I forgot how many times I quoted the same line in the ORIGINAL PAPER, but for your sake I'll do it again:The paper provides evidence that there is a correlation.  The article provides no conclusions about causality.

For your reading pleasure.  Go nuts.

hey thanks for explaining the difference between correlation and causation again, how about next time you explain the difference between evidence and proof oh wait someone else would be better suited for this.

maybe my example wasn't the best, but there are lots of things that aren't fully proven and are somewhat accepted in society, right? what if I took a new theory completely out of my ass and said it was just as valid as the one before? I'm sure no one would agree with me, right?

We're getting a bit off-topic here, but meh.

A lot of things are accepted in society that aren't fully proven.  For that matter, a lot of things are accepted in society that turn out to be opinions or sheerly false, and therefore, they cannot logically be taken into a debate as evidence that the opposing side is wrong.

Well then please explain what kind of environmental factors and "choices" you think causes homosexuality

Here's the two sides of our little debate:
Azure: Believes that it is possible that homosexuality is attributed to factors that are not entirely caused by physical means, and that it can possibly be controlled through psychological measures.
Mince: ??? (This isn't intended to be offensive, but I've never really understood whether your side of the argument is "homosexuality is physical" or something else)

I do not see why I have to even answer that question, especially considering that it's not only too specific for the topic but is also a trap to ignore the actual point and pick cherries from details.  I simply believe that there are external and social factors that may contribute to homosexuality, and your point in the argument (since the burden of proof lies on you) is either to prove me wrong or offer your belief in the matter and prove me wrong on any point that does not agree.

But if you're really looking for an answer: no one knows.  Social factors are complex, and if I can actually give an infallible, provable, and correct answer (or even a highly probably and researchable event), then I would be contacting the Madison psychology department and publishing this in a psychology journal.  I won't be debating on a internet forum.

jesus christ, I hate when people pull the ITS AN IOPINION shit. you can't post horrible 'opinions' that have no basis on reality and expect no one to get pissed and start arguing. in my post, I was explaining to him why his OPINION isn't a valid stance to have. he didn't even post that it'd still be conceivably possible to change your sexual orientation, he flat out stated 'I think you can choose to be gay or straight' in so many words. and no one is supposed to disagree! -azurefenrir

I see.  Since you've been here for longer than I have, let me ask you one question.  When people post a topic on GW, what are the majority of responses to said topic?  Are they all opinions justified by unparalleled and undoubtable facts that leave no doubt to disagreement, or do they simply post opinions?  I think you know the answer to that question yourself.  At least since 2003, people have been posting just opinions that are not backed by concrete facts, and now you're suddenly saying that certain people has no right to post an opinion that isn't backed by unpalleled and undeniable facts even as other regulars do so even in THIS thread?

Note that I did not say that "no one is supposed to disagree" - I merely stated that none of the people that disagreed with him has offered supportive evidence to the contrary, which renders his opinion as valid.  It would be like you saying "I think there's a God," and me saying "No, you're wrong," and you having to GIVE PROOF to back up that statement even though I never proved my dissent.

hey thanks for explaining the difference between correlation and causation again, how about next time you explain the difference between evidence and proof oh wait someone else would be better suited for this.

Now you're just trolling.

This is what I saw from the thread's progression:

• Topic starter presents BBC article.  Some people agree with the article's implicit conclusion, and some people abstains.  People offer their opinions
  
• Blitzen offered an opinion that contradicts the majority of the population.  Blitzen offers his opinions
  
• People attack Blitzen's belief and start a debate.  People debate Blitzen's opinions.
  
• Blitzen defends his belief's validity while maintaining that it is HIS OPINION.  Blitzen defends the validity of his belief
  
• People get angry and harshly debates Blitzen's opinions.

This happens a lot btw.

But yeah, my opinion is, based on the reasoning I gave before, is that any behaviour we engage in is essentially learned, especially social bahaviours. Render is right in saying that I do think that homosexuality is a choice because of this, because as individuals we have the power to shape our own behaviours. But, I really don't see what's so awful about this except it is saying that people are complicit in their own sexual orientation. And unless there was something fundamentally wrong with loving or being attracted to someone of the same gender (...? idk is there?) then no one should have a problem with standing up and saying this is the life I live because it is the life I choose to live. I acknowledge the findings of the study but brain size as a disposition to being gay, but to me, it will always come down to how the individual chooses to exercise thier free will, including the will of self-conditioning (ie into or out of homosexuality.)

