There are some studies out there that are very scientific and that have been done with a high degree of integrity. Unfortunately, most of us don't get access to them.
Generally there aren't links on the internet to credible scientific proof for any topic, much less homosexuality research. It just doesn't work that way.
Publications of scientific literature are costly - the investigations are costly, they take a lot of time, and the institutions that fund such research put a lot of resources into it. As a result, they want to get the most out of it.
Subsequently, in order for us to see the more significant and credible scientific studies on any topic, we usually need to have access to scientific journals, and that can be expensive.
So no, I can't really post any. For one thing, they're hard to come by. For another, while I support the notion of an integrated society, I have other priorities in my life and haven't allocated the time it would take to finding out if a given study on homosexuality is flawed or not.
I'm more interested in a couple of other topics, so those get the majority of my time, and analyzing a scientific study to see if the methods were credible or not is a pretty daunting task. In this case, it's expensive too.
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by rights to hand down to them."~ Theodore Roosevelt (Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907)
That said, I do believe that credible academic sources - sources that have historically proven themselves to be scrupulous and diligent in their work - have stated that the studies indicating homosexuality is hereditary are credible.
On one hand we can outright dismiss about 95% of studies done on the topic completely because they're simply crappy studies. The Kinsey Reports are a good example. So is most of the crap produced by Focus on the Family.
That leaves us with a smaller pool of studies, most of which neither you nor I have personal access to.
But institutions such as Harvard, Yale, UCLA, Georgetown and others - institutions that are credible, that know what they're doing, and that have a track record for "good science" have weighed in on the topic to tell people that yeah, the evidence really does tend to show a genetic link.
So no, I haven't personally seen the data or drawn a conclusion on the matter.
I also do not need to personally drown to know I can't breathe under water either.
We can't each individually investigate every issue of curiosity on the planet. We at some stage have to find consistently credible sources and take their word for it. Homosexuality and it's genetic links is one such issue I've chosen to do so on.
"This is consistent
with theoretical and empirical studies, which show that
individual experiences are a powerful determinant of
human sexual behaviour and self-identity (Churchill 1967;
Enquist et al. 2002; for other species, see D’Udine & Alleva
1983; Hogan & Bolhius 1994). Indeed, it is still possible
that the higher incidence of homosexuality in the maternal
line results from culturally, rather than genetically, inherited
The other two say basically the same thing.
No, you did not. I mentioned zero about choice. That was the gist of your response. Completely uncoordinated with my comment. Your partisan statement also demonstrated that you were addressing what you want to hear, not what was said.I responded to what you did say, not what I wanted you to say. I did make an assumption however.
If not, then the "liberal" statement would not have occurred. "If it walks like a duck..."I am not a conservative in general, though I agree I may be considered so on this issue...and some others.
My comment stands. You have no evidence that homosexual act are unnatural or unsavory, other than your own opinion that they are unnatural or unsavory. These are logical fallacies that you cannot prove.Lastly, I didn't refer to homosexuality as unnatural or unsavory. I refereed to disagreeing with it as I do to other acts which are unnatural or unsavory. It is you that jumped to conclusions.
And I have read scores and scores of studies, have posted results of many of these studies here at DP, and have looked into studies on homosexuality going back to Freud. You claim to be informed on the issue, but if that were the case, your use of adjectives would not be as they were. Also, if you were informed, you would have read that researchers have stated that they are unsure precisely where sexual orientation is developed. Notice, I used the words sexual orientation. If you were as informed as you claim, you would know that the issue really isn't about homosexuality when the discussion of the development of sexual orientation is presented, but it is of sexual orientation in general. Also, if you were as uninformed as you claim, you would know that most researchers postulate that sexual orientation develops from a combination of the following components: biology, genetics, brain/hormonal chemistry, environment.My thesis was a comparative study of over 50 studies of homosexuality completed within the last 120 years. It was not a study of homosexuality itself but rather an analysis of the results of other studies. There was not one study that conclusively stated that homosexuality is not a choice. I am, Sir, relatively informed on the issue.
I hope that has informed you a bit more.
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.