The Classic Homosexuality Debate

[PsychGuy]

[QUOTE]

Studies have shown that fat people did not "choose" to be fat, either,

Actually, yes, there is a genetic component to obesity.

Can you imagine the head angel in charge announcing with a lisp at the end, "Ok, girlsssss, there'sssss a ninety perssssssent chansssse that they can't help it!"

Your callousness and sarcasm really don't contribute anything to the conversation.

What could the studies possibly show, anyway? A percentage range of likelihood that they can/cannot help it? Tendencies? Obviously tendencies are not a rule, are they?

Studies can show at what age children begin to show signs of gender non-conformity, for example. Studies can ask homosexuals, "At what age did you realize you were attracted to the opposite gender?" They can also show the concordance rate of homosexuality between monozygotic twins, even twins raised apart. Have you looked at any of the scientific literature on the subject?

I would like for any Christian that thinks homosexuals "were born that way" to reconcile that with God "knitting" us all in the womb.

Well unless you believe we're all born sinless, that's a question I'd love to turn back around to you and just ask about sin in general...if God knit us together in the womb, why aren't we sinless? Do you have kids? Did you teach them to lie?

Most homosexuals were also making choices at a very early age.

What choices, exactly? If a three year old boy is put in a room with barbie dolls and army figurines, and he goes for the barbie dolls, do you think he's intentionally trying to "become" gay? He's just picking the toy he'd rather play with.

Or getting molested at a very early age. Or lacking a strong male/female figure.

I think you'd have a hard time showing evidence that "most" homosexuals were victims of child molestation. There is evidence to suggest that gay men have more distant relationships to their fathers and closer relationships to their mothers.

Christ didn't need to have a relationship to show us how to be a man, now did He? And I didn't say "show people how to have a heterosexual relationship", as if that's entirely possible. I said show them how to be like Christ and they will figure out how to have one.

You can't "figure out" how to be attracted to someone. This is why Christian homosexuals, who recognize that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful, often choose to remain celibate.

For some reason Paul thought it was possible to do all things through Christ who strengthens us, and for some reason I agree with him. For heaven's sake, there are men out there who think they can't be blamed for their pornography addiction, which is just as ridiculous.

Sexual orientation and addiction are two very different things. There is a similarity between them in the sense that many addicts don't feel they can end their addiction, and most people do not feel it would be possible to change their sexual orientation. The difference is that we have a ton of evidence showing that addictions can be successfully treated, and very meager evidence for the possibility of sexual orientation change.

I can identify an attractive man, roughly, yes. And I'm sure if I had learned to associate my own conscious/subconscious needs with what a man tends to represent, I would be able to imagine being with a man. As it is, I was too manly even as a child and I'm ridiculously manly now, so the idea is quite naturally repulsive.

I should repeat myself: there are lots of masculine gay men. I'm sorry that this does not fit into your theory, but it's just reality.

I ask them and pay attention. It's also consistent with my elegant (but simple to figure out) theory.

The elegant and simple truth is that personality alone does not equate to sexual attraction. Physicality, with its direct link to biology, has a very obvious role.

Again, this is only evidence that by now, the personality traits I am seeking in a potential mate (I'm married, so I am speaking hypothetically) are ones I consider to be personified in a woman and not a man. He would only become my best friend if his personality was similar to my own (that's how it works between heterosexual individuals of the same sex, they do not need anything from one another, so they become friends based on shared interests/similar personalities).

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. I've had lots of needy, straight, same-sex friends.

But assuming he was the most womanly man around, I still would not be able to overcome the fact that by now I associate the personality traits I find desirable exclusively with women.

Again, you're under this odd notion (at least in the way that you're talking) that personality alone causes attraction. I'm sorry, but this is simply not the case. There is a visceral, biological reaction we have when we simply see someone who is physically attractive. Have you never heard of love at first sight?

For example, I am not at all attracted to tribeswomen in indigenous cultures, not because they are necessarily less attractive physically than women from more advanced cultures, but because they strike me as more masculine or childish, respectively. And yet within those cultures they are obviously quite feminine.

