It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

SOME American Indian views on Homosexuality

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 04:18 PM
5,000 years from now if man is still alive, there is going to be some confusion.

posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 04:22 PM
a reply to: luthier

Some things are obvious others not so obvious, especially before written word, even then can one trust what was written?

Myth and legend? Grain of truth there somewhere.

posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 04:40 PM
a reply to: Stormdancer777

We can trust anthropologists who were living with the last remaining tribes in the 20th century when cultural anthropology became a science.

From that alone we get a lot of variety of culture including sexual.

Ever read about the edo period in Japan? Quite a bit of bisexuality.

Though I guess you can somehow compare that to word of mouth legends.

posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 09:51 PM

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: onehuman

Ok I think this is about enough of this crap. Look does it really matter if any culture believed in whatever back in the day? Most cultures didn't seem to give a rats butt about "gay", "lesbo", or gender rolls before the days of monotheism. What does matter is that this is the 21 century and being such we should evolve our personal understanding of people and their choices, and not try and justify believes based of past beliefs.

I know that may sound "new aged", but look at how current religion is used to justify all kinds of trashy behavior. It doesn't matter what belief was "back in the day" if people feel the need to pick and choose their history in order to live their life today, what does that say about us? Can we not think for ourselves? Can we not create our own set of principals to live by?


I'm not picking on you, I'm just getting tired of everybody having to use some kind of "historical" data to try and force an opinion on others. It just seems lazy, If you want to present an argument about how lifestyles (of whatever kind) can benefit sociality as a whole, then make an argument about that. Using a pick and choose attitude about ancient beliefs really doesn't help the point. As soon as a belief is picked and the culture is pointed out, then atrocities from the culture are then used as a counterpoint to deflect the original point. I'm not (and let me be clear about this) I'M NOT advocating ignoring our history, nor am I saying that we shouldn't study these ancient cultures. What I am saying is that if you want to evolve social behaviors, then don't force ideas from the past, but rather discuss ideas that improve society as a whole.

How about we just treat everyone equally, that would solve a boatload of problems. However there are still some here in the US that want to hang on to their hatred.

posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 02:10 AM
a reply to: Guyfriday

Insightful wisdom is fine and all, and so is looking to the past for ideas, but in order to progress the future we need to focus on the future and not the past.

And I would argue that in order to create a better future it is both essential and wholly relevant to look into the past and critically reexamine it. When you get older and begin to mature mentally, you continue to look back at your past in order to analyze it critically with the hope of gaining some sort of concept of reflection & conscience. Examining the past is an essential practice in just about every business. You examine the past sales records in order to calculate net profit, you look back at somebody's life history for a background check. The important thing is to not devote too much time and attention to the past. But just the same as many things in life are harmful in excess.

This being said, focusing on how granting freedom of choice (be it lifestyles, beliefs, or whatever) should be based on today and tomorrow, and how it really affect us that rather then to focus on how issues from the past should be used to justify today.

Being homosexual is not a choice. I cannot stress this enough.

I would entertain the argument that being transgendered isn't a choice but that transitioning physically into the other gender is one choice for how you can respond to the inherent disposition.

But it is quite obvious from decades of research into the genetic empiricism of homosexuality. And homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom as well.

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:35 AM
Thanks, the needle on my BS meter is now bent.

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 09:23 PM
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Being Homosexual and living a homosexual lifestyle ARE two different things. A Homosexual can and have lived non-homosexual lifestyles. Having the choice to live a same sex lifestyle is not afforded to many Homosexuals in many nations of the world. So unless you need me to cover the whole geo-social topic of biological lifestyle vs. personal lifestyles, then let it go.

Since you seem to be all PC about it, how would you label a Homosexual lifestyle vs. Homosexual life?

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 06:59 AM
a reply to: Guyfriday

Please tell me where I have been PC? Elaborate with specifics, unlike the rest of your posts, please.

Edit: WTF is a biological lifestyle?

You obviously don't know anything you are talking about and you have just used this thread as an excuse to come dump your ignorant frustrations on.

Nobody here is being PC. Nobody here is forcing tradition on you.

