Study Suggests Sexual Orientation Is Decided Before Birth

[Dr Strangelove]

Golly! Why would anyone expect something involving the human brain to be less complicated?

[DarthVeda]

Eventually we will be able to modify the genetic structure of the unborn. So will parents be able to choose their child's sexual preference before birth?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Does anybody remember the British study circa 1997-8 that said that homosexuals had different general thumbprint patterns than heterosexuals?

I remember that because I was in the finishing year at my all-girls school when that piece of news hit the streets, and all the other girls went around looking at each others' thumbs. At that time, it had been a bad winter and my fingers had all cracked and peeled, so they couldn't tell anything from my thumbprints

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Golly! Why would anyone expect something involving the human brain to be less complicated?

Yeah, who would have thought THAT, Beavis?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Curiosity


There is, in that homosexuality obviously reduces the chances of an individual passing on genes. In should be impossible for evolution to select directly for homosexual traits, certainly to the exclusion of heterosexual traits.

It could be an offshoot of some other factor which is advantagous in some other way (male bonding, say).



Anyway, the study is awful. I've heard better studies on identical twins, which indicated that if one twin is gay then the other has a 50% chance of being gay; so at least some gay people are not 'born gay', though some may be.

Or to quote the first page of every genetics textbook ever written, genotype plus environment equals phenotype. For some reason people ignore this every time they study human traits, and we end up discovering it all over again...

Um... none of these are a priori arguments.

[Curiosity]

Originally posted by Agathon

Um... none of these are a priori arguments.

Strictly speaking no a priori arguments apply to scientific analysis. I assumed you were not using the term literally, given that it would be meaningless.

My initial two paragraphs (the rest wasn't aimed at you in particular) assume only basic evolutionary theory. I've spent enough hours of my life writing kiloword rebutals of attacks on evolution, so if you want to disagree with that assumption then ít's your loss, not mine.

[Cookie Monster]

I'm sorry I don't buy any arguement that people are biologically influenced to make certain life decisions.

It is the sign of a weak pathetic person when they can't admit that they made a choice about lifestyle. Be proud of who you are I say.

Now if I was born missing a chromosome and became mentally retarded would that be because of personal choice? No, that is an example of biologically determined fate.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Curiosity


Strictly speaking no a priori arguments apply to scientific analysis. I assumed you were not using the term literally, given that it would be meaningless.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make.

Look at the context. Azazel was basically just ruling the possibility of the adaptational theory out of court. This was my sarcastic way of replying.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Cookie Monster
I'm sorry I don't buy any arguement that people are biologically influenced to make certain life decisions.

It is the sign of a weak pathetic person when they can't admit that they made a choice about lifestyle. Be proud of who you are I say.

Now if I was born missing a chromosome and became mentally retarded would that be because of personal choice? No, that is an example of biologically determined fate.

You're really distorting what sexual orientation is -- which is part of an identity of a person, which in of itself, is not a choice.

On the other hand, how a homosexual decides to live his/her life is definitely based on individual choice: marrying into a heterosexual marriage out of fear, coming out to friends and family, and countless of other possible choices.

[Caligastia]

It can't be a choice - who would choose that??

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MrFun


Yeah, who would have thought THAT, Beavis?

Well, I'm not a penguin anyway, are you?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Caligastia
It can't be a choice - who would choose that??

'That' being what, exactly?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by molly bloom


'That' being what, exactly?

Homosexuality.

[Az]

Look at the context. Azazel was basically just ruling the possibility of the adaptational theory out of court. This was my sarcastic way of replying.

Ruling out? you can't rule out anything in science. What I am saying that with current evidence, this seems not to be the case, and I'll need some very strong evidence to prove it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Well, I'm not a penguin anyway, are you?

eh?