@Joeseph ;seriously Barny can no one help with your profound retardation?

Well as you know your the tard since I dont have any issues and I don’t get kicked off here all the time and I have the mental maturity to actually face up to issues and debate them instead of acting like a 3 year old.

@ZeusAres42

Thanks Z , I missed that as Barny never engages where I'm concerned he just constantly attacks.

@Joeseph @ZeusAres45 ;Thanks Z , I missed that as Barny never engages where I'm concerned he just constantly attacks.

You mean I counter attack all the total nonsense crap that you attack this site with until you get kicked off again. At least I’m responsible enough to out total tards like you who mess up the site and you know very well what happened when you under another name and other mega trolls brought down an other site with all your spamming trash. At least I’m making an effort to keep trolling spamming scum off this site. 

@ZeusAres42

Where @just_sayin is concerned, there is the misuse of the term 'Fluidity' (probably thinking this means that orientation is a conscious choice when nothing could be further from the scientific truth), the implication that biology plays no role in orientation (that baffles me, let alone not even being stated in any of the literature he references), the negation of the interconnectedness of environmental factors (which he ignores to say anything about which is also in the literature he references), the blanket statements about LGBTQ+ people when we're explicitly talking about homosexuality, among other things such as studies with outdated methodologies as well as posting news blogs. 

His scientific grandiosity speaks volumes. 

And then again, there is the poisoning of the well where he is accusing me of posting AI content when I have done no such thing as some childish attempt to discredit me. 

First an apology.  After looking at https://typeset.io/, I think it can be a valuable research tool.  I even added to my folders.  I question the value of mentioning research from the 60-70's for sexual orientation fluidity, but more sources are better than less.

I did not misuse the term 'fluidity' to describe sexual orientation.  That is the word the researchers use.  I haven't said that sexual orientation is only a conscious choice - just that it is not immutable, nor biologically 'determinate' ( I haven't made any argument about biologically influenced).  That is either a misunderstanding on your part or an intentional misrepresentation of what I have said.  I have not disconnected the environmental factors from the biological ones.  I am sure that sexual orientation fluidity involves those as well as a myriad of other things.

Since we are talking about homosexuality - exclusively, per your demand, let make these observations from the literature on https://typeset.io/.  ;

Approximately 19% of self-defined homosexual/bisexual men reported engaging in vaginal intercourse in the past year, with 42% reporting it in their lifetime [1]. - see https://typeset.io/papers/same-sex-sexual-behaviour-us-frequency-estimates-from-survey-4xdlm0oi9a

So, the majority of sexual fluidity occurs among non-heterosexual groups.  According to 
Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood (you can view the more recent study at https://addhealth.cpc.unc.edu/ - same basic results ) which did a national longitudinal study of American teens over several years said:

All attraction categories other than opposite-sex [heterosexual] were associated with a lower likelihood of stability over time. That is, individuals reporting any same-sex attractions were more likely to report subsequent shifts in their attractions than were individuals without any same-sex attractions [heterosexuals].

Those who engaged in same/both-sex [homosexual or bisexual] behavior during the first two waves were more likely to report Wave 3 exclusive opposite-sex [heterosexual] behavior than those who engaged in opposite-sex [heterosexual] behavior were to later report same/both-sex [homosexual or bisexual] behavior.

So my point is valid - that sexual orientation is not immutable, especially among those who identify as homosexual and are more likely to later identify as heterosexual than vice-versa.

His scientific grandiosity speaks volumes. 

Hey, I have never made any personal scientific claim for myself.  I have not claimed to be an expert or researcher on the topic..  I have tried to cite sources for any claim, which apparently makes me different than most.  If that makes me 'grandiose', so be it.  

And then again, there is the poisoning of the well where he is accusing me of posting AI content when I have done no such thing as some childish attempt to discredit me. 

I don't mind if you use AI if it ads to the discussion at all.  As I observed earlier.  I'm not personally attacking you or your AI  - I don't even understand the point of that.  I may not see the benefit of some AI content in the discussion, but it is nothing personal.   I am making an argument that I believe science agrees with.  If you disagree with the argument and think sexual orientation is immutable, then show the evidence.  Your comments have been so personally directed at me, I don't even have an idea about what your position is.

@just_sayin

I agree with the science on this. I disagree with you.  

@just_sayin


From the original papers you referenced (I wonder why you didn't quote any of this??)

Introduction This article has two related goals. The first is to provide a current summary of scientific findings regarding sexual orientation. Although we focus most on causation, we also address other scientific issues concerning sexual orientation, including its meaning and measurement, sex differences in its expression, its development, and its expression across time and place. Regarding causation, we provide a taxonomy of causal hypotheses and review evidence for them. These include hormonal, genetic, social environmental, and nonsocial environmental influences. Our second goal is less scientific and more analytical: to criticize and improve common but incorrect reasoning in this domain. For example, the commonly phrased question of whether sexual orientation is “a choice” is a poor one for advancing either scientific understanding or policy. A more meaningful formulation is whether sexual orientation is socially influenced.  

Our review has led us to the following conclusions. Sexual orientation refers to relative sexual attraction to men, to women, or to both. People who are sexually attracted to the same sex (whom we denote as “nonheterosexual”) represent a minority of adults. Those with predominantly same-sex attractions comprise fewer than 5% of respondents in most Western surveys. Data from non-Western cultures are consistent with this conclusion. There is no persuasive evidence that the rate of same-sex attraction has varied much across time or place. Male and female sexual orientations differ in several respects. Women are more likely to report a bisexual than an exclusively same-sex orientation; men show the opposite pattern. Men’s sexual orientations are closely linked to their pattern of sexual arousal to male versus female erotic stimuli; women’s are not. Women appear more likely than men to experience same-sex attraction in the context of close affectionate relationships, and their patterns of sexual attraction appear more likely to exhibit change over time.

The question of choice Do people choose to be homosexual or heterosexual? This question is perhaps the most common causal question asked in the sociopolitical context. It is asked much less commonly in scientific contexts because, as we shall see, it is a bad question. This is partly because there are at least two different, mutually inconsistent meanings of “choice” that are often conflated.

Choice as uncaused action. The correlation between one’s beliefs about the causes of sexual orientation and one’s degree of tolerance of nonheterosexuality appears to be based on the following logic: If there are causes— other than free will—that lead certain people to be nonheterosexual, then those people were never entirely free to be heterosexual and hence cannot be held responsible for their nonheterosexuality. For example, finding a gene that increases the chance a man will be homosexual would mean that the man is not completely free to choose to be heterosexual. To the extent that the gene causes his homosexuality, we should neither blame him nor discriminate against him. This is the essence of the argument regarding sexual orientation and choice. Yet this is a bad argument, and the word “choice” (and associated concepts such as freedom and responsibility) lies at the root of the problem. Why would discovery of a gene for sexual orientation imply that homosexuality is not freely chosen? It would do so only if we could assume that free will is the null hypothesis on which causal studies chip away. This assumption is not scientific, however, and is not intellectually defensible (Dennett, 1984; Pinker, 2003). For instance, to the extent that a trait is not genetic, it is caused by the environment, not by free will. If a trait is not present from birth, then it is caused by events occurring after birth, not by free will.