Tell me how it is PC for me to point out that being homosexual is not a choice? Scientific facts are scientific facts. Maybe if you opened your eyes a little bit past the main page of this forum you might actually learn something.
edit on 6/29/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:10 AM
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Whether its a choice or not cannot be proven one way or another.

No evidence to say that a gene or something makes one gay, so we are left with the logical conclusion that it is an individual choice.

Not sure why you say

Scientific facts are scientific facts
, what are your qualifiers to say its a fact that its a biological condition or something?

By glazing past the fact that it cant be proven either way can be seen as being politically correct(its accepted politically for a protected minority), even as far as saying its an "agenda" to pass it off as a fact.

Thats the way I see it, but thats none of my business

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:52 AM
a reply to: Butterfinger

Whether its a choice or not cannot be proven one way or another.

No evidence to say that a gene or something makes one gay, so we are left with the logical conclusion that it is an individual choice.

Are you focking serious? What rock have you been living under for the past 20 years?

Homosexuality is Genetic: Strongest Evidence Yet

Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live "unnaturally."

That's at least according to a new and groundbreaking study recently published in the journal Psychological Medicine, which details how a study of more than 800 gay participants shared notable patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.
While many previous studies have looked into potential genetic drivers of homosexuality, these studies often boasted a significantly smaller sample size or lacked common controls. This is the first study of its kind to boast such a robust sample size and also be published in a scientific peer-reviewed paper.

Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers

On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he has identified "epigenetic marks" in nine areas of the human genome that are strongly linked to male homosexuality.

In individuals, said Ngun, the presence of these distinct molecular marks can predict homosexuality with an accuracy of close to 70%.

Is homosexuality inherited?

Historians of homosexuality will judge much twentieth-century "science" harshly when they come to reflect on the prejudice, myth, and downright dishonesty that litter modern academic research on sexuality.

Shang-Ding Zhang and Ward F. Odenwald found that what they took to be homosexual behavior among male fruit flies--touching male partners with forelegs, licking their genitalia, and curling their bodies to allow genital contact--could be induced by techniques that abnormally activated a gene called w (for "white," so called because of its effect on eye color). Widespread activation (or "expression") of the white gene in Drosophila produced male-to-male rituals that took place in chains or circles of five or more flies. If female fruit flies lurked nearby, male flies would only rarely be tempted away from their male companions. These findings, which have apparently been reproduced by others, have led the investigators to conclude that "w misexpression has a profound effect on male sexual behavior."

Being Gay Not A Choice: Science contradicts Ben Carson

Humans aren't the only species that has same-sex pairings. For instance, female Japanese macaques may sometimes participate in energetic sexual stimulation. Lions, chimpanzees, bison and dolphins have also been spotted in same-sex pairings. And nearly 130 bird species have been observed engaging in sexual activities with same-sex partners.

While the evolutionary purpose of this behavior is not clear, the fact that animals routinely exhibit same-sex behavior belies the notion that gay sex is a modern human innovation.

No studies have found specific "gay genes" that reliably make someone gay. But some genes may make being gay likelier. For instance, a 2014 study in the journal Psychological Medicine showed that a gene on the X chromosome (one of the sex chromosomes) called Xq28 and a gene on chromosome 8 seem to be found in higher prevalence in men who are gay. That study, involving more than 400 pairs of gay brothers, followed the 1993 report by geneticist Dean Hamer suggesting the existence of a "gay gene." Other research has found that being gay or lesbian tends to run in families. It's also more likely for two identical twins, who share all of their genes, to both be gay than it is for two fraternal twins, who share just half of their genes, to both be homosexual. Those studies also suggest that genes seemed to have a greater influence on the sexual orientation of male versus female identical twins.

How such gay genes get passed down from generation to generation has puzzled scientists, given that gay couples cannot reproduce. One study found that gay men are biologically predisposed to help care for their nieces and nephews. Essentially, these gay uncles are helping their relatives to reproduce. "Kin therefore pass on more of the genes which they would share with their homosexual relatives," said evolutionary psychologist Paul Vasey of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, in a past Live Science article.

Homosexuality may be caused by chemical modifications to the DNA

Indeed, over the past 2 decades, researchers have turned up considerable evidence that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, but is rooted in a person's biology and at least in part determined by genetics. Yet actual “gay genes” have been elusive.

