I see that when Nicnoto tries to explain reasons for homosexuality some of the terms he uses are brain dysfunction, a chemical imbalance, improper hormone doses.

He's 'already' made up his mind.

Note Bugsy’s comment early on. He identified a false dichotomy that is causing confusion so it deserves repeating.

”Please stop thinking that just because something may have a biological basis it must be genetic, or that if it's not genetic it must be a conscious 'choice'.” (or that if it is not a conscious choice it must have a biological basis)

Samsung,

“I see that when Nicnoto tries to explain reasons for homosexuality some of the terms he uses are brain dysfunction, a chemical imbalance, improper hormone doses. ”

Wasn’t it Yabby who believes based on a book that homosexuality is the product of hormones stuffing up before birth due to stress?

Yabby,

Have you checked the studies referred to or just read the book? Naturally it crosses my mind that this human subject PC explanation in the book might be the excuse for the studies being inaccessible. If so isn’t the corollary that the credibility is questionable if we can’t check.

“Couldn't we just continue to make decisions as the dominant species for ourselves?.”

Further, by doing the comparison with the animals in the article it seems to imply that homosexuality in humans is also “a social phenomenon”? It is normally no more “a social phenomenon” than heterosexuality. Don’t you know that some human adults have the orientation and are not attracted to the opposite sex?

(The last quote is from Thinker 2 not Yabby)

samsung

I'm female thank you, and don't even try to assess my mind. Your last assumption of my gender already proved incorrect.

If you weren't so one sided, you could see I am entertaining all possibilities as an explanation.
Including possibilities that you or anyone else may find offensive.

*Have you checked the studies referred to or just read the book?*

MJPB, I read the book, but its an extremely well known book and
is fully referenced. Some of the references on this particular
section go back to papers published in the german "Endokrinologie"
of the 80s. You are free to dig them up if you wish :)

The book was reprinted 12 times by the time I got my copy, but
I gather more have been printed and its still available. It dealt
with the scientific understanding of the biological differences
between men and women, as known at the time of its publication.

Fact is that because its such a non PC and controversial topic,
funding for this kind of research would be hard to find for any
scientist.

But if you read it, see what is known about experiments with other
species etc, it makes far too much sense to ignore the information.

It was also produced as a tv series, for the BBC, IIRC.

The thing is, endocrine systems in all mammal species are
very similar. We know that we can change both human behaviour and
appearance, by the use of hormones. That is extremely well
documented.

Nicnoto, the fact that you so willingly accept the possibility of homosexuality being biologically abnormal, via your "brain dysfunction/chemical imbalance/improper hormones" comments, shows where you are coming from.

Homosexuality is NOT a biological dysfunction, just as heterosexuality is NOT a biological dysfunction. Homosexuality is a biological function, just like heterosexuality is a biological function. Homosexuality is common amongst animals, and common amongst humans. Homosexuality is perfectly natural and normal, just like heterosexuality is perfectly normal and natural.

Homosexuality doesn't feel natural when practiced by a heterosexual, just like heterosexuality doesn't feel natural when practiced by a homosexual. Homosexuality is NOT a biological dysfunction IF you are homosexual. Heterosexuality is NOT a biological dysfunction IF you are heterosexual.

Do you get it now?