited through advertisements in gay newspapers and magazines.
Return to Top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dean Hamer and the Xq28 Genetic Markers

Hamer studied 40 pairs of homosexual brothers, and reported that 33 pairs shared a set of five genetic markers. Reporting the story, Time magazine's cover read "BORN GAY Science Finds a Genetic Link" (July 26, 1993). Hamer, however, was more cautious. He felt that it played "some role" in a minority of 5 to 30% of gay men (The Science of Desire by Dean Hamer and Peter Copeland. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994. Pages 145-146). This is a rather distant reality from finding the "gay gene" and it left two critical questions: just how much influence was "some role" thought to be, and what about the other 70 to 95%?


Based on a simple genetic theory, one would expect 50%, or 20 pairs, to have the same markers. Why did 7 pairs of gay brothers not share a set of genetic markers?
Hamer did not check to see if the heterosexual brothers of the homosexual men also had such a genetic marker. Thus, there was no control group in this study. Here too, this obviously is a major flaw in scientific method.
Since that time, Science has reported that George Ebers, a researcher at the University of Western Ontario, has attempted to duplicate the study but found "no evidence, not even a trend," for the "genetic link." In the scientific world, that is a big problem. More recently, another study by Rice et al. has also stated that its results "do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality."


Return to Top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now even the gay and pro-gay press are acknowledging the problems. In her 1996 book, Gender Shock, writer and lesbian woman Phyllis Burke, quoting Dr. Paul Billings, an internist and human geneticist, calls the born gay idea "a new fish story." A gay publication, "The Guide," writes Hamer's story under the title "Gene Scam?"

As well, Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), one of the larger pro-gay organizations, explains that there is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay in its booklet "Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology."

Born gay? Ironically, what the studies actually suggest is that persons who experience same-sex attraction are not prisoners of their biology. That's good news for same-gender-attracted people who would rather pursue other options.
 
Alan Freeman said:
thanks friends for the help .
Click to expand...

I'm still wondering why you couldn't use the information which led you to form the opinion that people are not born gay. Surely if the evidence is strong enough to lead you to that opinion, it will be strong enough to prove another person's opinion wrong, or at the very least challenge their ideas.
 
So if it's a choice, then you gay-bashers could turn gay RIGHT NOW, right? I mean if it's that easy, why don't you be gay for a day? You never know, you might like it.
 
I don't see how it makes no sense, animals in nature perform homosexual acts all the time and I'm sure morals wern't a huge part of it. With everything that the bible condems which we brush off and do anyway, homosexuality is somehow still a big deal.
 
brink's said:
I don't see how it makes no sense, animals in nature perform homosexual acts all the time and I'm sure they didn't have to make a choice on it. With everything that the bible condems which we brush off and do anyway, homosexuality is somehow still a big deal.
Click to expand...
The Bible is completely irrelevant in this kind of discussion anyway. People just pick and choose whatever they need to suit them and ignore everything else. The fact is, the "born gay" argument is NOT PROVEN EITHER WAY. For every scientific study that concludes homosexuality is a choice, there's another one that claims the contrary.
 
Murray_H said:
I'm still wondering why you couldn't use the information which led you to form the opinion that people are not born gay. Surely if the evidence is strong enough to lead you to that opinion, it will be strong enough to prove another person's opinion wrong, or at the very least challenge their ideas.[/QU

I didnt think that was enough.
Click to expand...
 
diluted said:
The Bible is completely irrelevant in this kind of discussion anyway. People just pick and choose whatever they need to suit them and ignore everything else. The fact is, the "born gay" argument is NOT PROVEN EITHER WAY. For every scientific study that concludes homosexuality is a choice, there's another one that claims the contrary.
Click to expand...

I was more protesting the justification for Gay bashing, but you're right it is irrelevant in this discussion.
 
If it is social / environmental, it'll get fixed by nature soon.

Don't tell me it's not a flaw in the species. It is.
 
Alan Freeman said:
I didnt think that was enough.
Click to expand...

Well if it wasn't enough, why was it enough for you to form that opinion?

Sorry to keep persuing this, to me it seems like you were basing your opinion on what you have been told without anything to back up those claims (which is why you were asking people for further evidence) and it's not a good thing to make an opinion on something before knowing all the facts.

Petty, but I'm in a petty mood.
 
Pesmerga said:
If it is social / environmental, it'll get fixed by nature soon.