A new study of male twins, scheduled for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) in Baltimore, Maryland, today, could help explain that paradox. It finds that epigenetic effects, chemical modifications of the human genome that alter gene activity without changing the DNA sequence, may have a major influence on sexual orientation.

Researchers thought they were hot on the trail of “gay genes” in 1993, when a team led by geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute reported in Science that one or more genes for homosexuality had to reside on Xq28, a large region on the X chromosome. The discovery generated worldwide headlines, but some teams were unable to replicate the findings and the actual genes have not been found—not even by a team that vindicated Hamer's identification of Xq28 in a sample size 10 times larger than his last year. Twin studies suggested, moreover, that gene sequences can't be the full explanation. For example, the identical twin of a gay man, despite having the same genome, only has a 20% to 50% chance of being gay himself.

The only people being politically correct in this thread are the ones projecting their backward, archaic views into the OP's post.

I know this is a conspiracy forum, but the notion that Homosexuality is genetic, contrary to popular belief, is NOT a conspiracy.


edit on 6/29/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:03 AM
5 Myths About Gay People Debunked

Gay people have been accused of being unfit parents, more likely to be pedophiles, unable to sustain lasting relationships, and worse. But research shows these and other myths just aren't based in fact.

Myth 1: All animals are straight

Despite a popular perception that male-female pairings are the only "natural" way, the animal kingdom is actually full of examples of same-sex couples. Penguins, dolphins, bison, swans, giraffes and chimpanzees are just a few of the many species that sometimes pair up with same-sex partners.

Researchers are still mulling over the evolutionary reason, if any, for gay animal sex, since it doesn't produce offspring. Some ideas are that it helps strengthen social bonds or encourages some individuals to focus their resources on nurturing their nieces and nephews, thus boosting their own genes indirectly.

Or, it may simply be fun. "Not every sexual act has a reproductive function," said Janet Mann, a biologist at Georgetown University.

Myth 2: Gay relationships don't last

Another stereotype is that gay relationships aren't as real or long-lasting as heterosexual ones.

Research has found that to be untrue. Long-term studies of gay couples indicate that their relationships are just as stable as straight pairings.

"There is considerable evidence that both lesbians and gay men want to be in strong, committed relationships [and] are successful in creating these partnerships, despite difficulties created by social prejudice, stigma, and the lack of legal recognition for same-sex relationships in most parts of the U.S.," said UCLA psychologist Anne Peplau, co-author of a book chapter on the subject published in the 2007 Annual Review of Psychology.

In fact, the same study found that gay couples tend to be better at resolving conflicts and encouraging positive emotions.

Myth 3: Most pedophiles are gay

An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that's not the case.

For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.

A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics. In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified as being gay or lesbian.

"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children," wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his website. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.

Myth 4: Gay parents aren't as good a mother & father

Many of those who oppose gay marriage and gay adoption charge that same-sex parents aren't good for kids, and that a child needs both a father and a mother to grow up to be a healthy adult. Research, however, shows that children of gay parents tend to fare just fine.

For example, one recent study looked at nearly 90 teens, half living with female same-sex couples and the others with heterosexual couples, showing that both groups fared similarly in school. Teen boys in same-sex households had grade point averages of about 2.9, compared with 2.65 for their counterparts in heterosexual homes. Teen girls showed similar results, with a 2.8 for same-sex households and 2.9 for girls in heterosexual families.

Another study found that kids with two moms or two dads were no more likely than their counterparts in "traditional" homes to engage in delinquent activities, such as damaging others' property, shoplifting and getting into fights.

"The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents," said Timothy Biblarz, a sociologist at the University of Southern California. "This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well."

Myth 5: Being gay is a choice

While some claim that being gay is a choice, or that homosexuality can be cured, evidence is mounting that same-sex attraction is at least partly genetic and biologically based.

To test whether genes play a role, researchers have compared identical twins (in which all genes are shared) to fraternal twins (in which about 50 percent of genes are shared). A 2001 review of such twin studies reported that almost all found identical twins were significantly more likely to share a sexual orientation – that is, to be either both gay, or both straight – than fraternal twins, who are less genetically close. Such findings indicate that genes do factor into a person's orientation.