Choice as decision to act. There is an alternative sense of “choice” that is more meaningful: the sense of making a decision. This ordinary-language sense of “choice” is something that is commonly understood. “I chose to raise my hand,” “I chose to eat broccoli,” “I chose to rob a bank,” and “I chose to have sex with that person” are all meaningful sentences. It is this sense of “choice” that people likely mean when they debate whether sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice. Note that cause has nothing to do with it. The four sentences all make sense even though the respective choices to which they refer could all be determined by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. People may choose to do things for environmental reasons—perhaps a woman has been offered a million dollars to raise her hand. Or they may choose them for genetic reasons—perhaps a man chose a blue car because his genetically determined color blindness made red and green cars unappealingly gray. In a deterministic world (which behavioral scientists assume), decisions have causes. The meanings of words can be illuminated by how people use them, and an important regularity in the way people use “choice” concerns the distinction between behavior and feelings. We choose our actions, but we do not choose our feelings. Consider the following two sentences: 1. “I choose to have sex with partners of my own sex.” 2. “I choose to desire to have sex with partners of my own sex.” The first sentence is conventional and sensible; the second sentence is neither. Einstein summarized Schopenhauer’s famous argument appropriately and thusly: “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills” (as quoted in Planck, 1933, p. 201). Applied to sexual orientation, it makes sense to say that people choose their sexual partners, but it doesn’t make sense to say that they choose their desires. Sexual orientation is defined as relative desire for same-sex or other-sex sex partners. Thus, it makes no sense to say that one chooses one’s sexual orientation. One does, however, choose to behave consistently or inconsistently with one’s sexual orientation. That is a lifestyle choice.

Bold Added

One of the original papers was referenced earlier via one or more links from @just_sayin. More can be read and ideally should be read here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1529100616637616.

Another original paper:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J-Bailey-4/publication/282051582_Genetics_of_Human_Sexual_Orientation/links/5748ce0a08ae5bf2e63efbee/Genetics-of-Human-Sexual-Orientation.pdf

Contemporary academic literature:

• Sexual Orientation: Categories or Continuum? Commentary on Bailey et al. (2016): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100616637618

• Biological foundations of sexual orientation

   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280579236_Biological_foundations_of_sexual_orientation
  

• 10 - Gay Genes? Genetics and Sexual Orientation

  Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2020 - https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/are-we-slaves-to-our-genes/gay-genes-genetics-and-sexual-orientation/3C1A61B7C5207BA60C152301E205CCB4

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/08/30/the-gay-gene-is-a-myth-but-being-gay-is-natural-say-scientists/
  

• https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693 (reference earlier by you too @just_sayin, I think)
  

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin


From the original papers you referenced (I wonder why you didn't quote any of this??)

Introduction This article has two related goals. The first is to provide a current summary of scientific findings regarding sexual orientation. Although we focus most on causation, we also address other scientific issues concerning sexual orientation, including its meaning and measurement, sex differences in its expression, its development, and its expression across time and place. Regarding causation, we provide a taxonomy of causal hypotheses and review evidence for them. These include hormonal, genetic, social environmental, and nonsocial environmental influences. Our second goal is less scientific and more analytical: to criticize and improve common but incorrect reasoning in this domain. For example, the commonly phrased question of whether sexual orientation is “a choice” is a poor one for advancing either scientific understanding or policy. A more meaningful formulation is whether sexual orientation is socially influenced.  

Our review has led us to the following conclusions. Sexual orientation refers to relative sexual attraction to men, to women, or to both. People who are sexually attracted to the same sex (whom we denote as “nonheterosexual”) represent a minority of adults. Those with predominantly same-sex attractions comprise fewer than 5% of respondents in most Western surveys. Data from non-Western cultures are consistent with this conclusion. There is no persuasive evidence that the rate of same-sex attraction has varied much across time or place. Male and female sexual orientations differ in several respects. Women are more likely to report a bisexual than an exclusively same-sex orientation; men show the opposite pattern. Men’s sexual orientations are closely linked to their pattern of sexual arousal to male versus female erotic stimuli; women’s are not. Women appear more likely than men to experience same-sex attraction in the context of close affectionate relationships, and their patterns of sexual attraction appear more likely to exhibit change over time.

The question of choice Do people choose to be homosexual or heterosexual? This question is perhaps the most common causal question asked in the sociopolitical context. It is asked much less commonly in scientific contexts because, as we shall see, it is a bad question. This is partly because there are at least two different, mutually inconsistent meanings of “choice” that are often conflated.

Choice as uncaused action. The correlation between one’s beliefs about the causes of sexual orientation and one’s degree of tolerance of nonheterosexuality appears to be based on the following logic: If there are causes— other than free will—that lead certain people to be nonheterosexual, then those people were never entirely free to be heterosexual and hence cannot be held responsible for their nonheterosexuality. For example, finding a gene that increases the chance a man will be homosexual would mean that the man is not completely free to choose to be heterosexual. To the extent that the gene causes his homosexuality, we should neither blame him nor discriminate against him. This is the essence of the argument regarding sexual orientation and choice. Yet this is a bad argument, and the word “choice” (and associated concepts such as freedom and responsibility) lies at the root of the problem. Why would discovery of a gene for sexual orientation imply that homosexuality is not freely chosen? It would do so only if we could assume that free will is the null hypothesis on which causal studies chip away. This assumption is not scientific, however, and is not intellectually defensible (Dennett, 1984; Pinker, 2003). For instance, to the extent that a trait is not genetic, it is caused by the environment, not by free will. If a trait is not present from birth, then it is caused by events occurring after birth, not by free will.

Choice as decision to act. There is an alternative sense of “choice” that is more meaningful: the sense of making a decision. This ordinary-language sense of “choice” is something that is commonly understood. “I chose to raise my hand,” “I chose to eat broccoli,” “I chose to rob a bank,” and “I chose to have sex with that person” are all meaningful sentences. It is this sense of “choice” that people likely mean when they debate whether sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice. Note that cause has nothing to do with it. The four sentences all make sense even though the respective choices to which they refer could all be determined by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. People may choose to do things for environmental reasons—perhaps a woman has been offered a million dollars to raise her hand. Or they may choose them for genetic reasons—perhaps a man chose a blue car because his genetically determined color blindness made red and green cars unappealingly gray. In a deterministic world (which behavioral scientists assume), decisions have causes. The meanings of words can be illuminated by how people use them, and an important regularity in the way people use “choice” concerns the distinction between behavior and feelings. We choose our actions, but we do not choose our feelings. Consider the following two sentences: 1. “I choose to have sex with partners of my own sex.” 2. “I choose to desire to have sex with partners of my own sex.” The first sentence is conventional and sensible; the second sentence is neither. Einstein summarized Schopenhauer’s famous argument appropriately and thusly: “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills” (as quoted in Planck, 1933, p. 201). Applied to sexual orientation, it makes sense to say that people choose their sexual partners, but it doesn’t make sense to say that they choose their desires. Sexual orientation is defined as relative desire for same-sex or other-sex sex partners. Thus, it makes no sense to say that one chooses one’s sexual orientation. One does, however, choose to behave consistently or inconsistently with one’s sexual orientation. That is a lifestyle choice.

Bold Added

One of the original papers was referenced earlier via one or more links from @just_sayin. More can be read and ideally should be read here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1529100616637616.

