Sloth that is completly wrong.

There are females who are XY, but there are no men who are XX. the reson for this is that all fetuses are female untill hormones are produced which give them male characteristics. if the fetus lacks a receptor for that hormone, they fail to devlop male characteristics and are assumed to be female upon birth. these individuals grow up as women, but require hormone therapy to mature.

Also, an "extra" chromosom causes downs syndrome, not homosexuality.

Here Here

Crono started a thread asking for opinions on gay marriage. Orf offered his. he explained quite clearly from the outset that he seen homosexuality as a choice, and that he felt stongly that it was an immoral choice. whether i agree with it or not, it's his opinion. he also explained quite clearly that he was not racist, as race is not a choice. same with disabilities.

so why does he deserve to be attacked for having this opinion?

Jeff, I have never seen convincing scientific evidence in either direction. I think your assertion that homosexuality is purely hereditary is just as ignorant as Orph?s position that it is entirely due to environmental influences. Developmental psychology is not well understood, and almost never as simple as ?it?s genetic?. There is never just one cause that can be applied to all individuals. >>

> >

So, if you want to argue intelligently, I suggest you present your evidence for the heredity of homosexuality.>>

I myself am undecided on this issue. I cannot be bothered to research the topic, and therefore am far too ignorant of the facts to draw any sort of definitive conclusion. So convince me Jeff. If you can offer me credible scientific proof for the heredity of homosexuality I?ll believe it. I will not accept anecdotal evidence or simple correlation. There needs to be a clear causal mechanistic link.>>

I seem to have made an incorect inference. What is your position on the nature and origin of homsexuality if you are so vehminantly opposed to the assumption which Orph has made?

/edit/ Sorry about the attitude Jeff. I tend to be a bit arogant, and this medium of exchange sometimes allows that proclivity to dominate

No I didn't see Monqui's bit, I'll search for it though.

All very resonable. My objection was that people up to this point were attacking Orphs position without reference to the assumption on which it was based.

My opinion, as I thought I had already made clear, is not in concurence with Orph's. However I can see where he is comeing from and decided to take up the gauntlet on his behalf.

Going on from there, look at it this way; but note that this is an extreem example:

Do people decided to be criminals, or do they just grow into it? Lets presume there is no concious decision. it's just what seems natural to them in much the same way that homosexuality seems natural to gays.

In this model the end behavior is the result of a complex interplay of social and and enviromental presures, yet not everyone who is subjected to those presure becomes a criminal, or a homsexual. in the case of criminals we view submission to these presures as a choice, and punish them in accordance with this interperatation. Why then does the same logic not apply to homosexuality? why can they not be held respocible for their choice as Orph does?

Note that I do not hold homosexuality to be a crime. I am equating the postulated mechanisms by which these behaviors are produced, not the behaviors themselves.