Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Homosexuality Nature V.S. Nurture

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Notice I said "permanent bodily injury or condition." I was making a comparison of "permanent" and "non-permanent" things. I just don't know of many who have grown arms back. I guess it could be possible, but for the sake of differentiating between "permanent" and "non-permanent", it works. But I've seen people improve and overcome mental things. Not one person is "locked" into being gay. Of course that is a persons choice. I can't necessarily say it's a good choice, but the person's choice nonetheless.

Also, one point I was making is that things which are mental and spiritual in nature are being wrongly classified as an unchangeable genetic thing. I am separating the mind and spirit from the body.

And I am saying that man can change. It's terrible that a shrink tells you that you are an Alcoholic, or an Anorexic, or "whatever" for life. My dad was a daily drunken alcoholic years ago. Is he an alcoholic today, no! He changed. If he doesn't drink and hasn't reverted back at any time then he is not an alcoholic. Would you like it if someone labeled you as "stupid" and said there is nothing you can do about it. If you take the "label" to heart, then that's a lifetime of being "stupid." Imagine what that label would do to a person's self esteem.

troy




posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
For those that believe society and environment creates gayness must have been about a hell of a loooooooooong long time ago. When exactly did this "unnatural" act actually become unnatural?

The time of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten (circa 1300bc), the first recorded Homosexual? That of Alexander the Great? Maybe the time of Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci? Or perhaps it was the straight laced and puritanical times of Oscar Wilde?

But hey, what am I saying. Lets get back to the "now" and THE version of what's always been (or what i expect):

"Wow. It's amazing that such drastically different times, with completely different senses of morals, culture, values and social norms, still managed to produce such useless faggots."






[edit on 18-6-2005 by kegs]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
For those that believe society and environment creates gayness must have been about a hell of a loooooooooong long time ago. When exactly did this "unnatural" act actually become unnatural?

The time of the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten (circa 1300bc), the first recorded Homosexual? That of Alexander the Great? Maybe the time of Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci? Or perhaps it was the straight laced and puritanical times of Oscar Wilde?

But hey, what am I saying. Lets get back to the "now" and THE version of what's always been (or what i expect):

"Wow. It's amazing that such drastically different times, with completely different senses of morals, culture, values and social norms, still managed to produce such useless faggots."






[edit on 18-6-2005 by kegs]


About Alexnder the Great it not true that he is not fully homosexaul because there are couple of archiologist say he isnt



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
..... But I've seen people improve and overcome mental things. Not one person is "locked" into being gay. Of course that is a persons choice. I can't necessarily say it's a good choice, but the person's choice nonetheless.


Where's the evidence to support this? Again, this is conjecture - because we cannot prove either way whether being gay is a mental process, a physical process (genetic), neither, or both.




Also, one point I was making is that things which are mental and spiritual in nature are being wrongly classified as an unchangeable genetic thing. I am separating the mind and spirit from the body.



Which things? We already know that certain mental conditions do have a familial/hereditary base wherein some symptoms can be controlled....not eradicated, but controlled. How does this process fit into your theory? What of these conditions which have a base in both the physical and mental aspects of humanity?




And I am saying that man can change. It's terrible that a shrink tells you that you are an Alcoholic, or an Anorexic, or "whatever" for life. My dad was a daily drunken alcoholic years ago. Is he an alcoholic today, no! He changed. If he doesn't drink and hasn't reverted back at any time then he is not an alcoholic. Would you like it if someone labeled you as "stupid" and said there is nothing you can do about it. If you take the "label" to heart, then that's a lifetime of being "stupid." Imagine what that label would do to a person's self esteem.


I think you're misunderstanding the point of such forms of labelling. "Alcoholism" defines a process as well as a state of mind - and there's a physical component involved that you're not addressing. The fact that he had a physical addiction years ago doesn't change because he hasn't had a drink in however many years. The addiction might well still be present; it just hasn't been acted upon. Do you have proof that if your father started to drink once a day, it wouldn't lead back into the same physical addiction, too? No, of course not. Again though, perhaps more importantly, it's not generally advised to lump together all "mental conditions" in this way, simply because many do indeed have a basis in physiology - and that's often the part we can't change.

Whilst people can indeed change their habits - we often cannot change the physiological base of many conditions which lead to certain habits. The use of labels such as "alcoholic" are less about attacking the patient's self esteem than they are about reassuring the patient that his condition has physical processes attached, and that these are often not in his control at all.

Your sentiment though actually does more to support the theory of a physiologically based aspect to homosexuality than if it were a purely mental process....by use of your own alcoholism analogy.

It's just not as simple as deciding a certain condition is only a mental process - we've seen that many are not. Moreover, unless/until there is evidence to support either, it's perhaps unfair to judge homosexuality as being such an obvious "choice with no physiological aspect', when there's no basis for such a supposition.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   



About Alexnder the Great it not true that he is not fully homosexaul because there are couple of archiologist say he isnt


And there are more than a couple of archeologists who say that he was homosexual.

