I'm Born This Way

[The Word]

​

If you've ever taken care of a group of two year old children, you will see all the different behaviors they have. Some will be off by themselves playing with some blocks. A few boys will be pestering the girls. Girls have a tendency to talk much more at this age so some of them will be talking up a storm and shouting at the boys who mess around with them. There's always the fighters in a group who argue and hit each other over some toy they both want. Some are teacher's pets and hang around the adult wanting all their attention. And many times there is a bully who wants everything his way or else he'll beat on someone.
　
Believe it or not, this is not learned behavior that two year old children get by observing other two year olds. This is what they were born with. From this time on, many more behaviors will show up in these children as they become more aware of the sins that are in them. Out of these sins will come alcoholics, thiefs, prostitutes, sex offenders, drug addicts, rapists, murderers etc. Other problems will be beauty, financial success, obesity, ugliness, homosexuality, lesbianism, beastiality, religiosity, etc. The sins of pride, jealousy, envy, greed, gluttony, laziness, lust and many other sins cause people to love their own flesh rather than love God and his neighbors.
　
Everything about a man is inherited through the genetic traits of his parents and written into his genetic code. We are all created as invisible thoughts in God so these thoughts are written in this code to be formed with the genetic traits of our parents that contain these sins. This genetic code is written on proteins and each atom is ordered where to go from these instructions to build this person in the way God planned. All the sins came from the flesh of original man that God formed and inflicted them with. It was through Adam and Eve where sins tainted the flesh of mankind.

These sins caused the flesh of man to form in many different ways to deceive each other. Homosexuality, lesbianism, beastility, sodomizers, and other sexual behaviors are the result of affected genes that keep each created man of God's from having two bodies, one for the male part of him and one for the female. This is how men will be formed in paradise when there isn't any sins of the flesh so it will eliminate homosexuality and the other types of same sex desires. Some people grow up very ugly to deceive themselves and others. Beautiful people are usually very insecure, anxious, and selfish.

God gave us all problems to deal with to keep us focused on ourself instead of him. He wanted it this way so he could find his chosen people amongst this delusion in the world that the sins of man's flesh made. This delusion is deception from the truth so everyone with sins are basically liars. This way each prophet and saint could escape from this delusion when they heard the truth. Once these saints are found, which is about over, the earth's crust will be melted to destroy all the flesh that's still living and the sins in them. This was the reason for this age before paradise comes.

So all you sinners out there who are wondering why you can't stop what you're doing, it's because you were made that way. If any sinning, proud religious people are condemning homosexuals and atheists, just remember that you're headed to the same paradise as they are. In fact, they could easily be your brother, sister, parent, grandpa or grandma in the next world. It's best to accept yourself the way you are and do the best you can to finish out your years until you die and wake up with a new body that's perfectly made to last for eternity. Never again will you have to feel unloved, guilty, ashamed, angry, bitter, anxious, hateful, and have to lie about who you are and why you did what you did. It will be a life of peace, love and joy and loving God and your neighor will not be a problem at all.
　

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

We aren't born with critical thinking skills. Even when we develop those skills we still probably can't unravel most of the programming that was put into us as children. This is why it's hard to say what is innate and what is learned.

Chris

 

[Muslimwoman]

So all you sinners out there who are wondering why you can't stop what you're doing, it's because you were made that way. It's best to accept yourself the way you are and do the best you can

So you don't believe in striving to improve yourself and think we should all just give in to our base desires? What do you think would happen to society if everyone chose to do that?

 

[path_of_one]

We aren't born with critical thinking skills. Even when we develop those skills we still probably can't unravel most of the programming that was put into us as children. This is why it's hard to say what is innate and what is learned.

Chris

Ditto. Also, by two years old, much of our programming has already occurred. We have virtually no way to understand a human being, at any age, without social programming. We are fundamentally social animals.

There's a lot in this treatise I find to be without any substantial evidence. Without footnotes, it's all just a lot of conjecture that, so far as I can tell, isn't grounded in any sort of actual science.

 

[Sam Albion]

Behaviour, as much as we'd all like to believe, ISN'T genetic. Behaviour is learned, 100%. A two year old is already programmed. There's lots of stuff they haven't been presented with yet, but they have learnt how to behave, and boss, and throw bricks, due to their enviroment. Sexuality, too, I believe, is a learned behaviour. Yes, desire is there, during and after puberty, but what you do with that desire is wholly dependent on what your environment deems acceptable.