Another original paper:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J-Bailey-4/publication/282051582_Genetics_of_Human_Sexual_Orientation/links/5748ce0a08ae5bf2e63efbee/Genetics-of-Human-Sexual-Orientation.pdf

Contemporary academic literature:

• Sexual Orientation: Categories or Continuum? Commentary on Bailey et al. (2016): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100616637618

• Biological foundations of sexual orientation

   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280579236_Biological_foundations_of_sexual_orientation
  

• 10 - Gay Genes? Genetics and Sexual Orientation

  Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2020 - https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/are-we-slaves-to-our-genes/gay-genes-genetics-and-sexual-orientation/3C1A61B7C5207BA60C152301E205CCB4

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/08/30/the-gay-gene-is-a-myth-but-being-gay-is-natural-say-scientists/
  

• https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693 (reference earlier by you too @just_sayin, I think)
  

Moreover, I disagree with your misinterpretation of the scientific literature and the misalignment with contemporary data. Non-immutability and/or fluidity mean variances across natural developmental stages; it has nothing to do with libertarian free will!

What a load of lies and hokum.  If you look back over the discussion, you see I have avoided the use of the word choice, because it is a loaded word - that can encompassed a lot of things, I even mentioned that to Joeseph.. Why did misrepresent what I said?

The reasoning of your article is pure personal opinion though - there is no test to delineate if someone pursues a course of action because of environment or because of choice.  If you think I'm wrong - show me the experiment where the 2 are tested separately   I'll wait..  Further, you lied about what I said.  Why did you lie?

Again, I asked you if you thought sexual orientation was immutable or if it was biologically determinate.  You have not really answered that, and have created a strawman  that claims that if something is non-immutable (I assume you mean mutable)  it has nothing to do with free will.  It is sad that you have not only lied about my statements, but you think so little of LGBTQ+ people, equating them with Pavlovian dogs - not able to make choices but only able to respond to their environment. Were your lies intentional?  

I will commend you for using your own voice though.  With all the lies, strawmen, and slander, it is obvious it wasn't your AI talking this time.

Factfinder said:

@ZeusAres42

It's like did any heterosexual ask why they are? No they just accepted it. Do we blame them? No. So why do we tend to blame the homosexuals for why they are? There are certain people on this site who need to believe its a choice so their god doesn't come off the jerk. But the fact is people can't help what they're attracted to. And if god exist then god made them, like everything else. So there's no reason to persecute them. Of course the real reason not to persecute them is they leave more women for us! 

 There are certain people on this site who need to believe its a choice so their god doesn't come off the jerk.

AKA cognitive dissonance. Also, they could be struggling to come out of the closet themselves.   @Factfinder

@just_sayin

It is their personal actions that matter. 

Right, it is the predisposition and proclivity indwelled into them which your god  created them with; that condemns them. They can't help it they're attracted to the same sex, your god, if he exist as you believe, created them with those desires. Then he condemns them for them. Your god fails as the administer of morals.

Joeseph said:

@just_sayin

You previously claimed that to claim the majority of the world's population was hetrosexual was a  " spurious claim" and as usual fled when asked to back your nonsense up.

You've been asked several times by me and others to back your claims up regards sexual orientation being a choice , sadly yet again you deflect and dodge when asked to back that absurd claim up.

I did not claim that the majority of the world's population is non-heterosexual.  That is a lie of your own invention. Why do you feel the need to make up lies?  

I have repeatedly pointed out that the research shows that there is a lot of fluidity in sexual orientation  Why do you continue to lie about this?.  With various studies showing between 10 to 50 percent of those identifying as non-heterosexual changing their sexual orientation at some point.  I mentioned several studies that show this:  

Sexual fluidity common among American young adults

Sexual identity fluidity, identity management stress, and depression among sexual minority adolescents

Study Highlights Fluid Sexual Orientation in Many Teens

Let me quote from some studies:

Sociodemographic Patterns in Retrospective Sexual Orientation Identity and Attraction Change in the Sexual Orientation Fluidity in Youth Study

Across the sample, 17% reported a retrospective change in identity and 33% reported a change in attractions. 

Sexual identity fluidity, identity management stress, and depression among sexual minority adolescents

In the sample, 40% of SMA reported at least one change in sexual identity over 18-month period. Greater number of cisgender females reported sexual identity fluidity compared to their male counterparts (46.9% vs. 26.6%). 

At least one in five teenagers reports some change in sexual orientation during adolescence, according to new research from North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Pittsburgh.

Study Highlights Fluid Sexual Orientation in Many Teens

The researchers found that at some point during the three-year period, 19% of students reported at least one change in their self-labeled sexual identity – for example, classifying themselves as heterosexual in year one and as bisexual in year two. Some students reported multiple changes, such as switching from heterosexual to bisexual between years one and two, and then back to heterosexual in year three.
There were also notable differences between male and female students, with 26% of girls reporting some change in sexual identity over the three-year study period, compared to 11% of boys.

But wait there's more:  

Fixed or Fluid? Sexual Identity Fluidity in a Large National Panel Study of New Zealand Adults

Sexual Fluidity in Male and Females

The existing body of international research assessing sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities among representative samples of adolescents and adults shows that sexual orientation is not a static and categorical trait. Rather, same-sex sexuality shows substantial fluidity in both men and women, and this fluidity takes a number of forms.

Sexual Fluidity: Implications for Population Research - Duke University

Overall, about 1 in 11 American adults changed sexual identities over five annual surveys, including 6% of cisgender men, 11% of cisgender women, and 35% of gender minorities. Fluidity was particularly pronounced among young adults and among those who had ever identified as bisexual or “something else.” 

@Joeseph

I did not claim that the majority of the world's population is non-heterosexual.  That is a lie of your own invention. Why do you feel the need to make up lies?  

You actually did , I don't mind you lying I expect that of you it's your only resort when beaten yet again , sold you at least own up to your lies?

I previously stated .......

The obvious fact that the vast majority of the world's population remain with the same sexual identity they were born with? 

Your reply ......

You don't get to make a false claim.  Back it up.  

You called that a "false claim" all in your own words , so man up and apologise for lying again......watch now as Just Lying tries to cover his lie with more lies.

You get that these are 2 different things right?  Sexual orientation being mutable is one issue, while heterosexuality being more prominent is another, right?  Me proving sexual orientation is fluid does not disprove that most people are heterosexual.  

You get that these are 2 different things right?  Sexual orientation being mutable is one issue, while heterosexuality being more prominent is another, right?  Me proving sexual orientation is fluid does not disprove that most people are heterosexual.  

"A lot"?   80 / 90 percent of the worlds population is heterosexual , so what's " a lot" ?

The issue is if sexual orientation is fluid.  I provided a lot of studies that show it is.  And what studies did you provide to show that people never change their sexual orientation?  Oh, that's right, you didn't.  

Lie about what exactly? A link to a study showing a very low minority of deepressd American  kids may be confused regards sexual orientation?

What a "searing" revelation 

The studies show that how someone self-identifies can change and occurs  in percentage of people (most studies place it between 10 to 20 percent - who have over a multi-year period changed how they self-identified sexually).  Since this debate was specifically about gay men, let me repeat:

 https://typeset.io/.  ;

Approximately 19% of self-defined homosexual/bisexual men reported engaging in vaginal intercourse in the past year, with 42% reporting it in their lifetime [1]. - see https://typeset.io/papers/same-sex-sexual-behaviour-us-frequency-estimates-from-survey-4xdlm0oi9a

So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone.  Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable.

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone.  Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable

The only reason to make that statement is to lead to a conclusion of choice in the end. You're claiming 1 out of every 5 gay men make the choice to sleep with women as well. So logic would dictate the others can as well? Is that your point? Cause no matter what 'choice' people make about who they have sex with, their sexual orientation doesn't change. Heterosexuals sleep with people they're not attracted to for various reasons. I imagine homosexuals would too; don't you think?  If they're attracted to the opposite sex then that's the case, if they're attracted to the same sex then that's the case, they still have no choice in THAT matter. 