This is really an expression of cultural norms rather than sexual orientation. We're all, gay or straight, predisposed to enter relationships with people similar to ourselves. But this in no way negates that there is something biological going on beneath those layers of culture. If I were to give you a line-up of 10 American, heterosexual women you would be able to say which one you were more attracted to purely on looks. This doesn't mean that other factors don't play a role, particularly when considering long-term relationships, but to deny that there's something biological happening is just sticking your head in the sand.

This is not an argument.

Correct. It's an observation. There are masculine gay men and feminine lesbians. I've met a few. Again, I'm sorry that this bursts your bubble, but it's just the reality of the situation.

Yes, anything.

I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark and say they would probably confine themselves to members of their own species. Just because you're heterosexual doesn't mean you'd have sex with any woman, does it?

Who is funding these studies?

Universities and scientific foundations throughout North America and Europe, primarily (although some in Asia, too).

What is there expressed intention?

To study sexual orientation scientifically.

Are the attempts at reversing sexual orientation under Christian supervision?

Almost exclusively, yes.

I'd rather not waste my time trying to reconcile reality with the world's preferred view of reality.

Or is it that you'd rather not waste your time reconciling reality with YOUR preferred view of reality?

[Darfius]

Darfius:
Identification of an aesthetically attractive woman does not necessarily mean they're attracted to them. I can, for example, evaluate the relative attractiveness of two males without being homosexual.

Nor did I say it did mean such. I was making a point about what really underlies personal attraction being based on personality traits, especially as associated with either men/women after much reinforcement.

Oh, really? Firstly, that's a huge blanket assertion. Are you sure it's not, for instance, the fact that they don't like the gender?

Yes, really. Everything in this discussion is "assertion", but some assertions make more sense than others. They don't like the gender because said gender is what they have disassociated with the personality traits they find attractive. For example, I used to prefer Dr. Pepper to Coke before I learned that high fructose corn syrup kills people and switched to organic. I preferred Dr. Pepper so much, in fact, that my aversion to Coke was greater than the taste actually warranted. Subconsciously my reinforcement of Dr. Pepper had made Coke appear as something I disliked, rather than something I merely did not prefer.

I agree that attractiveness is a combined thing between physical attractiveness, emotional attractiveness and their personalities. Physical attractiveness is, as the name would implies, based off physical matters. Yes, it's shallow, and it's no basis for a relationship of any kind. But by saying that physical attractiveness is heavily reliant on personality is, quite simply, misusing and misunderstanding the word "Physical".

The physical attractiveness is quite apparently developed based on conscious/subconscious choices reinforced over a person's lifetime. That's why babies do not pop out attracted to one another. Men who prefer the personality traits more often embodied in a woman learn to associate the body types peculiar to women with said personality traits until the physical stimuli becomes inseperable from their idea of the feminine. When one considers that what is considered "physically attractive" varies from culture to culture, one sees strong evidence for this. What remains dominant is that men prefer the feminine embodied in women and women prefer the masculine embodied in men as perceived within their own respective cultures.

Yes. Assuming by masculine you mean the stereotypically masculine, as with feminine. Relationships generally have a more dominant and a more submissive character in them. This doesn't mean one has no power, it just means that one is a figurehead. This isn't always the case, though. Even in heterosexual relationships (For example, mine. Neither of us are dominant on making decisions).

To the person who does not have a vested interest in defending homosexuality (and indeed even to most homosexuals), "dominant" is associated with the masculine while "submissive" is associated with the feminine. This means that homosexuality is abnormal in that the roles are inverted in the mind of the typical homosexual. When the roles are not inverted, at least on the surface, simply chalking it up to perversion is usually sufficient.

So, bisexual means willing to have sex with anything? Well then, heterosexual means willing to have sex with anything of the opposite gender.

To be fair, I suppose the bisexual may just represent a lack of rigidly defined set of desirable personality traits, but that is so rare that yes, bisexuals typically are just willing to have sex with anything. You can feel free to disagree, if that makes you feel warmer inside.

When was the last time you were called to justify being heterosexual?

When was the last time you were called to justify being faithful to your wife? If adultery became an acceptable norm, that does not mean that it therefore becomes morally acceptable.

