It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
, what are your qualifiers to say its a fact that its a biological condition or something?
Scientific facts are scientific facts
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.
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.
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%.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?