Yes, people have agency and can choose who they sleep with, no matter what sexual orientation they are.  So if that it what you mean by 'choice' the answer is yes - people can choose their actions..

Can people change their patterns and thoughts?  Just as with people losing weight, quitting drugs, alcohol or gambling, yes, they can, but often not without immense and prolonged effort.  Even then, they may have attractions and thoughts because of how those patterns have been established in their brain.  As AA teaches, you never stop being an alcoholic.  That doesn't mean that the person can't live a life where they no longer drink and that after establishing new patterns it isn't a little easier to live without drinking.  

Because of the political aspects of the issue, people want to deny the scientific research and make claims that sexual orientation does not change, when the evidence is, it can and does for some people.  For 60 plus years people claimed that people are born gay.  we now know that there is no gay gene.  The alleged gay genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that more heterosexuals than homosexuals have so called gay genetic markers, We know that a noticeable percentage of people change sexual orientation during their lifetime.  We also know that about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all people who identify as gay, have no gay genetic markers at all, while some heterosexuals have the so-called gay genetic markers.  That's what the science says.

@just_sayin


You get that these are 2 different things right?  Sexual orientation being mutable is one issue, while heterosexuality being more prominent is another, right?  Me proving sexual orientation is fluid does not disprove that most people are heterosexual.  

As I predicted you invent a lie to cover your previous lies. Sexual orientation is stable for the vast majority of people and not " mutable" by any means.

You did indeed claim that me stating that most people retain the same sexual identity throughout life was a lie , you lose ......again.


The issue is if sexual orientation is fluid.  I provided a lot of studies that show it is

No you didn't,  you provided studies that show a  very small minority suffer confusion over the issue and links towards depression in these individuals,  also one of your studies said 39 percent of the individuals polled identified as non binrary , seriously buddy is that your best?

.  And what studies did you provide to show that people never change their sexual orientation? 

But again that's another lie as I never said " people never change" I said  the vast majority never changed their orientation , so do you wish to dispute this fact again and then deny you disputed it?

 Oh, that's right, you didn't.  

You want the figures again proving how many heterosexuals  are in the world?


The studies show that how someone self-identifies can change and occurs  in percentage of people (most studies place it between 10 to 20 percent - who have over a multi-year period changed how they self-identified sexually).  Since this debate was specifically about gay men, let me repeat:

No one denied that some people change as in a small minority , you're basically saying it's a choice which is nonsense 

So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone.  Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable.

Then they are not gay but bisexual , again you're saying sexual preference is down to choice but refuse to directly state it as you know its utter nonsense 

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone.  Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable

The only reason to make that statement is to lead to a conclusion of choice in the end. You're claiming 1 out of every 5 gay men make the choice to sleep with women as well. So logic would dictate the others can as well? Is that your point? Cause no matter what 'choice' people make about who they have sex with, their sexual orientation doesn't change. Heterosexuals sleep with people they're not attracted to for various reasons. I imagine homosexuals would too; don't you think?  If they're attracted to the opposite sex then that's the case, if they're attracted to the same sex then that's the case, they still have no choice in THAT matter. 

Yes, people have agency and can choose who they sleep with, no matter what sexual orientation they are.  So if that it what you mean by 'choice' the answer is yes - people can choose their actions..

Can people change their patterns and thoughts?  Just as with people losing weight, quitting drugs, alcohol or gambling, yes, they can, but often not without immense and prolonged effort.  Even then, they may have attractions and thoughts because of how those patterns have been established in their brain.  As AA teaches, you never stop being an alcoholic.  That doesn't mean that the person can't live a life where they no longer drink and that after establishing new patterns it isn't a little easier to live without drinking.  

Because of the political aspects of the issue, people want to deny the scientific research and make claims that sexual orientation does not change, when the evidence is, it can and does for some people.  For 60 plus years people claimed that people are born gay.  we now know that there is no gay gene.  The alleged gay genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that more heterosexuals than homosexuals have so called gay genetic markers, We know that a noticeable percentage of people change sexual orientation during their lifetime.  We also know that about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all people who identify as gay, have no gay genetic markers at all, while some heterosexuals have the so-called gay genetic markers.  That's what the science says.

No I meant what I said. In the end you think sexual orientation is a choice. Homosexuality bad so all one has to do is "change their patterns and thoughts" and resist their natural attractions long enough to 'establish new patterns'? Sorry but a succession of choices one has to make to change what they're attracted to is still choices. Not only are they choices but they're designed to ultimately reflect a final choice to change ones attractions. So just admit you think one can change their sexual orientation if they approach it like quitting drinking. Which is boloney. 

What about people who are married with children who come out and get divorced? The number one reason given I'd say is they couldn't live any longer being dishonest with themselves. They supposed to do the 12 steps?

I have not made a moral argument for or against homosexuality in this debate.  Maybe your anger towards God has clouded your ability to not lash out at people of faith unreasonably.  The issue of morality is a different issue than are people born gay and is sexual orientation immutable.  I see this debate as an issue of what the research says.  This is about what is (the research), not what ought to be (moral determinations).  On a off topic side note, until you address your anger towards God, you won't get over your depression.   If you are in therapy, I'm sure they have told you this by now.

Anyway, the people arguing that sexual orientation is fluid are not doing so on the basis of being religious.  In fact, the opposite is much more likely the case.  The researchers are very pro LGBTQ+/  The most prolific and leading researcher on the topic is herself a Lesbian..  I've cited their work multiple times now, but you haven't provided a single source that says that sexual orientation is not fluid.  Either put up or .

I have not argued that change is easy,  I have only pointed you to the research that says it happens.  And for the record, no, I do not think I can change anyone. I think no one changes who doesn't first want to.   I think if someone wants to change, that change is possible though.  The research support this.  

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

So, about 1 out of every 5 gay men have had sex with a woman in the past year alone.  Which goes to show you that sexual-orientation is not set in stone and is not immutable

The only reason to make that statement is to lead to a conclusion of choice in the end. You're claiming 1 out of every 5 gay men make the choice to sleep with women as well. So logic would dictate the others can as well? Is that your point? Cause no matter what 'choice' people make about who they have sex with, their sexual orientation doesn't change. Heterosexuals sleep with people they're not attracted to for various reasons. I imagine homosexuals would too; don't you think?  If they're attracted to the opposite sex then that's the case, if they're attracted to the same sex then that's the case, they still have no choice in THAT matter. 

Yes, people have agency and can choose who they sleep with, no matter what sexual orientation they are.  So if that it what you mean by 'choice' the answer is yes - people can choose their actions..

Can people change their patterns and thoughts?  Just as with people losing weight, quitting drugs, alcohol or gambling, yes, they can, but often not without immense and prolonged effort.  Even then, they may have attractions and thoughts because of how those patterns have been established in their brain.  As AA teaches, you never stop being an alcoholic.  That doesn't mean that the person can't live a life where they no longer drink and that after establishing new patterns it isn't a little easier to live without drinking.  

Because of the political aspects of the issue, people want to deny the scientific research and make claims that sexual orientation does not change, when the evidence is, it can and does for some people.  For 60 plus years people claimed that people are born gay.  we now know that there is no gay gene.  The alleged gay genetic markers are not genetically determinate, that more heterosexuals than homosexuals have so called gay genetic markers, We know that a noticeable percentage of people change sexual orientation during their lifetime.  We also know that about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all people who identify as gay, have no gay genetic markers at all, while some heterosexuals have the so-called gay genetic markers.  That's what the science says.