Also, most people could be astronauts and I really don't think it would be that hard if we were all put into astronaut camp for a few years.

Now you're just trolling.

"oh gee he really got me, there's noway i can counter his attack. whatever shall i do? i know, i'll just dismiss it with an internet label"

if anything it would have been flaming btw because the only point of that post was to show you're a moron.

When people post a topic on GW, what are the majority of responses to said topic?  Are they all opinions justified by unparalleled and undoubtable facts that leave no doubt to disagreement, or do they simply post opinions?

You're just using rhetorical questions.

I merely stated

That's an example of minimisation.

Social factors are complex, and if I can actually give an infallible, provable, and correct answer (or even a highly probably and researchable event), then I would be contacting the Madison psychology department and publishing this in a psychology journal.  I won't be debating on a internet forum.

This is a hypothetical situation.

When people post a topic on GW, what are the majority of responses to said topic?

This is an attempt to sound academic.

So now that I've proven your arguments to be invalid I would appreciate if you would quit your debauchery.

Note that I did not say that "no one is supposed to disagree" - I merely stated that none of the people that disagreed with him has offered supportive evidence to the contrary, which renders his opinion as valid.  It would be like you saying "I think there's a God," and me saying "No, you're wrong," and you having to GIVE PROOF to back up that statement even though I never proved my dissent.

the heck? I don't get why you're so confused about this. I told him that his stance on this matter is not a valid one to have, and I explained why. this isn't about providing proof of the contrary, it's about exposing the holes in an unfounded position.

At least since 2003, people have been posting just opinions that are not backed by concrete facts, and now you're suddenly saying that certain people has no right to post an opinion that isn't backed by unpalleled and undeniable facts even as other regulars do so even in THIS thread?

um nope?? I came back in 2006/2007, and since I left in 2004 GW as a whole has matured a lot. somewhere along the line we realized that people should be able to back up their claims, and that actual discussion and debate is a lot better than WELL I BELIEVE THIS. seriously I don't know where you've been hanging around because GW hasn't been about mindless spamming of baseless opinions for a long time. are you sure you aren't thinking of RM network???

that attitude you have is a very american sort of bootstrapping viewpoint which has been proven inaccurate countless times. no, not everyone can be an astronaut!!

I think this is the only thing you really offered as a counterargument, and is pretty much baseless. What you could interpret as the failure of this idea I could interpret as its success, that people choose to fail, choose to succeed, etc etc. Really I think it comes back down to that matter of opinion as to weather or no you think people have control over shaping thier own behaviours. I think they do, so I think homosexuality is a choice. If you don't, then you don't and that is where we have to agree to disagree.

i think that for people who aren't terrible human beings homosexuality being a choice or not never mattered. it only matters for horrible people because the idea of "homosexuality being a choice" helps them have a good night sleep. 

I think its a choice the same way being an asshole is a choice.

the problem with Blitzen's stance is that even if in his case he doesn't say that it's a bad thing because it's a choice, it gives others what they need to justify their homophobic claims, if being homosexual is a conscious choice, then all the problems they have because of it can be solved just by stop being gay. why allow them to marry if they can just stop being gay? why stop beating them in the streets? if they don't like it they can always get straight. so if they don't it's  because they like to being treated like subhumans.
see what the problem is?

I never said it's because of genetics, I said it's not a choice you can make.

But you say you believe it is influenced by choice.

Nobody choses to become homo.

If they do it won't work just like a homosexual trying to be straight. If it works they were gay already and just came out of the closet.

They may act straight but their sexual desires etc are still homosexual.

just an observation.

"homo" is derogatory please refrain from using it.

"oh gee he really got me, there's noway i can counter his attack. whatever shall i do? i know, i'll just dismiss it with an internet label"

*sigh* Then why not just drop the flaming and insulting people and argue like mature adults?