 

[Snoopy]

So you don't believe in striving to improve yourself and think we should all just give in to our base desires? What do you think would happen to society if everyone chose to do that?

It would look like Middlesbrough.

s.

 

[earl]

Research on identical twins raised apart is fascinating in that the most mundane behavioral traits displayed in such chidlren have a remarkable concordance with each other, raising the interesting possiblity of so much of what we take to be a nurture effect is in large part nature. Our oldest nearly 12 y.o. grandson who's lived principally with his mother since our son and his ex divorced when he was 1 1/2, (though dad has always stayed regularly in his life but extended contacts have been only monthly due to grandson living in my town and son living 300 miles away), not only looks remarkably like his father but so many of his behaviors have long given us deja vu experiences since they are so like his father. earl

 

[sonisis]

There are many interesting facets to this argument.

The first area that is overlooked is the behaviours and physicalities that a child develops in the womb as the result of his Mother's environment.

If a Mother is living in a high stress environment, there will be more adrenaline in her blood. The adrenaline is passed on to the child creating a larger baby, that is more physically developed and apt, but typically less intelligent. This is an area that is covered neither by genes nor behaviourism (though it relates to behavioural responses of the Mother).

There are cases for genes and instinct as well however, contrasting with the view that behaviour is 100% learned. For example a study in the mid-20th Century by Bowlby (I think), showed that Rhesus monkeys would naturally move towards an attachment object (a monkey mannequin) that was warm and soft, despite the fact milk came from a different non-warm and soft object. This contradicted the theory of behaviourists that all skills are learned as a matter of survival - (why did the monkey not gravitate toward the object with the milk?). Studies of separated twins also seem to contradict the behaviour theory, as mentioned above by Earl.

My personal view is that negative behaviour in adult life is the combination of a genetic propensity towards aggressive/exploitative stances, combined with experiences that have turned that in to a morally abhorrent behaviour, as opposed to an enlightened tool.

For example a child that is more prone to aggression due to increased adrenaline in the womb, will likely react aggressively in response to attacks and therefore develop in that direction. Where as a child with less adrenaline at birth will more likely become a victim in response to the same attacks and become emotionally damaged rather than proactively defensive.

 

[17th Angel]

I can accept something's one can be good at, bad at or prone to do from birth because of one's bloodlines, however, I still cannot accept the I was designed to mince around and be a homosexual... BS, if you're a male you were born to pro-create. That is your design... To spread your seed, not fashionable clothing and limp wristedness... lol

 

[earl]

I can accept something's one can be good at, bad at or prone to do from birth because of one's bloodlines, however, I still cannot accept the I was designed to mince around and be a homosexual... BS, if you're a male you were born to pro-create. That is your design... To spread your seed, not fashionable clothing and limp wristedness... lol

So 17th, you're saying that every thing you do is a matter of concscious choice? So, the as to sexual orientatation that sounds like your notion isfolks are merely sexual tabula rasas whereby the have no innate sexual inclination, but when faced wih the prospect of swingning 1 way or the other, concscious choice determinded one's sexual orientation. Can't say I ever met someone,hetero or homosexual, where that seemed true.earl

 

[bananabrain]

I still cannot accept the I was designed to mince around and be a homosexual... BS, if you're a male you were born to pro-create. That is your design... To spread your seed, not fashionable clothing and limp wristedness... lol

well, 17th, i suggest you don't try to convince our tough-minded friend bob_x that he wasn't designed the way he is; you are likely to get short but colourful shrift. besides, there is plenty of evidence that what you like to do with your bits has little connection to whether you want children or not, the two are not mutually exclusive. and, as you also know, some of the biggest gays in the world have always been the toughest, most, er, butch individuals out there. you'll want to take a look at your greek and roman history, i think - i don't think you could make much of a case for the theban sacred band being a bunch of mincers, or indeed julius caesar, who was rather famous for his rapacious and universal appetites.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Thomas]

Let's not forget that in all traditions, I think, the idea is that the relationship with the 'Other', however that is perceived, is transformational.

So as this thread is under 'belief and spirituality', I'd like to put in a word for that transformational power which, in effect, can 're-write' the person.