No I meant what I said. In the end you think sexual orientation is a choice. Homosexuality bad so all one has to do is "change their patterns and thoughts" and resist their natural attractions long enough to 'establish new patterns'? Sorry but a succession of choices one has to make to change what they're attracted to is still choices. Not only are they choices but they're designed to ultimately reflect a final choice to change ones attractions. So just admit you think one can change their sexual orientation if they approach it like quitting drinking. Which is boloney. 

What about people who are married with children who come out and get divorced? The number one reason given I'd say is they couldn't live any longer being dishonest with themselves. They supposed to do the 12 steps?

I have not made a moral argument for or against homosexuality in this debate.  Maybe your anger towards God has clouded your ability to not lash out at people of faith unreasonably.  The issue of morality is a different issue than are people born gay and is sexual orientation immutable.  I see this debate as an issue of what the research says.  This is about what is (the research), not what ought to be (moral determinations).  On a off topic side note, until you address your anger towards God, you won't get over your depression.   If you are in therapy, I'm sure they have told you this by now.

Anyway, the people arguing that sexual orientation is fluid are not doing so on the basis of being religious.  In fact, the opposite is much more likely the case.  The researchers are very pro LGBTQ+/  The most prolific and leading researcher on the topic is herself a Lesbian..  I've cited their work multiple times now, but you haven't provided a single source that says that sexual orientation is not fluid.  Either put up or .

I have not argued that change is easy,  I have only pointed you to the research that says it happens.  And for the record, no, I do not think I can change anyone. I think no one changes who doesn't first want to.   I think if someone wants to change, that change is possible though.  The research support this.  

LOL a therapist you're not. Can you address what is being said? Science on this issue is inconclusive when it comes to natural attractions and sexual preferences. Just because a small minority of people change their orientation undoubtably after an "immense and prolonged effort" as you suggest, by no means indicates the issue is settled. I don't believe in your god anymore, has nothing to do with anger or this topic. But you do and your god holds homosexuals accountable for acting on their homosexuality so my question isn't one of morality. That's stated in your scriptures. My question is why are you banking on science that isn't conclusive and only accounts for such a small fraction of people? Is it just an effort to say could have a choice during a 'fluid' time? 

People can't help their personal attractions they become aware of as they grow and mature. 90% of people develop desires for the opposite sex, 10% develop similar desires for the same sex or both. Not in any stage where the natural development of sexual attraction is concerned is the person making a choice before those desires comes into full fruition. I just liked girls, period. I didn't choose that but I'm happy with it. Can you explain what exactly is your take when these researchers of yours talk of 'fluidity'? Can you change your sexual orientation?

You are the one who has not addressed what was being said.  I provided research that shows that sexual orientation is fluid.  You provided no evidence to support your position that sexual orientation is immutable.  Since, it certainly isn't from the research literature, how did you come to that conclusion?

Like Joeseph, you admit there are lots of examples of people whose sexual orientation changed, but you dismiss them as is they are aberrant without providing any reason why that is. 

You suggested that all instances of sexual orientation switching must be immense and prolonged.  But the national youth longitudinal study for sexual orientation showed that some people changed sexual orientation 5 times during the multiyear study.  Seems that the switching was not so immense or prolonged. 

From 

RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENT SEXUAL ORIENTATION: DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH DISPARITIES, STIGMA AND RESILIENCE

On the National Institutes of Health website:

Another problem with the milestones approach is it suggests orientation is a fundamental trait unfolding during adolescence, but once adulthood is reached, labels and behaviors are stable and consistent. Without longitudinal data, this may have been a reasonable assumption, and inconsistencies in attractions, behaviors, and self-labels among teens could be attributed to immaturity, experimentation, or strong social pressures to conform during the teen years (Russell & Seif, 2002; Saewyc et al., 2004, 2009). However, longitudinal studies published during the past decade have raised awareness about the fluidity of orientation among some teens during adolescence and into adulthood. Rosario and colleagues (2006a) explored changing orientation labels among older sexual minority teens in New York over 12 months; they found most teens remained consistent, but 30–40% of bisexual teens shifted to a gay or lesbian label during the year, and 7% shifted from gay or lesbian to bisexual; only 2–3% of teens shifted to “straight.” They noted their brief time period and lack of heterosexual teens were distinct limitations to understanding longer-term fluidity or permanence in sexual orientation. Studies by Lisa Diamond (1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2008) documented this fluidity among older adolescent and young adult women over a longer period, charting attractions, labels and behavior. She found relative consistency in their sexual attractions, but up to 67% changed labels and behavior over the course of 10 years, with a small number of young women dropping a lesbian or bisexual label for a heterosexual identity, but far more of them switching between lesbian and bisexual, or shifting to “unlabeled.” A much larger population-based study of sexual orientation stability, over 6 years, was conducted by Savin-Williams & Ream (2007), using the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health. They found adolescents with a non-heterosexual orientation in any dimension were less likely than exclusively heterosexual teens to remain consistent in their attractions and behavior over time. However, Savin-Williams and Ream also noted that as some gay, lesbian and bisexual adolescents shifted to opposite-gender attractions, behavior, or heterosexual self-labels, a larger absolute number of heterosexual teens shifted to same- or both-gender attractions and behaviors, keeping the overall prevalence relatively similar across time.

So to recap.  I provided research for my claims.  You provided no evidence for yours.  Maybe you could put in the 'immense and prolonged' effort to try and make a fact based argument.  Just sayin

Argument Topic: The debate question is predicated on an outdated and reductionist view on causality

This dichotomist view is rooted in the old "nurture vs nature" debate. This isn't the case anymore. With the recent scientific advancements, the current consensus is that homosexuality, along with other notable human characteristics, rests on a multifactorial perspective encompassing biological and environmental factors, among other variables.

Environmental and Biological factors are not mutually exclusive, and it doesn't make any sense to say that something is purely environmental or biological; you need biological underpinnings in the first place for them to be able to be influenced. The discussion among scientists now is more about the influence of different factors, including but not limited to genetics, prenatal conditions, social environments, and personal experiences and why these factors cannot be ignored. 

Furthermore, like with the question in the argument topic, the question "Are we either born gay or do we choose to be gay?" is based on yet again binary thinking and ignores the scientific reality, which is far more complex. We may choose who and how to identify as or who to have a sexual relationship with. What we cannot do (and it is absurd to suggest otherwise) is choose who we are physically attracted to; sexual behaviour does not equate to physical attraction! 

The other common flaw I have seen in many of the arguments in this thread, among other debates of the exact nature in the past, is the failure to understand that many biological and environmental influences we see taking place later on, are not there at the time of birth, as well as the misunderstanding regarding how heredity works. There is, of course, no gay gene, and it is ludicrous to suggest there is. Just like it is silly to think there must be some single religious gene, this is not how genetics/heredity work. Likewise, it's equally absurd to believe that sexual orientation can be changed at will due to the absence of a specific gay gene. When engaging in discussions about homosexuality, contemporary scientists are most definitely talking about a wide array of genetic influences interacting in a complex way with the environment versus any single gene. 