[Darfius]

Considering the question of the thread is to do with the psychology of the matter, an anti-psychology and anti-scientific-study viewpoint is hardly useful, or indeed, correct.

I don't see the word "psychology" in the OP, and I certainly do not have an anti-scientific viewpoint, though what the heck "scientific study" is supposed to mean is anyone's guess.

More interestingly, evidence points to sexuality being, to use your wording, something that we are "born that way" - How would you reconcile that with that idea? Without dismissing the premise out of hand as it doesn't reconcile with another premise.

What evidence? I suppose if all the evidence I required to change my views was someone saying it, I'd have a lot of reconciling to do.

Did you choose to be heterosexual? Also, No and No.

Somewhat, yes. Not very much consciously, though I do remember first being attracted to girls and it had a lot to do with their perceived femininity. I also chose by being so gosh darn manly, which naturally led me to seek out the feminine.

Which refutes your idea about homosexual men identifying attractive women.

You are incorrect. I meant objective attraction, not personal attraction.

Unsubstantiated, what evidence is there to back that this is what occurs?

The vast majority of human experience.

What are they, and why can they not be held by a man? These are personality traits you were talking of, not physical ones.

Masculine traits would be dominance, aggresiveness, a logical bent of mind, a protectiveness of and desire to provide for one's mate.

Feminine traits would be submissiveness, passivity, an emotional bent of mind, a desire to be provided for and a strong mothering instinct.

Some of the feminine traits could be held by a man, but for the man who has already associate the feminine with women, it wouldn't matter. Indeed, such a feminine man may be repulsive to the masculine man because of the perceived incongruence. Vice versa for women.

I'm pretty sure that's how it works between heterosexual friends of the opposite sex, homosexual friends of the same sex and homosexual friends of the opposite sex. It's how friendship generally emerges.

Granted, but to a lesser extent.

I notice you've missed out a fair number of my replies, an answer would be appreciated, particually for this point:

I could only respond to a few earlier because I had to leave.

[Chrs]

Nor did I say it did mean such. I was making a point about what really underlies personal attraction being based on personality traits, especially as associated with either men/women after much reinforcement.

You didn't say that. Why must certain personality traits be tied to a particular gender?

Yes, really. Everything in this discussion is "assertion", but some assertions make more sense than others

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

They don't like the gender because said gender is what they have disassociated with the personality traits they find attractive.

Again, this is tied back to why personality traits are tied to a particular gender.

The physical attractiveness is quite apparently developed based on conscious/subconscious choices reinforced over a person's lifetime

Personal preference for aesthetics, yes. Which is a combination of choices, predispositions and associations.

That's why babies do not pop out attracted to one another.

If you mean in a sexual way, that's likely because babies, as they are born, do not "pop" out fully sexually mature. Then again, there is no way of testing this, in virtue of very small children being particularly tricky subjects to test on in virtue of their inability to communicate sophisticated ideas.

To the person who does not have a vested interest in defending homosexuality

Whoopsidaisy, did we just load this statement?

"dominant" is associated with the masculine while "submissive" is associated with the feminine.

That is one, traditional, interpretation. Yes. However you're not defining your terms. All you have is a general term "masculinity" and "femininity" which are loosely defined to dominance and submission.

This means that homosexuality is abnormal in that the roles are inverted in the mind of the typical homosexual.

They are? You've said yourself that some [most? Many?] homosexual relationships involve people of "opposite" traits (masculinity and femininity). I propose that it is possible for males to hold "feminine" values and for females to hold "masculine" values, and hence the only difference is physical. Tell me, what is the difference personality wise between a feminine man and a feminine woman?

simply chalking it up to perversion is usually sufficient.

Non-sequitur, even if your premises were remotely stable.

To be fair, I suppose the bisexual may just represent a lack of rigidly defined set of desirable personality traits

No.

As I've already established, men can be "feminine" in personality and women "masculine". Your theory is failing, this isn't a drawable conclusion.

but that is so rare that yes, bisexuals typically are just willing to have sex with anything.

So, how do you, a heterosexual, not engage in sexual activity with any member of the opposite sex? Non-sequitur.

