Biophysics vs. Sophistry.
Your assertion that the “entire physical make-up of people are determined [at the]time of death”, as to the type of body they’ll “take on in their next live” (sic.), seems an extravagant assumption unrelated to any scientific facts, reasons for which I’ll elucidate in the two following paragraphs:
Firstly, the “physical” (corpus or corporis), is biologically related to properties of energy, matter et cetera, and quite unrelated to “make-up” which, from a psychological perspective, may be defined as a total integration of traits to form an individual’s character, etc. These traits, in your assumption, form an incomprehensible composition. There are three perspectives, in your single assertion, that form a mixture of the ‘biological’, ‘psychological’, and the ‘sophistical’, which would require a very clever synthesis, for your assertion, to form at least, an arguable system of scientific facts.
Secondly, the facts, as I understand them are: The corpse including its “hormones”and “chromosomes”, are customarily disposed of by burial, cremation, or by some other course of action (e.g., as a cadaver for studies in pathologic anatomy). The corpse, including its tissue, integumentary system, chemical, and cellular compositions, have ceased to exist. This rules out the generational transmission theory, of hereditary traits, because an hypothetical interdependency factor, between the dead (or destroyed) hereditary-carrying genes, with the supposed body”… in their next live” (sic.); is not within the ambit of scientific facts. To fit this into your “scientific” suppositions would necessitate some very fanciful manipulations.
Your assumption that homosexuals “…got male bodies in this life [because] …at the time of death [they were] thinking of the male form”, is a ‘statement of sophistries’ rather than a statement of “… scientific fact (s)”. An assumption as to what an homosexual – or anyone else – supposedly thought prior to death is, in my opinion, unadulterated conjecture. An individual’s sex, as I understand it, is determined by the sex chromosomes, i.e., the Y-chromosome gene, the Testes Determining Factor (TDF) , of the male sex; designated as XY. The female sex chromosome configuration, designated as XX, which could develop into male, if the TDF passes across to one of the X chromosomes. And if the TDF gene were absent from the male XY chromosome pair, it could develop into a female.
Furthermore, the scientific community is producing very impressive research results. Rousing widespread interest in the theory of genetics giving rise to variations in sexual behaviours in humans. As well as other species. For example, the fruit fly, or as it is known among scientists, the Drosophila melanogaster (‘δροσοσφιλος μελανογαστερ’ = ‘dew-loving black belly’). That is a favorite two-winged insect for research studies in genetics. Moreover, developmental biology. Essential to the development of the fruit flies’ anatomical and physiological sexual functions, is the fruitless gene (fru). That catalyses the ribonucleic acid (RNA), from the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) frame for the synthesis of protein development. Mutation of the original expression of the fru’s allelomorphs may damage or reverse sexual orientations. Research results from studies on the fru gene suggest a theoretical correlation with the genetics of human gender organization.
Researcher, Professor Bruce S. Baker, Ph. D., Biology department, Stanford University; told reporter Mark Shwartz:
“The fruit fly is a model organism whose basic cellular functions are very similar to what they are in people … It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that human sexual behaviors also have underneath them a basic circuitry in the nervous system that mediates attraction and mating “.
(Stanford Report, 4 August, 2004).
Professor Baker (et al.) research results substantiates the theory in support of genetics giving rise to variations to sexual behaviours. I believe your assumptions, that homosexuals’ supposed thoughts, in an assumed pre-existence, the decisive factor of sex orientations; is contradictory to chromosomal and hormonal activities. They are as different as chalk from cheese. Thereby, your statement of ” … scientific fact (s)” fades into sophistic statements of belief. Masquerading sophistries as ” … scientific fact (s)” are gross deceptions, and it goes without saying, are totally at odds with any reputable scientific research, of a kind like:
Professor D. H. Hamer, Ph. D., a specialist in Molecular Therapeutics, and discoverer of the genetic links to sexual orientation (1993), suggests that ‘homosexuals possess an Xq28 genetic marker on their X chromosome’; and that ‘there is a link between this marker and homosexuals’:
” …gay men had more homosexual male relatives through maternal than through paternal lineages, and linkage analysis of gay male siblings, which found significantly increased sharing of Xq28 DNA markers “
(‘Science’, July 1993).
Your view that they (homosexuals): ‘sometime seem like’ “…freaks of nature”, is a quirky description reminiscent of early 20-century circus sideshows. This description – absent from medical lexicons – is banal as well as meaningless. Perhaps there is some confusion, in your mind, between “freaks of nature “, and ‘Congenital Developmental Anomalies’ (or ‘defects’). For example the mutated gene called: Phosphatase and Tensin Homologue (PTEN). Perhaps instrumental as a regulator, and suppressor, in the process of one of the particular kinds of mitosis (theoretically, a quadruple somatic cell division of the nucleus). Professor Charis Eng, Ph. D. is a clinician and scientist specializing in Clinical Cancer Genetics and Cancer Genomic Medicine. In an interview with Elise Ritter, she linked the Phosphatase and Tensin homologue gene (PTEN) with Neurofibromatosis (also known as ‘Proteus syndrome’ (PS )). She was asked:
“Where did you get the idea that Proteus syndrome, one of the diseases Joseph Merrick afflicted with, could be caused by a mutated PTEN gene? “
Professor Eng replied:
“As a clinician as well as scientist, I noted that the unusual tissue growth of Proteus syndrome was slightly reminiscent of other disorders caused by germline (in every cell of the body) PTEN mutation that we were studying, such as Cowden syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba Syndrome (BRRS) “.
“Discovery Health Channel, (6 March, 2008).
[Professor Eng was referring to Joseph Carey Merrick (1862-1890), the so-called “Elephant Man”.]
There is a clear distinction between your: ‘statement of belief’, “freaks of nature”(presumable ‘Congenital Developmental Anomalies’), “…scientific fact (s)” and homosexuality, the four of which are, in the context of your arguments, theoretically and effectually incompatible. Thereby your ‘statement of belief’ falls into the category of unadulterated conjecture.