Choice is clearly a factor in determining sexuality

You are ok with shutting him down so that he lives his life the way you see fit, not how her actually wants to.

Strawman. 

At the end of the day his choices are still his choices. I (nor anyone else for that matter) have NO power or control over his choices. He chooses. He alone. End of story. 

Ok. So I was right then, you do believe the science is wrong on homosexual attraction.

What you misunderstand is that it's not about trust in any organization or individual, it's about trust in basic human nature. If WebMD was spreading misinformation, people would know about it.

Why then, spread misinformation?

They wouldn't, because like all of us they care about their well being over anything else and spreading misinformation would severely and irreparably harm that.

So when I call you a conspiracy theorist it's not because you don't trust the sources I deem credible, but because you don't trust basic human nature. You seem to think it's perfectly plausible for large numbers of people to come together to advance a goal that defies the personal interests of the individuals involved, or for even larger numbers of people who are in a position to recognize what's happening would say absolutely nothing about it to anyone. I don't know what society you grew up in, but that's not how people work.

Do you know what environmental conditions may trigger homosexuality? 

As I remember, it was thought the environment of womb might play a role. I don't remember specifics at this point.

However, if homosexuals aren't at all attracted to the opposite sex, then there is virtually no chance that in yesteryears they would have had heterosexual sex because they would not have been inclined to do so. 

People have sex with individuals they aren't physically attracted to all the time thanks to things like loneliness and alcohol.

Culture can help too - Patriarchy, arranged marriages, etc. Besides that, it also seems homosexual individuals can be born of perfectly straight parents. 

That being said, it's strange why partial homosexuality exists to any degree. What benefits are there to be found in any degree of homosexuality, or do you suspect it was a coincidental evolutionary adaption?

Ive seen it argued homosexuality might create an excess of caretakers which could be good for ensuring the survival of young and other spreading of labor theories. I'm not sure I buy this, but it is plausible. I would tend to think if homosexuality is passed along by genes, folks with homosexual tendencies are doing enough to pass their genes through the generations. 

 But you feed into a societal narrative the he because of his choices should be regarded as mentally ill 

As they knew with the abrahamic religions?

People who don't dare question authorities don't police them.

The #1 reason anyone spreads falsehoods is that they believe they are true.

What about those anti-vaxer shamans who are making $$$?

The catholic church

The Nazi state

The USSR

Some say MAGA

If you had a point here you forgot to make it.

You seem to think it's perfectly plausible for large numbers of people to come together to advance a goal that defies the personal interests of the individuals involved

Based on what you're saying here, would you go so far as to say it can't be recessive?

Um, let me try to phrase it better:

Note that when I say 'the' allele it is only in the abstract since having functionality spread out across multiple genes is one of the ways things become complicated (and thus non-deterministic).

I am saying that the allele(s) involved (if any) are so non-deterministic that it wouldn't matter if they were dominant or recessive because they wouldn't predict much of anything.

A recessive trait following Mendelian inheritance would be something we couldn't possibly miss. As has been already posted in this thread twin studies prove it.

Now a recessive trait would serve to make sure there were never too many deviants in the analysis of general benefit, but that would be a factor multiplied by the  factor that not everyone with the genes are going to become deviants.

Is that clear? It could be recessive or it could be dominant, or neither (that's a thing) and that's something we wouldn't be able to determine until we've identified the genes. We can't do that until we know what the trigger is.

What we can rule out is that there is an allele (even if recessive) that when expressed causes you to be a sexual deviant. The uncertainty is not modeled by recessive vs dominant.

It's very possible that the genetic component is super generic, related to a bunch of stuff, and is indeed much like a gene that makes one like motorcycles. In that case though the complicated part is neurological or biochemical. Which means we're not going to figure it out any time soon; yet I am certain one day we will have a very good understanding of neurology and how the brain actually works.

It's just a slog of research about a phenomenon occurring before our eyes constantly. It's not like faster than light travel or hyper dimensional speculation.

Perhaps, as some others are saying in this thread, it is epigenetic and only expresses under certain environments (maybe only in advantageous environments). That could be a way for this gene to avoid extinction.

But that would raise another big question: are there environments wherein homosexuality is advantageous?

Epigenetics can't be ruled out, but it's not a magic word to me; it's just one category of control system; the vast majority of which are utterly subconscious.

For example if I speculated that there was a biochemical reaction (pure hormone/pheromone communication and protein reaction) due to the environment that caused your brain to go deviant and stay that way would it really have any meaningful difference from an explanation involving epigenetics?

In reality all these different systems interact with each other constantly. Any given function could rely on altering gene expression, protein domino logic, ion gradient changes, neuron signals, protein-like-RNA unfolding a bit, etc... etc... all at once (in different parts of the process).