You can feel free to disagree, if that makes you feel warmer inside.

And you have every right to be wrong, if it makes you feel warmer inside.

When was the last time you were called to justify being faithful to your wife?

Context, my friend. Context. You were complaining about homosexuals justifying themselves - while the only reason they do is because they're called out on it. Furthermore, your sly association between homosexuality and adultery is unproven, in virtue of adultery being pretty much universally agreed to be a "bad" thing - while you are attempting, and from your lack of substantiation for your theory, failing to prove that homosexuality is.

I ask you again, why do you not justify being heterosexual? The answer simply being is that you're never challenged on the matter.

[Hamster]

Two questions:
1) What is the cause of homosexuality? Is there more than one? Is it biological/innate or environmental/social? Or a little of both?

Assuming there's only one kind of "homosexuality," It's probably a combination of genes, hormones, and psychological imprinting at a very early age. I think there is compelling evidence that brain chemistry and hormone exposure during fetal development plays a major role. People who identify themselves as 'homosexual' might identify that way for a variety of reasons, though.

2) Can sexual orientation change? Does "gay-to-straight" therapy, for example, work?

Some people report that they are able to modify their behavior enough that they maintain heterosexual relationships even if they still have homosexual feelings. Most seem to have no success in changing their actual orientation and report the change-therapies to be traumatic. However, some gay Christians have positive experiences with Christian ministries directed toward 'curing' homosexuals.

From what, I've read and in my very humble opinion, "gay 2 straight" "cures" seem to be a waste of time and probably needlessly emotionally taxing. However, those are usually different from programs that stress celibacy/chastity which acknowledge homosexuality to be part of a person's nature but teach them to express it in non-sexual ways.

[Chrs]

Ooh, you replied again. Nice.

I don't see the word "psychology" in the OP, and I certainly do not have an anti-scientific viewpoint, though what the heck "scientific study" is supposed to mean is anyone's guess.

From the OP:

1) What is the cause of homosexuality? Is there more than one? Is it biological/innate or environmental/social? Or a little of both?

Furthermore, this post is in Psychology 101. These two would imply that he wanted psychological analysis.

What evidence? I suppose if all the evidence I required to change my views was someone saying it, I'd have a lot of reconciling to do.

There is evidence of a biological basis for sexuality. Here are a few links:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ian-brain.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ine-news_rss20

To name a few.

Somewhat, yes. Not very much consciously, though I do remember first being attracted to girls and it had a lot to do with their perceived femininity. I also chose by being so gosh darn manly, which naturally led me to seek out the feminine.

Missing off the bit of question begging at the end. You admit that you didn't consciously choose to be attracted to females - but yet, you were. Why is this different for homosexuals?

You are incorrect. I meant objective attraction, not personal attraction.

So did I. What difference is there between you, a heterosexual male making an objective judgement about a male's attractiveness and a homosexual male doing the same thing about a female's attractiveness? Neither of you have a personal attraction, but both of you are able to identify the most attractive. Hence, your argument on that front fails.

The vast majority of human experience.

Specific. Thank you for the objectively verifiable evidence.

Masculine traits would be dominance, aggresiveness, a logical bent of mind, a protectiveness of and desire to provide for one's mate.

Feminine traits would be submissiveness, passivity, an emotional bent of mind, a desire to be provided for and a strong mothering instinct.

Assuming these are true, although I disagree, I see no reason why any of these traits can not be held by a member of the opposite sex to the "traditional" gender for the trait. Even a feminine male can have a desire to have a strong "mothering" instinct, and may wish to look after and provide for children - and that's the only point of which there could be some lack of clarity.

Granted, but to a lesser extent.

Why? Evidence, please. Do you have experience of any homosexuals making friendships in a different way? What about inter-sex friendships?

I could only respond to a few earlier because I had to leave.

Understandable.

[Darfius]

Actually, yes, there is a genetic component to obesity.

Your callousness and sarcasm really don't contribute anything to the conversation.

It contributes to my ability to participate in the conversation. I certainly can't take you seriously at this point. Besides, your worldliness and placation doesn't contribute either.