Don't tell me it's not a flaw in the species. It is.
Click to expand...

No, it's natures way of stopping over population.

It's my firm belief that one day homosexuality will found to be genetic. Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean you shouldn't have an opinion about it. Can the millions of people around the globe who pray to God every day prove that it exists? I think not.
 
Pesmerga said:
If it is social / environmental, it'll get fixed by nature soon.

Don't tell me it's not a flaw in the species. It is.
Click to expand...

It could be nature fixing us - homosexuals cannot reproduce in a sexual way. Reduced reproduction from increased homosexual humans = a decreasing population = less demands on the environment.
 
Glirk Dient said:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160065/posts

That explains a study where gay people were healed and saved from suffering a gay lifestyle(yes, some people suffer and have been told they can't change...this says they can).
Click to expand...

Not that it's my call, but I find this pretty offensive. Not the content of the link, just the "suffering" remark, really. I mean, it's not your position to judge whether they are "suffering" or not, as you seem to also imply that it's some kind of illness with your statement. I know several gay people, and I don't see them suffering in the slightest. No, I would say the person who feels that society would judge them so harshly based on their sexuality is the person who is truly suffering.

As to what I believe, well, I do believe some people are certainly born with an inclination towards homosexuality. I also believe others are a product of society and their own personal decisions and beliefs.
 
Murray_H said:
It could be nature fixing us - homosexuals cannot reproduce in a sexual way. Reduced reproduction from increased homosexual humans = a decreasing population = less demands on the environment.
Click to expand...

Nature doesn't work that way. Nature will find a way to move the species from one planet to another. Homosexuality is so uncommon that it hardly reduces population, even by a miniscule percent.
 
Kangy said:
Not that it's my call, but I find this pretty offensive. Not the content of the link, just the "suffering" remark, really. I mean, it's not your position to judge whether they are "suffering" or not, as you seem to also imply that it's some kind of illness with your statement. I know several gay people, and I don't see them suffering in the slightest. No, I would say the person who feels that society would judge them so harshly based on their sexuality is the person who is truly suffering.

As to what I believe, well, I do believe some people are certainly born with an inclination towards homosexuality. I also believe others are a product of society and their own personal decisions and beliefs.
Click to expand...

Hehe, Free Republic is right-wing website, what did you expect?! :p
Anyway, I believe the reason why the anti-homosexual crowd is pushing the 'born gay' theory so forcefully is because in their mind it justifies their hate and bigotry. If someone chooses to be gay, it's okay to hate them because it was their choice and they must be seriously ****ed up. But if they were born gay, I guess it's more difficult to hate, because it was something out of their control. I dunno.

Why can't we all just get along? ;(
 
Wait your talking about proving something while using the bible as the basis of your opinion.

Excuse me while I go clean up the mess I just made from laughing.
 
Pesmerga said:
Nature doesn't work that way. Nature will find a way to move the species from one planet to another. Homosexuality is so uncommon that it hardly reduces population, even by a miniscule percent.
Click to expand...

Oh right, you been on the phone to mother nature again? She is always busy when I try to get the answer for everything.

I said 'could', very important word. Nature is not something small and cannot be predicted easily, it would be wrong of us to ignore possible theories. Who knows, maybe tomorrow 90% of babies born will have have a same sex partner in later life and won't be a parent to a child. Yes, the chances are probably infinitely small, but there is still a chance.
 
I absolutely hate these stupid threads ...




for the record: the bible and homosexuality should NEVER be spoken in the same sentence ...along with facts, evidence, compassion, humanity etc etc


Glirk, dont even start with your borderline homophobia, I've buried your every last point before I'll do it again
 
Murray_H said:
Oh right, you been on the phone to mother nature again? She is always busy when I try to get the answer for everything.

I said 'could', very important word. Nature is not something small and cannot be predicted easily, it would be wrong of us to ignore possible theories. Who knows, maybe tomorrow 90% of babies born will have have a same sex partner in later life and won't be a parent to a child. Yes, the chances are probably infinitely small, but there is still a chance.
Click to expand...

Uh...kay?
 
Pesmerga said:
Nature doesn't work that way. Nature will find a way to move the species from one planet to another. Homosexuality is so uncommon that it hardly reduces population, even by a miniscule percent.
Click to expand...