The other flaw noted here is the factually inaccurate claim that identical twins can have two orientations. The factually accurate claim here is the following: 

Twin studies[edit]

Identical twins are more likely to have the same sexual orientation than non-identical twins. This indicates that genes have some influence on sexual orientation; however, scientists have found evidence that other events in the womb play a role. Twins may have separate amniotic sacs and placentas, resulting in different exposure and timing of hormones.A number of twin studies have attempted to compare the relative importance of genetics and environment in the determination of sexual orientation. In a 1991 study, Bailey and Pillard conducted a study of male twins recruited from "homophile publications", and found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers (of whom 59 were questioned) and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[31] 'MZ' indicates identical twins with the same sets of genes and 'DZ' indicates fraternal twins where genes are mixed to an extent similar to that of non-twin siblings. In a study of 61 pairs of twins, researchers found among their mostly male subjects a concordance rate for homosexuality of 66% among monozygotic twins and a 30% one among dizygotic twins.[32] In 2000, Bailey, Dunne and Martin studied a larger sample of 4,901 Australian twins but reported less than half the level of concordance.[33] They found 20% concordance in the male identical or MZ twins and 24% concordance for the female identical or MZ twins. Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. Other researchers support biological causes for both men and women's sexual orientation.[34]A 2008 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[35] found that same-sex behaviour was explained by both heritable genetic factors and unique environmental factors (which can include the prenatal environment during gestation, exposure to illness in early life, peer groups not shared with a twin, etc.), although a twin study cannot identify which factor is at play. Influences of the shared environment (influences including the family environment, rearing, shared peer groups, culture and societal views, and sharing the same school and community) had no effect for men, and a weak effect for women. This is consistent with the common finding that parenting and culture appears to play no role in male sexual orientation, but may play some small role in women. The study concludes that genetic influences on any lifetime same-sex partner were stronger for men than women, and that "it has been suggested individual differences in heterosexual and homosexual behavior result from unique environmental factors such as prenatal exposure to sex hormones, progressive maternal immunization to sex-specific proteins, or neurodevelopmental factors", although does not rule out other variables. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results:Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[35]

Put more simply, Identical twins with the same genes are significantly far more likely to be both homosexual as opposed to fraternal twins who share only 50 per cent of each other's genes. 


Lastly, from the most up-to-date literate, read this: 

SCIENCE AND SOCE SOCE lack sufficient bases in scientific principles. A variety of methodological and statistical issues have rendered many SOCE reports invalid (APA, 2009; Panozzo, 2013; Retraction notice, 2019; Spitzer, 2012). In addition to problems with their specific study designs, SOCE proponents’ claims distort others’ valid research. SOCE proponents’ claims about the possibility of environmental influences on sexual orientation are inconsistent and lack connectivity with the ways scientific theories meaningfully integrate multiple biological and cultural factors contributing to sexual orientation (Bailey, Vasey, Diamond, Breedlove, Vilain, & Epprecht, 2016; Diamond & Rosky, 2016; Shidlo & Gonsiorek, 2017; see Tolman & Diamond, 2014, for scientific theories on sexual orientation). Failing to correct refuted claims, some SOCE proponents have referenced discredited factors in sexual orientation etiology, such as “defective” gender identity, and made inaccurate claims using psychoanalytic concepts, such as referring to sexual minorities as inherently developmentally arrested due to parent-child relationships (Isay, 1989; Shidlo & Gonsiorek, 2017). Literature on SOCE has also inaccurately applied evidence of sexual fluidity across the lifespan by distorting sexual fluidity as a justification for SOCE (Diamond & Rosky, 2016). Rather than willful shifts in sexual orientation, fluidity describes changes in awareness, attractions, behaviors, and identities that unfold over time (Diamond, 2008). However, that sexual orientation can evolve and change for some does not mean that it can be altered through intervention or that it is advisable to try. 

WHEREAS there is no scientific basis for regarding any sexual orientation negatively or as a deficit or deviance or result of trauma or parenting (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; APA, 1975; Drescher, 2015; Shidlo & Gonsiorek, 2017); furthermore, sexual behavior with same, other, and more than one gender occurs across species, time, and culture (Bagemihl, 2000; Tskhay & Rule, 2015) and sexual fluidity is normal (Diamond, 2008);

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the APA opposes dissemination of inaccurate information about the effects of SOCE, such as information that minimizes the evidence of harm from SOCE or information that misconstrues sexual fluidity as an outcome of SOCE;

Differences in reported sexual attraction and behavior over time can be explained by extant sexual fluidity or bisexuality rather than changes in sexual orientation as a result of SOCE (e.g., Beckstead, 2012; Haldeman, 1994)

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-sexual-orientation-change-efforts.pdf (Bold added). 

@just_sayin

JUST SAYIN : Is deliberately misreprenting others arguments and ( as usual) saying scholars are wrong but he is right 



***Like Joeseph, you admit there are lots of examples of people whose sexual orientation changed, but you dismiss them as is they are aberrant without providing any reason why that is. ***

FF or I did not dismiss those whose sexual orientation changs during their youth in fact we both acknowledged it , you're terribly dishonest in debate.

You're totally misrepresenting what most scholars in the field say ......

The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2004 stated:[13]

The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences

@ZeusAres42

Funny isn't it ? I wonder why nearly 90 per cent of the adult  world's population don't avail of this simple " choice" ?

Maybe it's all because they are afraid of gods judgement.

ZeusAres42 said:

@Joeseph

Right, so all the natural changes that occur throughout puberty until adulthood mean that once one reaches adulthood, they can voluntarily change all of this with enough effort? I guess with enough effort on our part we could change the size of our d!ck right? 

How did you reach the conclusion that someone can make a part of their body grow at will is the same as sexual orientation fluidity?  If you have evidence that these are like things, can you show it?  I imagine that you were trying to make a joke because you don't have evidence to support your position.  

Again, the debate is are people born gay.  The research shows that there is no gay gene and that there are no known biological markers that are determinate for gayness.  read here.  

 the report finds that human DNA cannot predict who is gay or heterosexual. Sexuality cannot be pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences

I've proven the thesis that people are not born gay.  The research clearly shows that sexual orientation is fluid, at least through the teen years.  If you have evidence that people are born gay then you should have shared it.  

On a side note, why is it so few debaters on this site provide evidence to support their claims?  My observation is that someone is much more likely to make a personal attack in this debate, like questioning an opponents sexual orientation, than actually supporting their argument with evidence.  

@just_sayin

Wow! You're whining about my piece not being more up to date yet you constantly quote from a 2000 year old book and call its ramblings ....Fact ......hilarious.

The most up to date findings support the fact that secual orientation is not a choice I know this fact goes in the face of your religious beliefs but that's tough facts do not care about your religious dictates.

Your unfounded contention remains that sexual orientation is a choice and your " best evidence" has been a minority study demonstrating 39 per cent of non binrary depressed  children in a small poll were confused about sexual orientation...dear or dear.


So do explain why 90 per cent of the world's population stay the same sexual orientation  they were born with?

Is it because they fear gods wrath? 

You believe it is don't you ?

Argument Topic: There is no gay gene. This has been scientifically proven.

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

You suggested that all instances of sexual orientation switching must be immense and prolonged.

Show me what post I said that. That's more like your your claim...

Just as with people losing weight, quitting drugs, alcohol or gambling, yes, they can, but often not without immense and prolonged effort.  Even then, they may have attractions and thoughts because of how those patterns have been established in their brain https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/179288/#Comment_179288

In which part of my response was: Just because a small minority of people change their orientation undoubtably after an "immense and prolonged effort" as you suggest, by no means indicates the issue is settled.

Notice I used quotation marks quoting you and gave the explanative 'as you suggest' so there can be no confusion who makes such claims; that'd be you. 