You're just using rhetorical questions.

Incorrect.  I answered those questions later in the same argument.  I won't use any terms; rather, quoting incomplete portions of my argument and calling it a fallacy is itself a fallacy.

That's an example of minimisation.

There is no such fallacy.

This is a hypothetical situation.

First, this is not used to support an argument.  Second, it is a situation in relation to I, a reference to myself; therefore, it is not a fallacy.

This is an attempt to sound academic.

...

So now that I've proven your arguments to be invalid I would appreciate if you would quit your debauchery.

I should note that never once in this thread did I insult you or anyone else.  I would greatly appreciate it if you gave me the same level of respect that I give to you, though the only thing you did in this thread is to make snide inflammatory remarks to me.  Tell me, though: what do you want me to do in this thread?  It can't be "remain silent, do not argue, and acknowledge that we're right," can it?

the heck? I don't get why you're so confused about this. I told him that his stance on this matter is not a valid one to have, and I explained why. this isn't about providing proof of the contrary, it's about exposing the holes in an unfounded position.

I reread your argument.  Your first post concluded that Blitzen's arguments does not prove his theory.  I agree with you there - the social/choice side of the argument has no concrete evidence to back its claims.  Your first post also concluded that Blitzen is completely wrong, giving the following argument:

it has nothing to do with being able to change yourself to the extent of being able to choose your sexual orientation. the whole argument you guys are having about WELL DIFFERENT PLACES THINK BEAUTY IS THIS has nothing to do with this shit. differences in the perception of beauty are the result of external influences that become deeply ingrained in a person's mind. and once there, they can't really be removed or OVERWRITTEN as you're suggesting. you gather these perceptions of the world as you're growing up and removing them is most likely impossible. and of course there's no evidence that sexuality is at all the same as perceptions of beauty and suggesting it is is pretty ignorant in itself

The argument stated against Blitzen's support for his theory, which I agree on.  Other than the statement that removing perceptions about the world is most likely impossible (which is also an opinion), you did not invalidate the belief at all.  Therefore, Blitzen's stance has not yet been proven invalid.  Your second post.

blitzen man it's not fate. ugh not being a fatalist doesn't mean you gotta think you can change everything about your mind just with BRAIN POWER. fate is bullshit, but in acknowledging this I also realize BIOLOGY EXISTS and that people have a lot less control over themselves than anyone would like to think. that attitude you have is a very american sort of bootstrapping viewpoint which has been proven inaccurate countless times. no, not everyone can be an astronaut!!

This is an assertion of your opinion, and an attempt to call Blitzen's ideas "american sort of bootstrapping...which has been proven inaccurate countless times."  Since the rest of your arguments are with me, you haven't exposed holes in his position; you merely showed that Blitzen has no concrete evidence for his argument - which no one in this thread currently does.

At least, when I read Blitzen's post, I assumed that he meant that homosexuality may be determined by something that isn't concretely physical (which is what his rhetoric suggested).  If he really did mean "you can choose to be gay at any time," then I have no argument.

um nope?? I came back in 2006/2007, and since I left in 2004 GW as a whole has matured a lot. somewhere along the line we realized that people should be able to back up their claims, and that actual discussion and debate is a lot better than WELL I BELIEVE THIS. seriously I don't know where you've been hanging around because GW hasn't been about mindless spamming of baseless opinions for a long time. are you sure you aren't thinking of RM network???

I won't question you on this and will simply admit that I'm wrong.  This still leaves us with two sides of the argument, neither of which has concrete support.  No reason to single out Blitzen on his and flame his opinions without questioning the other.