Studies can show at what age children begin to show signs of gender non-conformity, for example. Studies can ask homosexuals, "At what age did you realize you were attracted to the opposite gender?" They can also show the concordance rate of homosexuality between monozygotic twins, even twins raised apart. Have you looked at any of the scientific literature on the subject?

A little boy acting like a little girl at a young age can simply mean that said little boy has been making some girly choices. Doesn't mean he "should have been born a girl." Even if it is granted that certain people are born with more passive temperaments, that doesn't show causation. It may increase the likelihood among twins for homosexuality, but conversely it could just make them seek out more masculine women. I've looked at some of the "literature", yes, but how is that relevant? Do I need to examine a "study" on genetic causes for mass murder or should I be able to determine beforehand based on other facts that the idea is inherently absurd? The gay gene will remain as elusive as the God gene and the murder gene because free will (gasp) exists.

Well unless you believe we're all born sinless, that's a question I'd love to turn back around to you and just ask about sin in general...if God knit us together in the womb, why aren't we sinless? Do you have kids? Did you teach them to lie?

The difference is that you went from the specific to the general. I freely admit that we are born sinful in a sinful world, but I vehemently deny that God would set us up to fail in any particular area biologically. And since evolution is a joke, what God would likely do as Creator is all we have to work with.

What choices, exactly? If a three year old boy is put in a room with barbie dolls and army figurines, and he goes for the barbie dolls, do you think he's intentionally trying to "become" gay? He's just picking the toy he'd rather play with.

That boy's dad did a bad job, if he was even present. Or the boy's mom smothered him and made him a little her. Or both. Or the boy was introduced to the perversion somehow. Obviously he wasn't born with a Barbie gene.

I think you'd have a hard time showing evidence that "most" homosexuals were victims of child molestation. There is evidence to suggest that gay men have more distant relationships to their fathers and closer relationships to their mothers.

I did not say "most" were. I was offering up molestation as part of the explanatory equation.

You can't "figure out" how to be attracted to someone. This is why Christian homosexuals, who recognize that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful, often choose to remain celibate.

Of course you can. Move to a different country and you can figure out what is considered culturally attractive and how to identify with it. Often it is a subconscious process, but it begins with the conscious decision to address one's particular sin head on, like all Christian growth. Homosexuals aren't sssssssspecial.

Sexual orientation and addiction are two very different things. There is a similarity between them in the sense that many addicts don't feel they can end their addiction, and most people do not feel it would be possible to change their sexual orientation. The difference is that we have a ton of evidence showing that addictions can be successfully treated, and very meager evidence for the possibility of sexual orientation change.

You just contradicted yourself within two sentences. You're doing my arguing for me. The primary difference is that addictions are for the most part condemned by society while "sexual orientation" is accepted. So people have greater incentive to address their addictions.

I should repeat myself: there are lots of masculine gay men. I'm sorry that this does not fit into your theory, but it's just reality.

Name one. And if you can, he's probably just a pervert in that particular area, as I've already said.

The elegant and simple truth is that personality alone does not equate to sexual attraction. Physicality, with its direct link to biology, has a very obvious role.

Physical attraction is a byproduct of personality attachment, but they do of course go hand-in-hand eventually.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. I've had lots of needy, straight, same-sex friends.

Different sort of needy. They aren't looking to you as a potential mate.

Again, you're under this odd notion (at least in the way that you're talking) that personality alone causes attraction. I'm sorry, but this is simply not the case. There is a visceral, biological reaction we have when we simply see someone who is physically attractive. Have you never heard of love at first sight?

Had you been raised by wolves, you would not have a "visceral, biological reaction" to women. Or if you did, it would probably be to eat them. Stop using Love, Actually as your proof.

This is really an expression of cultural norms rather than sexual orientation. We're all, gay or straight, predisposed to enter relationships with people similar to ourselves. But this in no way negates that there is something biological going on beneath those layers of culture. If I were to give you a line-up of 10 American, heterosexual women you would be able to say which one you were more attracted to purely on looks. This doesn't mean that other factors don't play a role, particularly when considering long-term relationships, but to deny that there's something biological happening is just sticking your head in the sand.