What are you asking for research of? That 90% of people born never change their sexual preferences? Yes, it's true then, I agree with Joseph, that's nonsense. If you don't accept common knowledge, (in every sense of the word) then it's pointless to debate with you.

If people change their sexual orientation, either with a lot of effort or a little, it shows that it can change.  

I mentioned to Joeseph, that American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions

Can someone change their attractions, or behavior, or identity, or membership in a community then they can change their sexual orientation.  A person can change all four, as the research shows.  This may require immense and a prolonged effort, but the research shows that this has happened.

Joeseph brought up the 90% of people are heterosexual.  I did not say that it was untrue, my focus was on if people could change their sexual orientation, and again the literature says it can.  Do you have evidence that it can not change?  if so what is it?  If people can change their sexual orientation then how do they do this without making any choices?  

Delilah6120 said:

@just_sayin
Homosexuality has been documented throughout human history. This dates back to ancient times with much evidence in literature and records. Homosexuality has existed for millenia. Studies have found that homosexuality orientation rates amongst monozygotic (identical) twins is 65.8% and among dizygotic twins it is 30.4%. This seems to support the argument for biological bases in sexual orientation. Because the higher incidence in identical twins is higher, this is interpreted as supporting the role that genetics plays in sexual orientation. While these percentages are not 100%, there seems to be enough evidence to support a genetic connection. I think that anything other than this interpretation is actually the archaic theory.

There is much (to me) unnecessary attention placed on homosexuality. Does it make one uncomfortable? Could it be that not understanding something triggers fear? 1) Why does it seem to trigger people? and 2) Why would someone go against their own biological and sexual attraction desires?

Welcome to the site.

The fact that identical twins can have different sexual orientations shows that there is no gay gene.  If there was a gay gene, then if one twin were gay, the other would be also.  we know that is not the case.  The almost 1/2 million participant study said 

 the report finds that human DNA cannot predict who is gay or heterosexual. Sexuality cannot be pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences

The half a million participants includes twins also.  I get that a lot of old timey research made false claims about gay genes.  These were lies and have been disproven.  There is no gay gene.  So called gay genetic markers are not generically determinate.  That means they don't determine a persons sexual orientation.  In fact a greater number of heterosexuals have these genetic markers, than do non-heterosexuals

Research on sexual orientation shows that there is fluidity and that some people change their sexual orientation, sometimes many times over the course of their lifetime. 

ZeusAres42 said:

This dichotomist view is rooted in the old "nurture vs nature" debate. This isn't the case anymore. With the recent scientific advancements, the current consensus is that homosexuality, along with other notable human characteristics, rests on a multifactorial perspective encompassing biological and environmental factors, among other variables.

Environmental and Biological factors are not mutually exclusive, and it doesn't make any sense to say that something is purely environmental or biological; you need biological underpinnings in the first place for them to be able to be influenced. The discussion among scientists now is more about the influence of different factors, including but not limited to genetics, prenatal conditions, social environments, and personal experiences and why these factors cannot be ignored. 

Furthermore, like with the question in the argument topic, the question "Are we either born gay or do we choose to be gay?" is based on yet again binary thinking and ignores the scientific reality, which is far more complex. We may choose who and how to identify as or who to have a sexual relationship with. What we cannot do (and it is absurd to suggest otherwise) is choose who we are physically attracted to; sexual behaviour does not equate to physical attraction! 

The other common flaw I have seen in many of the arguments in this thread, among other debates of the exact nature in the past, is the failure to understand that many biological and environmental influences we see taking place later on, are not there at the time of birth, as well as the misunderstanding regarding how heredity works. There is, of course, no gay gene, and it is ludicrous to suggest there is. Just like it is silly to think there must be some single religious gene, this is not how genetics/heredity work. Likewise, it's equally absurd to believe that sexual orientation can be changed at will due to the absence of a specific gay gene. When engaging in discussions about homosexuality, contemporary scientists are most definitely talking about a wide array of genetic influences interacting in a complex way with the environment versus any single gene. 

The other flaw noted here is the factually inaccurate claim that identical twins can have two orientations. The factually accurate claim here is the following: 

Twin studies[edit]

Identical twins are more likely to have the same sexual orientation than non-identical twins. This indicates that genes have some influence on sexual orientation; however, scientists have found evidence that other events in the womb play a role. Twins may have separate amniotic sacs and placentas, resulting in different exposure and timing of hormones.

A number of twin studies have attempted to compare the relative importance of genetics and environment in the determination of sexual orientation. In a 1991 study, Bailey and Pillard conducted a study of male twins recruited from "homophile publications", and found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers (of whom 59 were questioned) and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[31] 'MZ' indicates identical twins with the same sets of genes and 'DZ' indicates fraternal twins where genes are mixed to an extent similar to that of non-twin siblings. In a study of 61 pairs of twins, researchers found among their mostly male subjects a concordance rate for homosexuality of 66% among monozygotic twins and a 30% one among dizygotic twins.[32] In 2000, Bailey, Dunne and Martin studied a larger sample of 4,901 Australian twins but reported less than half the level of concordance.[33] They found 20% concordance in the male identical or MZ twins and 24% concordance for the female identical or MZ twins. Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. Other researchers support biological causes for both men and women's sexual orientation.[34]A 2008 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[35] found that same-sex behaviour was explained by both heritable genetic factors and unique environmental factors (which can include the prenatal environment during gestation, exposure to illness in early life, peer groups not shared with a twin, etc.), although a twin study cannot identify which factor is at play. Influences of the shared environment (influences including the family environment, rearing, shared peer groups, culture and societal views, and sharing the same school and community) had no effect for men, and a weak effect for women. This is consistent with the common finding that parenting and culture appears to play no role in male sexual orientation, but may play some small role in women. The study concludes that genetic influences on any lifetime same-sex partner were stronger for men than women, and that "it has been suggested individual differences in heterosexual and homosexual behavior result from unique environmental factors such as prenatal exposure to sex hormones, progressive maternal immunization to sex-specific proteins, or neurodevelopmental factors", although does not rule out other variables. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results:Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[35]

Put more simply, Identical twins with the same genes are significantly far more likely to be both homosexual as opposed to fraternal twins who share only 50 per cent of each other's genes. 


Lastly, from the most up-to-date literate, read this: 

SCIENCE AND SOCE SOCE lack sufficient bases in scientific principles. A variety of methodological and statistical issues have rendered many SOCE reports invalid (APA, 2009; Panozzo, 2013; Retraction notice, 2019; Spitzer, 2012). In addition to problems with their specific study designs, SOCE proponents’ claims distort others’ valid research. SOCE proponents’ claims about the possibility of environmental influences on sexual orientation are inconsistent and lack connectivity with the ways scientific theories meaningfully integrate multiple biological and cultural factors contributing to sexual orientation (Bailey, Vasey, Diamond, Breedlove, Vilain, & Epprecht, 2016; Diamond & Rosky, 2016; Shidlo & Gonsiorek, 2017; see Tolman & Diamond, 2014, for scientific theories on sexual orientation). Failing to correct refuted claims, some SOCE proponents have referenced discredited factors in sexual orientation etiology, such as “defective” gender identity, and made inaccurate claims using psychoanalytic concepts, such as referring to sexual minorities as inherently developmentally arrested due to parent-child relationships (Isay, 1989; Shidlo & Gonsiorek, 2017). Literature on SOCE has also inaccurately applied evidence of sexual fluidity across the lifespan by distorting sexual fluidity as a justification for SOCE (Diamond & Rosky, 2016). Rather than willful shifts in sexual orientation, fluidity describes changes in awareness, attractions, behaviors, and identities that unfold over time (Diamond, 2008). However, that sexual orientation can evolve and change for some does not mean that it can be altered through intervention or that it is advisable to try. 