It's far more common than you would think. Many people with families are closet homosexuals for the simple reason that it's society's idea of what's "right" and "normal". It might be us working against nature by saying homosexuality is wrong and condemning it. Homosexuality occurs in animals too which don't have the social restrictions and road maps that we place on the members of our species.

In the future it might become even more common, who knows?
 
Kangy said:
Not that it's my call, but I find this pretty offensive. Not the content of the link, just the "suffering" remark, really. I mean, it's not your position to judge whether they are "suffering" or not, as you seem to also imply that it's some kind of illness with your statement. I know several gay people, and I don't see them suffering in the slightest. No, I would say the person who feels that society would judge them so harshly based on their sexuality is the person who is truly suffering.
Click to expand...
QFT. The wording made my blood boil. And I'm not even a member of the offended population.
 
CptStern said:
I absolutely hate these stupid threads ...




for the record: the bible and homosexuality should NEVER be spoken in the same sentence ...along with facts, evidence, compassion, humanity etc etc


Glirk, dont even start with your borderline homophobia, I've buried your every last point before I'll do it again
Click to expand...

My homophobia? I have gay friends and we debate this crap all the time.

Refute my articles then, I don't see any reason those aren't true. The most refuting you seem to do on these types of issues is state your point of view and then label that as a universally accepted fact. Refute, don't target people and call them names because of their opinions. Bring up facts and debate and prove me wrong. You obviously spend a lot more time with politics than me, I'm sure it won't be hard for you to find something that actually proves those articles wrong and isn't just a point of view.
 
Why do you have to look to God and the bible to form your own opinion??
As far as im concerned, people who are gay probably get turned off by the idea of hetrosexual sex, just like straight guys think gay sex pretty disgusting; its just in their brains through genetics.
So what right does any1 have to condemn gays and gay sex, so long as they are not harming any1?
Some people argue its not "natural", yet barely anything humans do these days is natural. For instance were humans made to fly 1000s of meters high, or travel in cars over 100mph?....NO...Therefore just because homosexuality may seem strange, it doesnt mean you have a right to condemn it as "sinful" or anything.
 
mortiz said:
It's far more common than you would think. Many people with families are closet homosexuals for the simple reason that it's society's idea of what's "right" and "normal". It might be us working against nature by saying homosexuality is wrong and condemning it. Homosexuality occurs in animals too which don't have the social restrictions and road maps that we place on the members of our species.

In the future it might become even more common, who knows?
Click to expand...

Out of the 6 something billion people on this Earth, 5.5% are homos. .5% are lesbians.

That's 6% of the population that can't reproduce. If that's natures way of controlling population, it's doing a really, really bad job.
 
Look...we all know that being gay is not genetic. Hell I have a gay first cousin, but he's the only one in the whole family (we have a huge family mind you) that is gay. So where did him being gay come from? It came from choice.

Being gay is a lifestyle and choice...not a gene.
 
Tr0n said:
Look...we all know that being gay is not genetic. Hell I have a gay first cousin, but he's the only one in the whole family (we have a huge family mind you) that is gay. So where did him being gay come from? It came from choice.

Being gay is a lifestyle and choice...not a gene.
Click to expand...

Prove it. How do you know that the "gay gene" isn't just extremely rare? I agree that a "gay gene" doesn't really exist, but I do believe specific genetics give you an inclination towards it.
 
Just because everyone in your family isn't a homosexual doesn't mean it's not genetic.
 
I think the real question is why do so many people care so damn much? I mean, unless they're coming up to you and slapping their thing on your face, why does it matter if someone likes guys, girls, puppets, or barnyard animals??
 
^Ben said:
But Guyz Teh Bible Said Its Troo Am I Rite?
Click to expand...

Yes, my child. Now, seeing as everyone is a sinner and you are pretty much ****ed whatever you do in life, fancy a little, how can I put it to you gamers, cheat to get you to the last level? Here, take this gun and point it at your......cpu......You'll see the last boss in a minute or two, goes by the name of Lucifer.
 
Murray_H said:
You have heard of genetic mutations haven't you?
Click to expand...
Yea...but it ain't a gene. Seriously...if that's true then there must be a bisexual gene also and the "fetish" gene. :rolleyes:
 
/me Waits for the inevitable "pedophile gene"

Come on some of you want to make the comparison.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
ShinRa
Any way to save your posts?
Replies
8
Views
3K
GreenSpade
G
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Half-Life's lost feature, Timeline
Replies
0
Views
6K
Barnz
B
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
Back
Top