My preference for American, heteorsexual women is a development based on my choices/perceived needs to begin with, and the variation among that group is due to more specification of perceived needs/choices, cultural norms and aesthetic preferences. The biological result only comes about after the psychological has been sufficiently reinforced.

Correct. It's an observation. There are masculine gay men and feminine lesbians. I've met a few. Again, I'm sorry that this bursts your bubble, but it's just the reality of the situation.

Nonsense. You just weren't observant enough to notice in what ways they were feminine and masculine respectively.

I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark and say they would probably confine themselves to members of their own species. Just because you're heterosexual doesn't mean you'd have sex with any woman, does it?

By anything I of course meant human beings. What I did not mean was that they would have sex with literally any human being, but rather within their existent preferences, they tend to be far more promiscuous.

Universities and scientific foundations throughout North America and Europe, primarily (although some in Asia, too).

Do they begin from the presumption of evolution or creationism?

To study sexual orientation scientifically.

Do they begin from the presumption of evolution or creationism?

Almost exclusively, yes.

Sorry, I meant competent Christians. Not people like Ted Haggard.

Or is it that you'd rather not waste your time reconciling reality with YOUR preferred view of reality?

Touche. Or is it that I'd rather not waste my time reconciling reality with YOUR preferred view of reality. Ball's in your court.

[Carrikature]

Have you looked at any of the scientific literature on the subject?
...

Or is it that you'd rather not waste your time reconciling reality with YOUR preferred view of reality?

Clearly, the answer to both questions should be rather obvious at this point.

[Darfius]

You didn't say that. Why must certain personality traits be tied to a particular gender?

They are not necessarily. That is the point. Some people develop abnormally and have personality traits that only tend to be associated with a particular sex. In short, God made men and women to be certain ways and men and women sometimes choose to be different ways, as the book of Romans fully carries out for any Christian in this discussion.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

You think wrong.

Again, this is tied back to why personality traits are tied to a particular gender.

God made them that way. And the vast majority of the human race stayed that way.

If you mean in a sexual way, that's likely because babies, as they are born, do not "pop" out fully sexually mature. Then again, there is no way of testing this, in virtue of very small children being particularly tricky subjects to test on in virtue of their inability to communicate sophisticated ideas.

So a man raised by wolves would still be attracted to human women? Or human men for that matter? Careful, because there have been people raised by wolves.

Whoopsidaisy, did we just load this statement?

Nope. I can prove that people defending homosexuality, particularly so-called Christians, have a vested interest. Nothing loaded about the statement.

That is one, traditional, interpretation. Yes. However you're not defining your terms. All you have is a general term "masculinity" and "femininity" which are loosely defined to dominance and submission.

I went on to define the terms. Although the dictionary definition would have worked fine.

They are? You've said yourself that some [most? Many?] homosexual relationships involve people of "opposite" traits (masculinity and femininity). I propose that it is possible for males to hold "feminine" values and for females to hold "masculine" values, and hence the only difference is physical. Tell me, what is the difference personality wise between a feminine man and a feminine woman?

What I meant is that for example a homosexual man does not consider himself masculine as he should and so pursues the masculine elsewhere. And vice versa for a lesbian.

Non-sequitur, even if your premises were remotely stable.

We'll have to agree to disagree again, I suppose.

As I've already established, men can be "feminine" in personality and women "masculine". Your theory is failing, this isn't a drawable conclusion.

What does this have to do with bisexuals being people who do not have rigidly defined personality traits they consider desirable? Such a bisexual could consider themselves to be neither masculine nor feminine, which would fit in well with my theory.

So, how do you, a heterosexual, not engage in sexual activity with any member of the opposite sex? Non-sequitur.

Obviously I am of the opinion that bisexuals have a particular perversion that tends to make them more promiscuous.

Context, my friend. Context. You were complaining about homosexuals justifying themselves - while the only reason they do is because they're called out on it. Furthermore, your sly association between homosexuality and adultery is unproven, in virtue of adultery being pretty much universally agreed to be a "bad" thing - while you are attempting, and from your lack of substantiation for your theory, failing to prove that homosexuality is.