All we can do right now is bracket what is possible by ruling out a few possibilities based on what we don't observe and what natural selection would allow.

I already gave my retelling of oromagi's theory of increased fitness for homosexuality. The environment where that would be considered more useful would be somewhere children are at risk and require a lot of help from adults; but not an environment with limited food or water as adults eat and drink a lot.

There is no reason it would need to react to the environment though; it is enough for a trait to be useful at the time to be selected; it doesn't need to detect when it would be useful, although sometimes it can and that kind of usefulness does tend stick around.

If homosexuality isn't a choice and can't be changed, but it's also not genetic, what then determines it?

Control systems beyond our conscious control. That can be the subconscious (which is probably the answer), or it could be gene switching (expressed proteins can change even with identical DNA), or it could be a pure chemical equilibrium of some complexity.

I thought the subconscious was determined by genetics, too, hence the variations in it.

Everything ultimately arises from genetics, but people mean something specific (or should) when they say "it's genetic". They mean you can map someone's genome and make a prediction.

I think it was TWS who used "green eyes" as his example of this. Now the fact that I am typing in English is certainly something made possible ultimately by my genes. My genes built the cells and proteins of my brain. My genes determined the patterns by which neurons link; but knowing English is not genetic.

Capacity for diversity vs predestination.

What exactly is a "pure chemical equilibrium" of some complexity? I've never heard of that term before.

Well I was just covering all the bases. I don't know enough biology to know any examples off the top of my head. From an evolutionary standpoint they would certainly have been prevalent near the start of every new biochemical pathway; but probably just as certainly they would eventually be augmented by active control via in-situ proteins, epigenetics, etc...

Take ion (like sodium or hydroxide) flow through pores in a cell membrane for example. I think there are examples of both active and passive control. In passive control the proteins of the pore itself interact with differing concentrations on either side and that closes or opens the pore. There is no signalling, no waiting for new proteins or hormones to be manufactured. Just chemistry.

I don't know of any examples of life generating its own (pH) buffers, but I would be very surprised if it never happens. In fact I suspect my own blood and cytoplasm are buffers to some degree by design.

The context here is sexual attraction so no matter where the story starts it ends in the brain. A chain reaction of signal chemicals ending in "find men hot" is a bit like a fairy tale and quite inexplicable.  Like I said, covering all the bases.

I think both sides (choice and genetic) have agreed to this.

I am saying that the allele(s) involved (if any) are so non-deterministic that it wouldn't matter if they were dominant or recessive because they wouldn't predict much of anything.

But being completely homosexual, especially in antiquity, would mean that you wouldn't breed. Hence, not breeding 100% determines that your genes won't be passed on, so complete homosexuality should be super deterministic if it is genetic.

Unless the benefits of homosexuality (or partial homosexuality) are outweighed by some of the most anti-breeding genes (gay genes), homosexuality should have entered extinction long ago. The fact that there isn't a hypothesis that anyone seems to agree with (people keep mentioning the excess caretaker hypothesis, but you don't seem to agree with that yourself) makes it pretty hard to advocate for a genetic cause.

What we can rule out is that there is an allele (even if recessive) that when expressed causes you to be a sexual deviant. The uncertainty is not modeled by recessive vs dominant.

Are you ruling this out because it's a singular allele, rather than multiple?

In reality all these different systems interact with each other constantly. Any given function could rely on altering gene expression, protein domino logic, ion gradient changes, neuron signals, protein-like-RNA unfolding a bit, etc... etc... all at once (in different parts of the process).

All we can do right now is bracket what is possible by ruling out a few possibilities based on what we don't observe and what natural selection would allow.

I already gave my retelling of oromagi's theory of increased fitness for homosexuality. The environment where that would be considered more useful would be somewhere children are at risk and require a lot of help from adults; but not an environment with limited food or water as adults eat and drink a lot.

There is no reason it would need to react to the environment though; it is enough for a trait to be useful at the time to be selected; it doesn't need to detect when it would be useful, although sometimes it can and that kind of usefulness does tend stick around.

The biggest problem with your retelling is that ultimately, the homosexuals genes don't get passed on. Yes, they can help other's genes to be passed on, and that may help the tribe, but unless the homosexual passes on their genes, those genes should go extinct. In other words, helping other children doesn't help pass on your genes. Sure, closely related children can have similar genes, but they don't necessarily have your (homosexual) genes.

I'm pretty sure "it's genetic" means something's variance range can be (usually partly) explained by genes, rather than something you can only make a prediction with.

Examples of large numbers of people coming together to advance a goal that defies the personal interests of the individuals involved:

The catholic church

The Nazi state

The USSR

Some say MAGA

I think the alcohol makes those unattractive people attractive, hence people who drunk alcohol are actually attracted those people.

