lgb athletes (Page 3)

Tell me what gene is responsible for your eye color and when was "it" discovered.

How about "the gene" for "intellegence" or is that a choice as well?

so you agree that there is A LOT that science doesnt know?

you dont need some higher education for this, just common sense. something that many people are turning away from these days.

how much sway does a culture have in "helping" to shape a persons sexuality by desensitizing them to it?

Few more studies as outlined here - http://www.truthwinsout.org/opinion/2011/10/19114/

• In 1993, the National Institute of Health’s Dean Hamer illustrated that homosexuality might be inherited from the mother by her sons through a specific region of the X chromosome (Xq28). Hamer demonstrated this by noting that 33 out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers whom he studied showed the same variation in the tip of the chromosome.

• A June 2006 Canadian study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that nature, not nurture, explains the origins of homosexuality. The study’s author, Prof. Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario, explored the causes behind what is known as the fraternal birth order. The research showed a correlation between the number of biological older brothers a man has and his sexual orientation. Dividing his sample of more than 900 heterosexual and homosexual men into four groups, Bogaert examined the impact of all types of older brothers, including step and adopted siblings, and the amount of time brothers spent together while growing up. His research found that only the number of biological brothers had an impact on sexuality, regardless of whether the boys were raised together.

• A study released in May 2006 by Swedish scientists demonstrated that biology plays a key role in determining a person’ sexuality. The research showed that the area of the brain that helps regulate sexuality — the hypothalamus – reacted the exact same way in straight women and gay men when exposed to male pheromones, which are chemicals designed to provoke a behavior such as sexual arousal. The same area of the brain only became stimulated in heterosexual men when introduced to female pheromones.

• In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a study in the esteemed biomedical journal Human Genetics, claiming he identified three chromosomal regions linked to sexual orientation in men: 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26.

• In 2003, University of Texas psychoacoustics specialist Dennis McFadden found that when measuring the way the brain reacts to sound, lesbians fell in between heterosexual men and straight women, suggesting they might be exposed to higher than normal levels of male hormones in utero.

• In 2003, University of Liverpool biologist John T. Manning found that the lesbians whom he studied have a hand pattern that “resembles a man’s more than a straight female.” Manning concluded from his study that this “strongly tells us that female homosexuals have had higher levels of exposure to testosterone before birth.”

• A 1991 study by Dr. Simon LeVay found that a specific region of the hypothalamus is twice as large in heterosexual men as it is in women or gay men. This strongly points to the role of biology in sexual orientation.

• Another 1991 study by scientists Richard Pillard and John M. Bailey studied homosexuality among brothers and found that 53 percent of identical twins were both gay. In adoptive brothers, 11 percent were both homosexual. Of non-twin biological siblings, 9 percent were gay. Again, this points to solid evidence that homosexuality is a matter of nature.

• The June/July 2006 issue of Seed Magazine points out that at least 450 vertebrate species engage in homosexual behavior.

I have noticed whenever this any kind of thread that involves talk about homosexuality there are a few people that troll and get the topics way off.

Good job guys.

If Facebook is any indication, it's certainly not Mykonos.  Or P-town.  Or Swinging Richards.

Some people's "common sense" is neither common nor makes much sense.

as many links and posts you will have on your stance, i can have just as many.

FYI, the results from that 1993 study are already junked.

Link?

Google.com  

And just to go back to this initial quote, so what if it were a choice?  It makes it no less an issue, one that is important to some, but clearly not to others. 

Even if it were a choice, which there is overwhelming evidence that it is not, that shouldn't change the fact that LBGT do not and are not legally equally recognized in our country.  And THAT is a problem.

it's your choice to be different, no one is taking that right away. 

Marriage.  That is taken away.

no, you forfeited it by your choice to be different.

^^^  This Crowny!

I feel like I am in The Newsroom.

Without rehashing the whole argument going on above this, even this statement is nonsense. Unless your position is about acting on one's sexuality, which does not appear to be what you are saying, you are taking a reductionist approach that is easily debunked. I deal with people whose mental illnesses emerge at later points in life (NOT calling homosexuality a mental illness - stay with me, people). Schizophrenia, mania, dementia - all have evidence of genetic (and to some degree environmental) influences. None are "choices". My colleagues deal with diabetes, cancer, heart disease - again, genetic and environmental influences, not choices. Yes people can make choices that decrease or increase their risks. Doesn't mean they escape or will get the disease in question.

While there are few ways (none that I know of off hand) of telling whether someone is gay at the age of 3,5 or 8, similarly, there are no ways to predict the outcome of the conditions I noted above. They emerge when they emerge, like sexuality.

The only way, btw, that it makes any kind of logical sense to say that homosexuality is "a choice" is if one is themselves either gay or bi, and making conscious choices to engage in heterosexual acts. No one, for example, says "having sex with toasters is a choice" - because no one struggles with their attraction to an appliance. But if one has attractions to the same sex and doesn't want to act on it, one may well project that onto others, and call it a "conscious choice" - since for that person, it is.

So sexual attraction isnt really a choice (per your description).  But is it the same for a pedophile who says he is pre-wired to be attracted to children?  Who are we to tell him then that he shouldnt be doing that if sexual attraction isnt a choice and he's just programmed to prefer?

Or does it only go for sexual activity we want to legalize?

I usually don't jump into any kind of controversial discussion because...well... I don't care, but I did want to say that I am a gay female and no way in H E Double hockey sticks would I ever CHOOSE to be gay. I lived most of my life trying to like guys and be flattered by men who had an obvious crush on me. The sad fact is that I found no attraction to them and was actually annoyed and a bit disgusted by it. I always found myself liking girls more, I didn't really understand why, because I didn't want to be gay, to have that stereotype placed on me. I finally found someone whom I really loved and who loved me back, and it was another woman, so I had to accept the fact that I was gay. Thankfully everyone I have told has been ok with it, but I'm not "out" to many people, only select friends and family. 

My thoughts are that other people  have no business telling me who I should or shouldn't love, and I have no business getting all worked up about their way of thinking. Everyone is different and everyone is entitled to an opinion. I may not like it, but I'm not going make a huge deal out of it when it doesn't affect me. 

Very sadly, there is also some solid evidence (nothing near as that for homosexuality) that pedophilia is a given, not chosen, sexual orientation. Chronic pedophiliac thoughts and behaviors are very resistant to treatment/therapy/change, even when the pedophile has great impetus to change.

The difference here is that by engaging in it, one harms minors; it is always abuse or rape since minors cannot give legal consent.

Wow...  Threads are like that "telephone" game.

I read the first post about lgb athletes and the last post about pedofiles and wonder about the "interesting" path that must have been taken to get there.

Dar be tolls in dem woods.