What does my theory have to do with whether or not homosexuality is wrong? It's interesting, though, that you connect the two. It appears you think that homosexuality being a choice has to do with whether or not it's wrong. And since you made the connection without my doing so, it appears you have a vested interest in claiming that homosexuality is not a choice.

I ask you again, why do you not justify being heterosexual? The answer simply being is that you're never challenged on the matter.

Also because good and healthy human behavior shouldn't have to be justified.

[Darfius]

From the OP:

1) What is the cause of homosexuality? Is there more than one? Is it biological/innate or environmental/social? Or a little of both?

Furthermore, this post is in Psychology 101. These two would imply that he wanted psychological analysis.

One can discuss psychology without reference to the field of psychology.

There is evidence of a biological basis for sexuality. Here are a few links:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ian-brain.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ine-news_rss20

To name a few.

From the first link: "But our study can't answer questions of cause and effect," cautions lead researcher Ivanka Savic at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. "We can't say whether the differences are because of pre-existing differences in their brains, or if past sexual experiences have conditioned their brains to respond differently."

From the second link: To get round this, Savic and her colleague, Per Lindström, chose to measure brain parameters likely to have been fixed at birth.

Likely doesn't cut it. How is that science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_scientist

New Scientist is a weekly international science magazine and website covering recent developments in science and technology for a general English-speaking audience. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but it is read by both scientists and non-scientists, as a way of keeping track of developments outside their own fields of study or areas of interest.

Oh.

I also just noticed that the researcher is the same in both links, which suggests that it's the same study being referenced and that the objection for the first applies to the second.

Missing off the bit of question begging at the end. You admit that you didn't consciously choose to be attracted to females - but yet, you were. Why is this different for homosexuals?

I did not admit any such thing. I said that though some of it was conscious choice, most of it resulted from subconscious choices I had already made (namely ones consistent with my extreme manliness and resulting attraction to the feminine as embodied by women).

So did I. What difference is there between you, a heterosexual male making an objective judgement about a male's attractiveness and a homosexual male doing the same thing about a female's attractiveness? Neither of you have a personal attraction, but both of you are able to identify the most attractive. Hence, your argument on that front fails.

You're still not keeping up. I admitted that the homosexual male's admission of a woman's beauty was objective, but said that her personality was what dissuaded him, which is completely consistent with my argument.

Assuming these are true, although I disagree, I see no reason why any of these traits can not be held by a member of the opposite sex to the "traditional" gender for the trait. Even a feminine male can have a desire to have a strong "mothering" instinct, and may wish to look after and provide for children - and that's the only point of which there could be some lack of clarity.

They can be held, but they represent abnormalities as opposed to normalcy for such a person's sex.

Why? Evidence, please. Do you have experience of any homosexuals making friendships in a different way? What about inter-sex friendships?

Homosexual men tend to have female friends and lesbians tend to have male friends. So while they are still seeking similar personality traits in their friends, their abnormality causes them to cross gender barriers for their friends.

[Hamster]

Homosexual men tend to have female friends and lesbians tend to have male friends

Even if that were true (lol) there are other explanations (e.g. no sexual tension)

[Darfius]

Even if that were true (lol) there are other explanations (e.g. no sexual tension)

The fact that there would be no sexual tension even on the part of the heterosexual male who is friends with a lesbian woman is evidence that mere physical appearance is not the sole or even primary cause of personal attraction. The lesbian woman's masculinity would prevent any normal (and therefore masculine) heterosexual male from finding her personally attractive. Thank you for the support.

[PsychGuy]

I certainly do not have an anti-scientific viewpoint, though what the heck "scientific study" is supposed to mean is anyone's guess.

Oh dear...
So you're not "anti-scientific" but you don't know what "scientific" means?

[PsychGuy]

Likely doesn't cut it. How is that science?

You're aware that nothing in science is ever PROVEN, right?

[Darfius]

Oh dear...
So you're not "anti-scientific" but you don't know what "scientific" means?

The point I was making is that he did not reference any particular "scientific study", nor is it clear that in matters of psychology any study CAN be scientific.