Actually:

Homosexuality is not a choice in the same way pedophilia isnt one either. however acting upon your homosexual impulses is a choice and i think this is what the mildly intelligent homophobes use to support their statement. acting upon your pedophile impulses is also a choise but the latter is a horrible thing to do the former is not bad at all (the former involves two concenting adults)

I don't mean to pick on Marmot (since I do believe that you are allowed to state your opinions on a forum), but Rendar, your post and Marmot's post are examples of people just coming to post their opinions.  I know that I'm arguing by example here; my point is: a forum is meant for a person to post opinions.  If Blitzen has been proven wrong and still maintains that he's right, that's another story.  However, if you can't prove him wrong, then there's no reason that his opinion should be banned any more than yours even if it goes against the rest of the community.  If you disagree with him, prove him wrong; until then, he hasn't done anything to degrade himself, and there's no reason to throw insult.

the problem with Blitzen's stance is that even if in his case he doesn't say that it's a bad thing because it's a choice, it gives others what they need to justify their homophobic claims, if being homosexual is a conscious choice, then all the problems they have because of it can be solved just by stop being gay. why allow them to marry if they can just stop being gay? why stop beating them in the streets? if they don't like it they can always get straight. so if they don't it's  because they like to being treated like subhumans.
see what the problem is?

My apologies if I offended you with my arguments, Cray; I don't mean to sound confrontational or threatening.  However, you can't just dismiss a viewpoint as wrong simply because it gives others what they need to justify their claims.  It's true that there are people that won't accept other peoples' choices, but if science does eventually link a social cause to homosexuality, then that's how the world turns.  Same argument goes for science linking homosexuality to physical means.  Emotions does not justify either side of the argument.

Homosexuality is not a choice in the same way pedophilia isnt one either. however acting upon your homosexual impulses is a choice and i think this is what the mildly intelligent homophobes use to support their statement. acting upon your pedophile impulses is also a choise but the latter is a horrible thing to do the former is not bad at all (the former involves two concenting adults)

I don't mean to pick on Marmot (since I do believe that you are allowed to state your opinions on a forum), but Rendar, your post and Marmot's post are examples of people just coming to post their opinions.  I know that I'm arguing by example here; my point is: a forum is meant for a person to post opinions.  If Blitzen has been proven wrong and still maintains that he's right, that's another story.  However, if you can't prove him wrong, then there's no reason that his opinion should be banned any more than yours even if it goes against the rest of the community.  If you disagree with him, prove him wrong; until then, he hasn't done anything to degrade himself, and there's no reason to throw insult.

i dont need to read his billion of posts to realize that the whole thing of "homosexuality being a choice" is wrong. its only an argument put forward by godsuckers who think that our minds are disembodies spirits separated from the enviroment and the genes. its almost like saying that mental retardation is also a choice.

Azure: you didn't offend me or anything don't worry. But so far you've told us that we can't eliminate Blitzen's point of view, but on the other side there's nothing to prove it neither, just his opinion. And I've asked several times, if his point was true, why so many gays have NOT been able to change it? and what if my opinion was that gays are mind controlling aliens? you have no proof that it isn't true, so why is my claim any less valid that Blitzen's?

tbh I can't believe this has gone so far

I think this is the only thing you really offered as a counterargument, and is pretty much baseless. What you could interpret as the failure of this idea I could interpret as its success, that people choose to fail, choose to succeed, etc etc. Really I think it comes back down to that matter of opinion as to weather or no you think people have control over shaping thier own behaviours. I think they do, so I think homosexuality is a choice. If you don't, then you don't and that is where we have to agree to disagree.

I guess you really want to believe that it's a choice to be gay (which is what you're saying, believe it or not!), but there's absolutely no way you can prove or even test this. you just don't know how other people's minds work, regardless of how much LOGICAL REASONING and pseudopsychology you toss around. as is, you're just telling everyone how weird you think gay folks are and how much you want to believe that they don't have to be gay if they didn't want to, even though there's absolutely no evidence to back this up and you're really just giving yourself a bad image

blitzen man it's not fate. ugh not being a fatalist doesn't mean you gotta think you can change everything about your mind just with BRAIN POWER. fate is bullshit, but in acknowledging this I also realize BIOLOGY EXISTS and that people have a lot less control over themselves than anyone would like to think. that attitude you have is a very american sort of bootstrapping viewpoint which has been proven inaccurate countless times. no, not everyone can be an astronaut!!

wait are you confused about how genes and physiological matters determine to a large extent how a person's mind works? because this is some pretty well-established psychological/biological stuff, there are probably loads of articles on the net explaining it and I know I just read it in my psych book about a year ago.

you merely showed that Blitzen has no concrete evidence for his argument - which no one in this thread currently does

except no one's saying they KNOW how a person can or cannot be a homosexual, besides him! congrats man you figured out the problem here why did it take you so long.

