The 'nature versus choice' debate is another thing.

This discussion is about whether it's possible to be born gay due to the X and Y chromosomes.
Some people slag off my 'lack' of education when they clearly need to backtrack themselves.

"PREDISPOSED to be homosexual, and triggers from environment or upbringing bring this out."
nah ... there's nothing to back that up....and it just sounds wrong. "predisposed" ....sounds like you think being gay is like some kind of psychosis or mental health issue.

Well I don't?

Just like I feel people are predisposed to being confident... that's not a psychosis or mental health issue either.

Plus I never said there is anything to back it up, I clearly stated that it was my feelings on the subject.

?
I'm not even sure what to say here? By your own admission your opinion is based on no facts nor data but instead on a feelling or something? lol...how can anyone argue against you then?... that's so tibb hehe

Ange7 it's not like you not to read posts :whistle:

If you saw my first post, I started with "it's subjective". This whole debate is. The only thing factual is about the chromosomes, and then the debate allowed for personal opinion. There are no FACTS about homosexuality and genetics - does this mean we should just not discuss the matter?

Theres no proof for much in this world. Evidence shows that there are differences in brain structure/chemistry of gay people. That is fact

:whistle: this smug emoticon is even more "tibb"ness.....kidding

ps yeah I read it ... I don't think it's subjective. Either there IS a genetic link or there isn't. There's nothing subjective about good science. Subjectiveness comes in when people try to interpret hard data and put their own spin into it.

Show me undisputed fact that homosexuality either IS or ISN'T genetic then? You'll find science arguing either way.

"you'll find" ( I can be condescending too)
that just because scientist argue doesn't mean one of them isn't right. Using their discord as a reason not to look at the data yourself is a cope out...."you'll find"

So how do you decide which one is right? "You'll find" you have to use your OWN interpretation.

no..."interpretation has spin in it.... by definition how you interpret stuff is defined by things cultural, religious ( even if you not religions), political etc. Fact are cold and honest.... 1 + 1 = 2. Once you want to make that data usable...ie turning it into information, then you need to interpret that data and start making assumption ..... but based on the data..... not on a "feelings" (.. ouch!! I think you'll find)

ps tom posed a link that netto was referring to in this thread about brain sizes.....http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm ... or are you after something from a science journal.

That article doesn't prove anything though. It shows a likelihood of something, or a suggestion of something. You agreed there are science articles showing otherwise, or showing that the findings don't suggest that homosexuality is genetic. So which one is correct, and why?

Edit: The APA are withstanding on their belief that it cannot be determined as of yet whether it is genetic or not. The whole debate is subjective. There are no objective findings surrounding the causal link.

Lauren
you must know some are born
the way they are.

Twin studies- twins raised apart- support biological factors also. No theres no hard proof as such but there is a growing body of evidence in support of differences in biological make-up of gay people. There are no common experiential factors in the upbringing/life of gay people.

And intuition and experience tells me that those feelings/preferences are entirely natural, its biology/chemistry n all that JazZ

...and aswell as the Swedish study (Tom mentioned), Le Vay 1993, http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...ists-link.html

And I think this might be what Arista is thinking about, something along those lines maybe...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...explained.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4215427.stm

Exactly, which brings me back to my original point that it's a predisposition, but I obviously can't back this up with HARD PROOF, cos there exists none.

I think its more than a predisposition. If we're attracted to the opposite sex its just a natural biological thing, why is it any different if your attracted to the same sex? Why do identical twins bought up apart both turnout to be gay? Why dont people who are gay share common childhood experiences that would indicate that experience is key? Why is it that the people I grew up with who have turned out to be gay(to no suprise) have no distinguishing experiential factors to speak of?

And we cant really back anything up with hard proof even our own existance...theres just evidence pointing mostly one way or another

omg so interesting

loving this concept

nnn @ these old Marsh threads being bumped

You helping me with my science revision for my mock tomorrow you little gem!!! :love:

Marsh if you vote me to win TiBB BB I can make this thread dissapear

Living for Tom's winning campaign

Living for my revision

well I can make it disappear faster

(note: Marsh at least I can spell disappear properly)