Another point: Whilst one can argue that X leads to Y leads to Z, the evidence does not support the argument as a given; just because one comes from an abusive background does not necessarily mean one will go on to be an abuser. It shifts the odds, certainly, but it is not given.

Any more than a gifted upbringing will result in a gifted life.

I suggest, rather than humans being hardwired to be this or that, what is crucial is the self-narrative, which is not hard-wired at all, and indeed, the self-narrative can be re-written, and re-wire the person utterly.

+++

One has one's own self-narrative, and this bumps up, often unpleasantly, with the cultural narrative of 'who you are'.

I have been watching Russell Brand interviews with some interest. One of the things that came out of it is that the pursuit of celebrity, which has emerged in the last century or so as a driving cultural factor (and a damaging one), means that at some point the person loses control of that self-narrative, which then becomes a cultural narrative to which the person is subject, and invariably cries "that is not me!"

On the other hand, the emergence of the right to autonomy, the free right of the individual to self-determination in all things, is an error in the other direction.

It is especially damaging to anyone who chooses to pursue the spiritual path (by 'spirit' I mean 'the Other', rather than the experience of the fulness of one's own psychic dynamism which is a spirituality of recent and often dubious provenance).

+++

Elsewhere I have been talking of Christianity as, essentially, an encounter.
But is not this idea of encounter in all traditions, to a greater or lesser degree? If not the encounter with the Other, then the encounter with self.

So whether you're an alcoholic, and talking to your Higher Power, a Christian talking to God, or whatever ...

... the point is that in our dealing with each other, we can write not only our own narrative, but contribute to our neighbour's narrative, too.

Imagine a world where everyone was conscious of their contribution to everyone's script, and all everyone cared about was that the part the other person gets to play is the best you could hope for.

Thomas

 

[17th Angel]

So 17th, you're saying that every thing you do is a matter of concscious choice? So, the as to sexual orientatation that sounds like your notion isfolks are merely sexual tabula rasas whereby the have no innate sexual inclination, but when faced wih the prospect of swingning 1 way or the other, concscious choice determinded one's sexual orientation. Can't say I ever met someone,hetero or homosexual, where that seemed true.earl

All I am saying is, some things are instinct (from design) and some are choice. Which I guess is part of our design to decide how we are going to turn out... But I don't think the effect of these causes is part of our design some times?

well, 17th, i suggest you don't try to convince our tough-minded friend bob_x that he wasn't designed the way he is; you are likely to get short but colourful shrift. besides, there is plenty of evidence that what you like to do with your bits has little connection to whether you want children or not, the two are not mutually exclusive. and, as you also know, some of the biggest gays in the world have always been the toughest, most, er, butch individuals out there. you'll want to take a look at your greek and roman history, i think - i don't think you could make much of a case for the theban sacred band being a bunch of mincers, or indeed julius caesar, who was rather famous for his rapacious and universal appetites.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I still have the opinion that it isn't design. You take a sledgehammer and use it to irrigate land and then use the hoe/rake whatever to destroy things... Sure they can be used in different ways but that isn't the purpose of the tool. I still stick to them being mincers lol... Greek, Roman whatever lol.

 

[intrepidlover]

It has occurred to me that if homosexuality was genetic, it would necessarily die out altogether because homosexual couples (of either gender) cannot procreate. So there must be some other factor. It is well known (to me anyhow) that many men marry and father children and later realize (or decide) that they are gay. The same of course would apply to some women.

Even taking into account these exceptional cases, the number of people "born" homosexual would diminish over a period of time until no persons would be born with a predilection towards homosexuality.

Is there something missing in my reasoning?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Intrepid,

I see homosexuality as being a direct result of reincarnation. If a person reincarnates many times in a row as a man and develops a high affinity for women, and then is suddenly forced into a subsequent reincarnation as a woman, it only makes sense that this new 'woman' would continue right on with 'her' affinity for women.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

well... i suppose that i'll be the fly in the ointment, so to speak.

seeing as how there isn't a single human alive today that was created by anything other than their parents combination of chemicals it seems patently foolhardy to suggest that some other process of having babies is occurring.