I'm not sure people having sex out of loneliness is a thing. Do you have any research on this topic?

Keep in mind that we're talking about homosexuals having heterosexual sex of their own volition, not people who are forced in arranged marriages (wherein there are probably instances of people having sex with others they are not attracted to).

None of these are analogous.

if the experts involved didn't know their information was unreliable, they wouldn't be experts.

The Nazis, MAGA, all examples of people being led by their worst impulses in a situation where people are scared and/or angry and looking for a scapegoat.

Any social or political scientist could explain how this works in detail. None of this compares to the type of conspiracies you allege.

They aren't analogies they are examples of "large numbers of people to come together to advance a goal that defies the personal interests of the individuals involved".

So yes, I think it is plausible because it's happened so many times and keeps happening.

The only conspiracy I've alleged (when you were paying attention) was that Hunter and Joe Biden were conspiring with the CEO of Burisma to deflect an investigation. Everything else could be easily explained by people following orders or reporting what they were told.

Just as statements on WebMD without a shred of scientific utility (and just like religious dogma quite untestable for the moment) can easily be explained by WebMD staff wanting to lend aid and comfort to what is popularly seen as a victim group.

As I explained in my previous post, I'm talking about willing participants in activities providing no discernable benefit to those involved. And by willing, I'm talking about people who are aware of all of this.

In the first example, you have both the Vice President upending US foreign policy in order to cover for the corruption of himself and his son by making up a lie that the Ukrainian prosecutor is corrupt, meanwhile the State Department and the President decide to go along with it pretending it's all for legitimate reasons. Why? How does this benefit either? No conceivable answer.

Then you have government officials from both within the US government (including republicans) buying into the whole thing hook line and sinker. Why?

What about US intelligence communities? Any of them care to speak up about what was going on? No? Why not? No conceivable answer.

What about journalists? Anyone wondering why a non corrupt prosecutor is being fired for corruption after being pushed out by an official of a foreign government?

Does anyone want to break the story of the corrupt VP covering up for his son? No? Why not? No conceivable answer.

So with all of the hard passes by literally everyone to look into this, how did we eventually find out? Oh, because the corrupt VP who got away with everything decided to tell the entire world about it just as he was gearing up for a presidential campaign.

And now that the issue has been widely politicized, all of a sudden we are learning the truth that no one wanted to know about before.

Makes perfect sense.

But there's more, because it turns out the world's third most utilized medical site decides to post whatever feels right to them with no science to back it up.

And the staff who run various aspects of this website just go along with it. Non of them share the fact that the website most people turn to for basic easily verifiable medical information is bullshit with anyone, including apparently after they leave the company.

And medical professionals from all over the world who could easily tell whether the information is bogus seem to care nothing about the fact that dangerously false information is being spread by this prominent site.

And no journalist wants to break the story and maybe win a Nobel prize for exposing the fraud that spreads false medical information to hundreds of millions of people every month.

This is the world we live in in the mind of a conspiracy. theorist

Any employee of the state departments: Doesn't know it's a lie, it might even be a half truth (which are the best lies).

Seriously? What do you think the people who work at the state department do all day? Sit around waiting for the VP to tell them what's going on around the world?

Obama: Doesn't know it's a lie, it might even be a half truth (which are the best lies), even if he was ever informed (which I have seen no evidence of). Meanwhile it tends to be counter-productive to put an underling in charge of something and then micromanage them.

It's not micromanaging to know when your underling is threatening to withhold US foreign aid to another country.

The state department, as well as every intelligence agency in the government exists to keep the president informed of world affairs.

And your answer is he didn't know because no one told him because the departments themselves didn't know. You can't be serious.

You tell me, why are they now convinced there are audio recordings of Biden accepting bribes (which he probably solicited)? Why would they do that?

Because of politics. Accusing Biden of bribery is what the base wants, even when the source is a Russian oligarch who provided no evidence and no one has talked to in 3 years.

If the VP were strong arming another country to save his corrupt son especially against official US foreign policy everyone working around him would know about it.

How do you think I know all this?

Because apparently Joe Biden decided to tell the entire world about his corruption, right before running for president

You need to put yourself in the other guys shoes when you say stuff like that.

Make an argument if you care enough to threaten death.

You can't deliver death online and deciding to kill someone makes you their enemy.

You can debate the nature of consent in this thread so it's not spread out all over the site

You can't deliver death online and deciding to kill someone makes you their enemy.

I have no power to kill you whatsoever.

You were  threatening Korea remember?

For instance I support a system of government with police, it would by hypocritical and cowardly to claim to be a pacifist at the same time as I vote for and lend support towards an organization that keeps killing people in my name.