What should we believe? Only the bits that suit us?


It might be more telling to note that during these ancient times it's possible that homosexuality simply wasn't the great cultural taboo it has become today. Perhaps it was just a fact of life - and one which appeared far less worrying and dangerous than many other situations back then!

There's also evidence to support the notion that many were just...well, very simply...less discerning when it came to choosing a partner. If there was an attracting - that's all that mattered. It seems that there was much less of a negative social judgement relating to the practices.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by postings
All,
I have generally beleived that Homosexuality has had to do more with genes than anything else. .......Any thoughts on the matter? Have you been convinced one way or another by something you have read or heard?

-P

Absolutely have thoughts on the issue. I agree that it is a choice, and environment has a lot to do with it .
Some men are born with more effiminate tendencies (by genes) , but the fact is , we were created to reproduce; 2 sexes, in a heterosexual manner.
The nitwits that claim "I was born this way" are just deluding themselves, because they do not want to take responsibility for their actions.
These statements have nothing to do with "homophobia", just 50 years of observation, some common sense and a study in the Bible.
Banjo Guru



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   


Some men are born with more effiminate tendencies (by genes) , but the fact is , we were created to reproduce; 2 sexes, in a heterosexual manner.
The nitwits that claim "I was born this way" are just deluding themselves, because they do not want to take responsibility for their actions.
These statements have nothing to do with "homophobia", just 50 years of observation, some common sense and a study in the Bible.
Banjo Guru


So your opinion is based upon common sense and the Bible?

What makes your common sense more right, or closer to the truth, than that of anyone else? With all due respect, it makes for a less-than-stellar argument.

What proof do we have that such beliefs (ie, that homosexuality isn't a choice) render the believer "delusional"?



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I do know that homosexuality is not genetic.

It's more of a nurture issue. Did you know that fathers are VERY important? See here and here.

When you have a two-parent family, with a masculine (not macho but loving) father and a nurturing, feminine mother, the children will be much less likely to become gay. And, going along with this, gay couples adopting children actually HURT those children! They need BOTH sexes, not two of the same!



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I do know that homosexuality is not genetic.

It's more of a nurture issue. Did you know that fathers are VERY important? See here and here.

When you have a two-parent family, with a masculine (not macho but loving) father and a nurturing, feminine mother, the children will be much less likely to become gay. And, going along with this, gay couples adopting children actually HURT those children! They need BOTH sexes, not two of the same!


Sigh. Yes, those studies didn't prove anything conclusively to either side of the discussion. Yes, that's EITHER side of the discussion.

If we are to follow scientific reasoning, we cannot deduce that "there's no gene for it because we proved no genetic link in A, B, C and D genes". Furthermore, it's nonsensical to deduce that "it can't be genetic because people can change their lifestyles!" - lifestyle changes can be accomplished by anyone who wishes to ignore or enhance any one part of their entire makeup, without implying that their makeup has actually changed. Then there are people with certain medical conditions - you can choose to treat all of the symptoms of a condition, and thus effectively negate their effects on your life, but you still have that condition.; that base factor doesn't change necessarily.

There's utterly nothing available to suggest that having a mother and father present makes your child more or less likely to be gay. Sure, there are religious websites with anecdotes, but these are hardly objective, are they?

Also, it might help your argument if you could prove your claim that gay parenting hurts children.

Hurts them how, exactly?

Evidence, please?



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Gay marriage: Good for gays, bad for children

It goes back to the radical feminists and politically correct dweebs who claim that there are no inherent differences between men and women. I beg to differ. Men and women are different physically and emotionally. A child needs one of each for parents.

Six-year-old boy raised by homosexuals wants to kill himself



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Amethyst
I could have posted a bunch of links (hundreds if I chose) to back up my contention that straight people often have messed up kids, but I decided not to in the spirit of moderation.

Saying that gay people have messed up kids is like pointing out the sky is blue. Now, if you're trying to say that straight people don't have messed up kids, that's like saying the sky is plaid.

Of course some gay couples have messed up kids! Is that a surprise? C'mon...



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Look, Tinkleflower.

I have spent years of my life as a Scientologist. I've seen people change. I've seen and experienced some pretty cool things myself. And Scientology is best explained by a Scientology book, not secondhand by me. That way you get it straight from the author himself in it's pure form.

Can man change? Your d*mn right he can!

Troy



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Look, Tinkleflower.

I have spent years of my life as a Scientologist. I've seen people change. I've seen and experienced some pretty cool things myself. And Scientology is best explained by a Scientology book, not secondhand by me. That way you get it straight from the author himself in it's pure form.

Can man change? Your d*mn right he can!