At least, when I read Blitzen's post, I assumed that he meant that homosexuality may be determined by something that isn't concretely physical (which is what his rhetoric suggested).  If he really did mean "you can choose to be gay at any time," then I have no argument.

Render is right in saying that I do think that homosexuality is a choice

<azurefenrir> oops well that was a waste!!!

I think what Cray has said is very true. I HAVE actively tried to stop feeling attracted to the same sex, and when I was a Christian I would sit up in bed every night praying to god to make me straight. Of course my individual experience can't be used for scientific inquiry because it's mostly subjective, but I think most gay people will admit to the same experiences.

I think it's important to remain objective about any scientific question, even on sexuality, but the evidence simply suggests a concrete biological link. No, I don't think it PROVES anything at all, only suggests. There is also more evidence concerning hormones during pregnancy, where younger siblings are more likely to be gay. This chance increases as more older siblings are put into the picture. In an evolutionary context, this probably makes some sense, because the more children one has the more resources are used to support those children. Just a thought! Furthermore, because of the vastly important evolutionary purpose BEHIND sexuality (required for the continuation of our species), it probably has to be more complicated and innate than just choice and cognition, etc. which developed way after ANIMAL LUST.

edit, also, about the evolution context, that probably isn't right and seems a little group-selectionish which I understand isn't valid! just a though though.

At least, when I read Blitzen's post, I assumed that he meant that homosexuality may be determined by something that isn't concretely physical (which is what his rhetoric suggested).  If he really did mean "you can choose to be gay at any time," then I have no argument.

I do mean this, Azure but also I extend it to the realm of choice through the ability of one to define thier own patterns of behaviour. Its not like homosexuality can be turned on and off, but because I do think that it is a conditioned response that it could be learned or unlearned by oneself or by outside stimuli. There are cases of people who undergo a revision of thier sexual orientation, and then there are people who waver in thier sexual orientation, or have no particular preference, but no matter the case, because I have the earnest opinion that people have the ability to shape thier own behaviours, over and above thier sociological & pysiological predispositions, then I think that homo/bisexuality is a choice.

except no one's saying they KNOW how a person can or cannot be a homosexual, besides him! congrats man you figured out the problem here why did it take you so long.
<azurefenrir> oops well that was a waste!!!

Looks like I got caught up in that topic shift.  Sorry.

I for one think that you become a homosexual when you engange in homosexual activity

I am just not one for such fatalistic arguments

Really, my dislike for this theory has little to do with gays and more to do with the ability of one to shape his own psyche and self. It comes down the question that I have heard lots of gays pose, that we "can't change who we are"

I don't think the answer is ever as simple as being "born gay".

No, he didn't.  Now that I read your first post, I don't know why you were so caught up with him.  All of his opinions were clearly denoting that it's his belief and not universal truth, just like:

I'm pretty sure in 1910 they didn't like big breasts that much. In 1800 they also had other standards. In 1600 they also had other standards and so on. It's cultural, not instinctive.

I think there would be a choice as well, only not in the way you're describing it.

And unlike:

what the fuck are you talking about. you're homosexual when you are sexually attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex.

So I don't know what you mean when you said that Blitzen was the only one who said he knows!!!

Now it turns out that I don't actually agree with Blitzen's views fully, but the fact still remains that he did not say he KNOWs how a person can or cannot be a homosexual

Still he hasn't backed up anything, not even a study that could suggest he is right, we have told him that if his opinion was right, then many gay people would succed in making themselves straight, yet they don't, so his opinion must have a problem right?

Or you could respectfully disagree with my opinionand leave it at that, because holding it myself doesn't do harm to anyone and I would say that by expressing it that it encourages people to change themselves in any way they see fit on a behavioural level as well as encourages people to be accountable for the scope of the lives that they live, homosexual or otherwise. Personally, I do not see how these are bad things.

Well this is a debate, right? I'm pretty sure  that if we don't agree with the opinions of someone for one reason or another I have all the right to express mine and tell that person I don't agree.