Other studies have found that biological effects, such as hormone exposure in the womb, can also play a role in shaping sexual orientation. And findings of physiological differences, such as different inner ear shapes between homosexual and heterosexual women, contribute to this idea.

"The results support the theory that differences in the central nervous system exist between homosexual and heterosexual individuals and that the differences are possibly related to early factors in brain development," said Sandra Witelson of McMaster University in Ontario, an author on the 1998 inner ear finding published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The ball is in your court now, haters. Show me the Science (with links) that contradicts everything I have posited here.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 11:07 AM
a reply to: onehuman

Well i know that our American Indian cousins did not persecute and demonize gay people the way that Christianity and Islam has done so since there inception.

To be honest i think we could learn a lot from there culture with regards to the way we treat one another and the land that we live upon.
edit on 29-6-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 12:22 PM

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Guyfriday

Tell me how it is PC for me to point out that being homosexual is not a choice? Scientific facts are scientific facts. Maybe if you opened your eyes a little bit past the main page of this forum you might actually learn something.

Because my original posting had nothing to do with Homosexuality being a choice or not, but rather the ability to live openly about is. Lifestyles have nothing to do with a persons life, but rather how a person feels about living.

For instance:
People that live a "Steampunk" lifestyle, aren't really out of place Victorians. They just choose to live that way. While this may seem goofy in comparison, many Homosexuals have to live in the shadows of their culture due to it not being an acceptable behavior. Having the ability to opening live a Homosexual lifestyle (instead of not being able to life openly about it) is the issue here. I totally agree with the poster BubbaJoe, in that we should just judge people equally in the same way that we would like to be judged.

As for being "PC". Well maybe you weren't, but it kind of came across that way in that you were overly nit picky about parts of my posting rather then the context as a whole. It would seem that the core issue is that what I said didn't get fully understood, and that lead you to defend something that wasn't needed to be defended (which is sadly what a lot of the "PC" police do) If that is the issue here then I respectfully retract my "PC" comment towards you.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 12:58 PM
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Sounds like a natural aberration to slow population growth. Youre right, I was wrong at first glance. I'll have to read up on these.

Thanks Mother Nature!

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:56 PM
a reply to: Butterfinger

Glad I could help, even if it was with something trivial.

A natural aberration to increased population growth is one possible cause & explanation. I suspect the more we delve into this scientifically the more we will begin to realize how truly complex human sexuality is, gay or straight or bi, or trans.

edit on 6/29/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 10:27 PM

originally posted by: ColdWisdom

I don't think that we should automatically disregard valuable knowledge & insightful wisdom simply because they had a flawed belief system. Who's belief system isn't flawed at any time period throughout history?

Exactly. You don't throw the baby out eith the bath water. You can take and incorporate the positives of any society, culture, philosophy etc... You don't negate the entire thing because portions of it aren't acceptable to you or don't work for you.

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 10:35 PM
a reply to: Butterfinger

If being gay is a choice then so is brin straight. Is this your way of telling us that you are in reality attracted to people of the same gender but due to societal influence or shame have chosen to live your life as a heterosexual because it's just easier despite your attraction to and fantasies surrounding people of your gender? If this isn't true then think about how ridiculous it sounds and apply the same logic to homosexuals. It kind of makes the whole "being gay is a choice" thing kind of ridiculous now doesn't it?

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 02:44 PM
a reply to: peter vlar

Not really, being straight is the way nature designed mammals, for procreation. That is a drive that flows through everyone, of course it can naturally be repressed. As evidenced by nature, there is not any "Gay Animal" phenomenon large enough for us to consider it a natural thing, as opposed to a simple aberration, like being attracted to your car. Thats a choice unconscious or not, its a fetish choice. you can choose your fetish, you dont need to indulge and frame a subculture around it.

As far as me? No again.

Ive had homosexual experiences in the past and I'm certain I am not attracted to men. Gave it a shot back in my early 20s because it was a free environment at the time and place.

Not repressing anything because there is no drive to suddenly be contrary to my current heterosexual relationship.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in