Troy


Uh...and your being a Scientologist is relevant how?


Sorry, but I never said man cannot change. Of course we can change our habits. But that doesn't support any argument that "it's not genetic - it can't be!". It also doesn't change the fact that changing a habit doesn't mean that the base, the reasoning for that habit, has changed.

Don't you see the flawed logic used in that supposition?

(fwiw, you're not the only person to have read Scientology books. That doesn't prove your point any more than my reading the Tibetan Book Of The Dead supports mine)



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Most people say that Homosexaulity is Nature .

Here is the hard truth. Homosexaulity is not by Nature but people trying to hide from what is wrong and saying its okay



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by eazy_mas
Most people say that Homosexaulity is Nature .

Here is the hard truth. Homosexaulity is not by Nature but people trying to hide from what is wrong and saying its okay


Once more mas - and will all due respect - I'll ask:

What makes your version of the truth any more correct than mine? Or someone else's version?

I keep asking you to provide evidence of many claims you've made, but you never seem to answer - why is this? You keep saying that 'it's not nature' - but you never provide anything to support your answer.

Any offers?



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by eazy_mas
Most people say that Homosexaulity is Nature .

Here is the hard truth. Homosexaulity is not by Nature but people trying to hide from what is wrong and saying its okay


Once more mas - and will all due respect - I'll ask:

What makes your version of the truth any more correct than mine? Or someone else's version?

I keep asking you to provide evidence of many claims you've made, but you never seem to answer - why is this? You keep saying that 'it's not nature' - but you never provide anything to support your answer.

Any offers?


Sometime i write down some truth .

God has created man and women to grace in this earth and reproduce.

you cant go against Nature if you where born female or male because in nature itself there is same gender sex , and i have never heard or seen it at all .

Imagin a gay squrils



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Far be it for me to burst any bubbles here...but....

To quote:

"Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

Filmmakers recently went in search of homosexual wild animals as part of a National Geographic Ultimate Explorer documentary about the female's role in the mating game. (The film, Girl Power, will be screened in the U.S this Saturday at 8 p.m. ET, 5 p.m PT on MSNBC TV.) "

(From National Geographic).

So...where does this leave us?

We can see that humans aren't the only species to engage in homosexual behaviour.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by eazy_mas

Imagin a gay squrils


Um, I guess you havent heard about studies on chimps that exibit homosexual behavior? Ill find some links for you. A little enlightenment seems in order.


OK, here we go. Penguines, antelopes and chimps have ALL exibited this behaviour. So it doesnt happen in nature? Care to change your statement now?

www.ornery.org...
www.americanvision.org...
www.findarticles.com...

And I found these in just under a minute. Imagine the wealth of information you could find on this subject with a few good hours of research.....

[edit on 6/19/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Twinkle,

You and I should just get out the boxing gloves and just fight it out.


To understand what I am talking about you need to separate the spirit and the mind from the body. If that's not how you believe things to be then that's ok, you and I just have different realities.

When I think of something genetic, I think of my fathers nose or my moms cheek bones. But genetics only goes so far. A person's personality, his spirit, his mind, is less confined than genetics. A man can come from a dirt poor family and soar to levels of wealth and prosperity only dreamed of by his family members. A man can change his entire viewpoint on life. A mans destiny is not entirely confined or entirely decided by his genetics. In this case, is there a "poor person" gene? If so, then my area of the world has a lot of people with "poor genes" or "middle class genes". And isn't being poor a condition that you are in? Now, we can go the "genetic" explanation, or we can just realize this area of the country has a "poor mans" point of view. Now, all we have to do is just change the viewpoints of these folks and we might just have a revived and prosperous area.

Much love,

Troy



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by eazy_mas
People try to make excuse for being gay.

Give me a proof of gay genetics and stuff and proven .

Every guy have a little bit of female hormon and every female have male hormon. but human could control there thinking and emotion .


The biggest prove that God created everything for a reason . If God wanted us to be one gender or even asexual he could but God created male and female to grace the earth.

Sex is not for fun . Most people forget the main reason for sex is for reproduce and there is no use to reproduce with the same gender.

As for and issue of anal sex there are many causes where people are hurt and stuck there stuff there , in some cause you could have some tighten and you could die . That part is only desgin to use for one thing and its not for that stuff .


I would go so far as to say it's meant to be fun for a husband and wife to engage in it, with children being a nice by-product. If a wife was meant to get pregnant every time, she wouldn't have only a few fertile days every month, I'd think.

If sex were only for procreation, then I don't think God would have given the female a clitoris. (Yeah, I'm getting graphic...but just think about it.)


Oh and another thought--just because animals do something doesn't necessarily mean humans should. Humans are not animals. We sure didn't evolve from animals, either.

Humans know better--or we're supposed to.

[edit on 6/19/2005 by Amethyst]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join