Xayma
Lacking creativity
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Messages
- 5,953
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
LaraB said:sure - no problem since as i said there's heaps out there for both sides...
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron3.html - yes im not religious but this site does have valid info with scientific basis as well as religious basis
Indeed, one of the sources I used stated that it pretty much disproves a single gene.1) No researcher has found provable biological or genitic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior
Occasionally you may read about a scientific study that suggests that homosexuality is an inherited tendency, but such studies have usually been discounted after careful scrutiny or attempts at replication. No one has found a single heredible genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals - at least none that is replicable. (9, 12) While the absence of such a discovery doesn't prove at inherited sexual tendencies aren't possible, it suggests that none has been found because none exists.
Contains nothing.LaraB said:
LaraB said:http://www.cfacr.org/issues/homo/causes/
Sexual desire and behavior are flexible as demonstrated by the Kinsey Institute in 1970. It reported(9) that "81% of 684 gays and 93% of 293 lesbians had changed or shifted either their sexual feelings or behaviors after age 12.58% of the gays and 77% of the lesbians reported a second shift in sexual orientation; 31% of the gays and 49% of the lesbians reported a third shift; and 13% of the gays and 30% of the lesbians reported even a fourth shift in sexual orientation before "settling" into adult homosexuality," notes Cameron "The shifts reported by these subjects varied in degree, but some were quite dramatic - about a quarter of gays and a third of lesbians once had heterosexual desires and 5% of heterosexual men and 3% of heterosexual women once had substantial homosexual desires. Heterosexuals in the study were much less likely to report shifts in their orientation. Even so, 29% of 337 heterosexual men and 14% of 140 heterosexual women reported at least one shift; while 4% of the men and 1% of the women reported at least three shifts. Immutable things like eye color or skin color don't change once, much less three or four times!"
"Sexual changes, five or more years after puberty, are exceptionally late and without biological precedent in development. But changes in tastes (e.g., food or entertainment) often take place around age 18."
Makes sense then there isn't precedent. A more careful study of our direct ancestors who lacked the social structure we have would need to be undertaken but even then it isnt sure if they had an adolescent phase.New Scientist said:Humans today are the only animals on Earth to have a teenage phase, yet we have very little idea why.
I will agree that the above studies haven't been replicated but then again they have only been published within the last 12 months. Even if it isn't genetic it doesn't say it is possible to change. Also is it right to change anothers mind, it would be almost cult like to say this is the way you are suppose to behave especially when it isnt hurting anyone else.laraB said:http://www.cfacr.org/issues/homo/causes/2004-10-22-titanic-of-gay-rights.shtml
Homosexuality is not a "genetic identity." It is "a complex conditioned behaviour, which can and does change," writes Gend.
"As to the exact causes of homosexuality, the medical jury is still out. But the baseless claim, promoted by Justice Michael Kirby and others, that gays are just born that way, is given no support by the American Psychiatric Association." Indeed the APA Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation (2000) states: "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."
The above was published in 1997, well before the articles I published, so it could not have access the same data. It's amazing how many of those sites were religious. Well not really. But even if you then say it isn't biological, how can you say it is voluntary?LaraB said:http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=630
has both sides - for and against nature and nurture
there's heaps more but i can't be bothered going through them all... just search in google or the Aus medical assoc page or the American Psych. assoc page - there's load of pages showing both persepctives...
as i said - just a matter of opinion as there is plenty of evidence that could be used for either sides and i personally believe it is not biological.
In fact only one of the articles was published after one of the main two. But alas it refrenced quotes from 2000.