the evidence is fairly conclusive regarding the physiological differences between humans brains vis a vie sexual orientation and gender perception, to wit: BBC NEWS | Health | Transsexual gene link identified
Homosexuality and Biology - Magazine - The Atlantic

the so-called purpose of life (though life having a myriad of varieties is hard to quantify) can only be the continuance of living for it cannot reasonably be said that the purpose of the human and the purpose of the microbe are the same yet, as both are alive, they share a common denominator, the aforementioned "living."

however, even with this statement we can find examples of humans that would prefer death rather than life and thus it puts even the most common of features outside the descriptive power for some beings.

i would be keen to see the peer reviewed articles which provide evidence for this statement: "The adrenaline is passed on to the child creating a larger baby, that is more physically developed and apt, but typically less intelligent." from sonisis.

further, we know that all of the traits of a human are not biological. whilst some certainly are it is demonstrable that the social millieu in which a being arises shapes and forms their traits as well even, in some cases, altering the evolutionary fulfilment of their biology.

one cannot help but imagine how such an inhuman view of humanity could manifest itself in the control of totalitarian police states where criminals are terminated during pregnancy due to their genetic predisposition for violent crime, political dissent or other "defects" in the genetic code. health care costs are rising for everyone.. imagine the savings we could have if we could just prevent certain people from having to use the health care system!

it seems insincere to say but you monotheists should be able to relate when i convey the thought, as expressed in Robin Hood, that "Allah loves wonderous creation." i would phrase it somewhat differently and say that the garden of humanity is more beautiful when it blooms with a wide variety of flowers.

metta,

~v

 

[path_of_one]

It has occurred to me that if homosexuality was genetic, it would necessarily die out altogether because homosexual couples (of either gender) cannot procreate. So there must be some other factor. It is well known (to me anyhow) that many men marry and father children and later realize (or decide) that they are gay. The same of course would apply to some women.

Even taking into account these exceptional cases, the number of people "born" homosexual would diminish over a period of time until no persons would be born with a predilection towards homosexuality.

Is there something missing in my reasoning?

Yes. Genetics is a lot more complex than this. There are a variety of reasons why homosexuality, as a genetic basis, could fail to die out. Even relatively simple traits assumed to be deleterious (such as sickle-cell) don't die out because they have other advantages to them. Rather, they remain, under certain environmental conditions, consistently at low but significant levels.

Most notably, it is probable that homosexuality has multiple genetic factors, as well as hormones during pregnancy. It is pretty well known in human sexuality research that "homosexuality" isn't even really a category. That is, heterosexuality and homosexuality are not two oppositional categories, but rather two ends on a spectrum of possibility. Like personality, intelligence, and so on, these sorts of human characteristics are phenomally complex, including genetic, environmental, hormonal/developmental, and sociocultural drives.

I really think those who think otherwise are ill-informed. If one reads the literature on the vast diversity of human sexuality over time and geography, one finds this complexity is grounded firmly in the data.

As to why it is advantageous to have this diversity... this is pretty easy to generate reasons why. Like personality and other such traits that consistently show diversity across the human species despite varied cultural ways of dealing with it, sexuality outside of procreation makes perfect sense in human beings. Sex in humans is not merely (or even perhaps primarily) driven by procreation, but more like we see in bonobos, it is driven by social concerns. Desire for connection, power, relationship, etc. drives sexuality in human beings at least as much as procreation does. In fact, it might be more accurate to say humans are driven by the non-procreative results of sex, and procreation is the side effect. If it were otherwise, humans would not be one of the few animals that have hidden estrus. There is no procreative point in heterosexual sex when the female is not ovulating. The fact that humans have long hidden estrus and been willing and able to have sex, and derive pleasure from it, at any time means that our reasons for sexuality are not primarily procreation.

Common cultural reasons for pro-homosexual environments in the past have included male bonding for war (homosexuality as a general rule shows up most frequently in warrior societies in which males are tightly bonded to create greater ferocity and devotion to one another in battle). This trend alone indicates what is backed by social science- gender norms/roles/etc. have virtually nothing to do with sexual orientation.

In short, you have lesbians that are masculine, androgynous, gender fluid, and feminine. You have gay men that are also. You have straight men and women who are also. You also have bisexual people who are like this. Culture may make some associations to push people into behaving in normative patterns, but just as is the case with racism, it's a sociocultural issue, not a biological one. This is further evidenced by cross-cultural research, which shows an astounding diversity in what makes a man "a man" or a woman "a woman" (or, in the cases of cultures in which there are third and/or fourth genders, those people "those people).