WHEREAS there is no scientific basis for regarding any sexual orientation negatively or as a deficit or deviance or result of trauma or parenting (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; APA, 1975; Drescher, 2015; Shidlo & Gonsiorek, 2017); furthermore, sexual behavior with same, other, and more than one gender occurs across species, time, and culture (Bagemihl, 2000; Tskhay & Rule, 2015) and sexual fluidity is normal (Diamond, 2008);

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the APA opposes dissemination of inaccurate information about the effects of SOCE, such as information that minimizes the evidence of harm from SOCE or information that misconstrues sexual fluidity as an outcome of SOCE;

Differences in reported sexual attraction and behavior over time can be explained by extant sexual fluidity or bisexuality rather than changes in sexual orientation as a result of SOCE (e.g., Beckstead, 2012; Haldeman, 1994)

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-sexual-orientation-change-efforts.pdf (Bold added). 


Glad you didn't fall back to the AI.  But copy and pasting from Wikipedia????  Seriously.  The 2019 almost half a million participant study, showed that 

 the report finds that human DNA cannot predict who is gay or heterosexual. Sexuality cannot be pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences

I seem to have to keep mentioning this but that study found that 1) there is no gay gene, 2) five genetic markers associated with sexual orientation are not genetically determinate - meaning that a) more heterosexuals have those markers, and b) most gay people do not have any of those markers.  The markers may have some genetic influence (estimated from 8 to 25% of gay people), but genetic influence is not the same as genetic determinate, so sorry, people aren't born with an immutable sexual orientation.  

I keep coming back to defining sexual orientation because it seems some are making up their own definition of what it is and what it entails.  The American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions

Can any or all of these four aspects change?  Yep, and the research shows that all four can and do change.  

Sociodemographic Patterns in Retrospective Sexual Orientation Identity and Attraction Change in the Sexual Orientation Fluidity in Youth Study

Across the sample, 17% reported a retrospective change in identity and 33% reported a change in attractions. 

Sexual identity fluidity, identity management stress, and depression among sexual minority adolescents

In the sample, 40% of SMA reported at least one change in sexual identity over 18-month period. Greater number of cisgender females reported sexual identity fluidity compared to their male counterparts (46.9% vs. 26.6%). 

At least one in five teenagers reports some change in sexual orientation during adolescence, according to new research from North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Pittsburgh.

Study Highlights Fluid Sexual Orientation in Many Teens

The researchers found that at some point during the three-year period, 19% of students reported at least one change in their self-labeled sexual identity – for example, classifying themselves as heterosexual in year one and as bisexual in year two. Some students reported multiple changes, such as switching from heterosexual to bisexual between years one and two, and then back to heterosexual in year three.
There were also notable differences between male and female students, with 26% of girls reporting some change in sexual identity over the three-year study period, compared to 11% of boys.

Sexual Fluidity in Male and Females

The existing body of international research assessing sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities among representative samples of adolescents and adults shows that sexual orientation is not a static and categorical trait. Rather, same-sex sexuality shows substantial fluidity in both men and women, and this fluidity takes a number of forms.

Sexual Fluidity: Implications for Population Research - Duke University

Overall, about 1 in 11 American adults changed sexual identities over five annual surveys, including 6% of cisgender men, 11% of cisgender women, and 35% of gender minorities. Fluidity was particularly pronounced among young adults and among those who had ever identified as bisexual or “something else.” 

SOCE????  The debate topic is if someone is born gay.  While discussions of SOCE will touch on if someone is born gay, that is not part of the scope of this debate.  Whatever your feelings for or against SOCE does not change the fact that there is no gay gene, that gay genetic markers are not genetically determinate, and that people experience a great deal of sexual orientation fluidity where they CHANGE their attractions, behaviors, sexual identity, and their identified group.  

That is what the best research literature shows.  I can't speak for what wikipedia says, as it can be edited by anybody.  

You haven't shown how someone's sexual orientation changes automatically without any choice on their part.  How do attractions, behaviors, identity, and group affiliations change so fluidly - if there is never ever ever any choice involved?  Please not only give me an answer to this, but also provide the research.  Thank you.

ZeusAres42 said:

Joeseph brought up the 90% of people are heterosexual.  I did not say that it was untrue, my focus was on if people could change their sexual orientation, and again the literature says it can.  Do you have evidence that it can not change?  if so what is it?  If people can change their sexual orientation then how do they do this without making any choices?  

Nowhere in the literature does it say someone can change their orientation, and no amount of lying to yourself or others will change what the literature actually says. It says that changes in sexual orientation can be seen among some people via developmental stages. sexual fluidity (Something you constantly misinterpret) refers to variations within a person's experiences of attraction, not a wholesale change from one orientation to another. Completely different things! Sexual orientation, as also stated in the literature, has to do with physical attraction, which is a physical characteristic. 

And so my point about being able to change our d!ck size still stands and is something you will need to accept to be logically consistent. You are literally saying that a person can consciously and willfully change a physical trait. It doesn't have to be our penis size; it could even be our height or any other physical trait that, according to you, we can change. If this all sounds absurd, it's because it is, but the absurdity is originally in your argument. To be logically consistent, you will need to accept this. Your argument will still be ludicrous, but at least you will be logically consistent with your idiocy. 

just_sayin @just_sayin

Yes the literature does say they can change their sexual orientation.  Again, for the fifth time, let's review the definition of sexual orientation:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions

Pay attention:

Sociodemographic Patterns in Retrospective Sexual Orientation Identity and Attraction Change in the Sexual Orientation Fluidity in Youth Study

Across the sample, 17% reported a retrospective change in identity and 33% reported a change in attractions. 

Sexual identity fluidity, identity management stress, and depression among sexual minority adolescents

In the sample, 40% of SMA reported at least one change in sexual identity over 18-month period. Greater number of cisgender females reported sexual identity fluidity compared to their male counterparts (46.9% vs. 26.6%). 

At least one in five teenagers reports some change in sexual orientation during adolescence, according to new research from North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Pittsburgh.

Study Highlights Fluid Sexual Orientation in Many Teens

The researchers found that at some point during the three-year period, 19% of students reported at least one change in their self-labeled sexual identity – for example, classifying themselves as heterosexual in year one and as bisexual in year two. Some students reported multiple changes, such as switching from heterosexual to bisexual between years one and two, and then back to heterosexual in year three.
There were also notable differences between male and female students, with 26% of girls reporting some change in sexual identity over the three-year study period, compared to 11% of boys.

Sexual Fluidity in Male and Females

The existing body of international research assessing sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities among representative samples of adolescents and adults shows that sexual orientation is not a static and categorical trait. Rather, same-sex sexuality shows substantial fluidity in both men and women, and this fluidity takes a number of forms.

Sexual Fluidity: Implications for Population Research - Duke University

Overall, about 1 in 11 American adults changed sexual identities over five annual surveys, including 6% of cisgender men, 11% of cisgender women, and 35% of gender minorities. Fluidity was particularly pronounced among young adults and among those who had ever identified as bisexual or “something else.” 

Did you catch that?  Attractions changed, behaviors changed, sexual identities changed, and group affiliations changed.  You want to claim that those who said their sexual orientation changed lied.  But that is not their experience.  Instead it is your claim, not supported by their experience.  See the difference?