Finally, it's worth noting that the one universal characteristic of human sexuality that cross-cultural research affirms (aside from the fact that we're doing "it" for a lot more reasons than to have babies) is that human sexuality is plastic. What that means is that it is highly responsive to situational environments, cultural norms, and so on. So while there is certainly a genetic and developmental/hormonal basis or foundation for sexual orientation (and also for certain gender traits), humans are incredibly adaptable, based on the social environment, to how they respond over the course of their lives. This is partly why a gay man may marry and have children if there is sufficient cultural pressure to do so. That doesn't mean he isn't gay, which is often evidenced by years of internal pressure due to the dissonance between lifestyle and internal desire. On the other hand, it also means one of the many people (perhaps most people, if you look at many sex surveys) who are predominantly heterosexual or homosexual (but not entirely behaviorally), could happily be ushered into whatever is culturally normative. Cross-culturally, normative has included everything from extremely heterosexually oriented cultures (that kill homosexual people) to extremely homosexually oriented cultures (that see heterosexual sex as only for procreation, and really quite disgusting)... and everything in between.

 

[intrepidlover]

Marvellous post path_of_one. I will post it on one of my websites when I decide which one, probably TOP SCIENCE NEWS

For this purpose, if you have no objection, could you send me your real name in a PM.

 

[Amergin]

Behaviour, as much as we'd all like to believe, ISN'T genetic. Behaviour is learned, 100%.

That is false. Neuroscience has shown that genetics determines most of the hard-wired brain circuits. These play a major role in behaviour. Learning which is mostly meme induction also determines behaviour. A meme is endless repeating of a code of information that not only is remembered but actually directs the formation and composition of new circuits. The brain is not an unchanging organ like the liver. There are billions of circuits established by genetic direction plus many more circuits superimposed on the hard-wire networks.

An example of meme behaviour is learning to play a violin. It is repeated stimulation of new axons from neurons of the musical perception network, fine motor skills, and learned motor behaviours. That is why a baby cannot play classical violin. It takes the child a number of years to play the violin, and many years to play it as a virtuoso.

Some people cannot play violin if their hard-wire cannot support new circuits to the musical area, motor skills area, and learned musical patterns. Some people like me, are physically strong and tall but not be a successful footballer because I lack the ability to make new circuits of athletic skill.

A two year old is already programmed. There's lots of stuff they haven't been presented with yet, but they have learnt how to behave, and boss, and throw bricks, due to their enviroment.

That is not true. A two year old's brain is still growing. It is still adding hard-wired circuits as directed by the many brain genes. Circuit development on genetic patterns continues up past puberty to young adulthood. Learned behaviour begins to add new soft-ware circuits at about age 1 as word language begins, recognition of parents by sight and sound. Brain activity becomes functional when the genetic hard-wired networks are altered, enhanced, or inhibited by the constantly changing circuits of the soft-ware brain. This consists of memes. The memes must be stimulated repeatedly to induce neurons to send out axons and two where the receptor neurons are located.

Sexuality, too, I believe, is a learned behaviour. Yes, desire is there, during and after puberty, but what you do with that desire is wholly dependent on what your environment deems acceptable.

That sounds more like religious superstition. Sexual self-identification is hard-wired in the brain. It is associated with the Genetic Selection Factor (for sex) that directs male desire for females, and females for males. In some people these programmes may be dysfunctional. Males may seek Males, females seek females which is an evolutionary maladaption. Learned behaviour or memes have relatively minor effects on gender identity or gender selection. With much difficulty a genetically maladaptive male attracted to males, can transiently override the programme resulting in producing a baby by mating with a woman. The motor programme for sexual reproduction is in the brain and can be activated despite a glitch in the gender selection programme.

Homosexuality or homosexual urges are brain generated by the hard-wired programme and not chosen by the so affected person. The only choice in hard-wired homosexuality is whether or not to pursue same-sex urges in physical intercourse.

This should be obvious to all but the most stupid and uneducated. There is no social advantage for a person to be identified as homosexual. Therefore, many homosexuals pretend to be heterosexual by marrying a women and producing a child.

They hide their homosexual desires. They often become homophobes (haters of homosexuals) because the very existence of other openly homosexual couples produces emotional conflict in them as they try to suspend their forbidden urges.

Homosexuality is no more a choice than a heterosexual who hates asparagus refusing to eat it. No matter how much Mum urges him to eat his asparagus, he tries to avoid it or spits it out. True heterosexuals cannot carry out homosexual acts even if forced. The genital apparatus simply will not react (failure of erection) at the sight of a same sex genitalia.

The strange mystery is the strong association of homosexuality and Christian (Catholic and Protestant) clergy. Studies show that sexual circuits and religious belief circuits share many points of interaction. Temporal Lobe Epilepsy often involves sexual and religious hallucinations and delusions. I think that the strong hatred of homosexuals by Fundamentalist Christians is perhaps related to many Fundamentalists being suppressed homosexuals. They are stressed by trying to suppress their urges which superstition says is sinful.

Notice that Southern Baptist, KKK, and Taliban hate homosexuals and infidels (Atheists). Hitler sent homosexuals and atheists along with Jews, Gypsies, and others to death camps. Hitler was a Christian, baptised Catholic but adopting Lutheran views.

In America, groups that hate homosexuals are also racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Atheistic.

Amergin

 

[Amergin]

My view is that Homosexuality is a biological maladaptation. It is a misfiring of perhaps one or a few on-off synapses in complex circuits. It may be altered structure of a circuit module that is one of the 4 components of the Neurobehavioural Sexual Reproductive Programme.

Network I is the sexual self identity module. This is how we males identify ourselves as men. Likewise it is with women identifying as women. Malfunction there causes Transgenderism and possibly transvestitism. The classic case is “Barney is a woman trapped in a man’s body.”

Network II is the complex parieto-occipital identification and selection of a member of the opposite sex for a possible mate. If this module fails one has homosexuality (maladaptive) or bisexuality.

Network III is the complex and sequenced motor activity of copulation, which is a largely pre-programmed sequence of specific motor activities which I don’t think needs more explicit explanation.

Network IV the Autonomic phase of copulation and reproduction. Hypothalamic and other autonomic nuclei generate the "hormones", genital secretions, engorgement of male and female parts with blood, erection, and ejaculation. Failure here produces Bob Dole's ED (Erectile Dysfunction) and profits from sale of Viagra.

I think we could possibly agree on the fact that homosexual orientation is biological and neurobehavioural, i.e. brain generated. And we hopefully might even agree that it is not morally wrong but a neurobiological gender selection programme ERROR. Homosexual actions are definitely biologically non-physiological. Only a bigot or religious fanatic thinks that it is SIN.

In a manner they are biological sins. But sin has superstitious connotations. The orifices used are not adapted to what is inserted (not to become too graphic). As a result the tender mucosal lining of the rectal wall, the endothelium is too fragile for penetration. The lining splits permitting entry of pathogens. For years this was mostly Syphilis. But the entry was perfect for HIV. The female genital canal is much tougher and adapted (designed so to speak) for the penetration in sex.

The Homosexual acts considering the risks of biological harm would be best avoided. Social responsibility should make the homosexual seek celibacy for health reasons. Otherwise one homosexual should be monogamous (is that correct for two of the same gender?) The partners should be strict in monogamy and mutually consenting, knowing a risk of HIV. Maybe gay marriage is justified by public health.

Homosexuality at its full manifestation is accompanied by anatomical changes in the brain. Is this secondary to the abnormal behaviour or is the abnormal anatomy responsible for the orientation?

I favour the latter because future homosexuals, i.e. young children even pre-adolescent show different behaviours. Although that is not always true. Little boys may play with dolls and other "feminine" behaviours. I think that they discover attraction to the same sex and/or lack of attraction to the opposite sex about the time of puberty.

Causes of Homosexuality remain hotly debated issues. Rational investigators know there is (are) a cause (causes) for homosexuality/bisexuality. A regulatory HOX gene is being studied. Functional MRI and other imaging studies are showing interesting results but need a larger study group. Hormonal causes are often discussed but the evidence is weak.

Our study showed that these 4 modules of the Sexual Programme are very extensive. But the overlap of these circuits looked the same for heterosexual men, heterosexual women, and for 20 homosexuals. That is not surprising because the programmes are similar and therefore on perhaps analogous circuits. The difference may be in micro-anatomy, or the nature of the synapes if it is genetic, or perhaps programmed with an error sometime by external or internal factors before puberty.

Amergin