It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why homosexuality is not genetic

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by topsecretombomb
homosexuality is a MENTAL ILLNESS.


Intolerant and worthy of a red flag.




posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I'm not an expert on why a few men are gay. I have a bisexual friend who married once, got divorced and went off women completely after that and for all intents and purposes is now gay.

In my opinion it is a hormonal issue. In fact, a gay friend of mine showed me that gay men have (i think this is correct, im not entirely sure now) the same length index and first finger. It was true for him and his boyfirend anyway. I then saw the same "fact" shown on UK TV about a year ago. They said this was due to more oestrogen in the body than testosterone. Fascinating.

That program was fascinating by itself as it could with nearly 100% degree acurracy show which man would win an athletic race purely by measuring the length of his index finger as that showed how much testosterone he had in his body. They did this experiment on TV and he got it nearly completely right. Amazing stuff.

It also showed how too much testosterone led to taking excessive risk which in go-kart racing for example was a bad thing.

Anyway, I believe gay men are born gay and bisexual men are born bisexual. I don't knw if this is genetic or not. All I will say is this. I remember a reading somewhere of an ancient Chinese wise piece of advice. The empreror's wife had to be as peacful and have as a relaxing time as possible during pregnancy as the ancient Chinese believed that if the pregant mother went through undus stress the child would likely be homosexual.

Just my interesting 2 cents to the discussion.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Scientists showed that Gay men and staight women's brain reactions are the same when smelling male pheromones. Straight men react differently.

So, gay men react the same to male pheromones as a straight man does to female pheromones. And straight men react the same to male pheromones as gay men do to female pheromones.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I love how some folks assume that just because they hold a certain opinion, it is fact.

I would like to debunk some myths:

1 - My husband is a biologist and an identical twin. Yes, identical twins DO have the exact same genes. That does not mean, however, that they will be EXACTLY alike, there can be some few differences. For example, my husband is an adult onset diabetic but his brother is not. And it wasn't due to being overweight because both of them have always been overweight. Also, their personalities have some differences. My bro-in-law can be quite stingy, while my husband is one of the most generous, open-hearted people you'll ever meet.

2 - Where did anyone ever get the idea that homosexuals can't reproduce??? Of course they can, same as anyone else, they just simply choose not to, many of them. And there are many who do, I have known a great number of gay men who have biological children.

Deny ignorance...



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
I have known a great number of gay men who have biological children.


Then by definition these men are not homosexuals, much like vegetarians that have steak sometimes are not really vegetarians. Homo sexual means "same sex". Not "both sexes". Please note that it is impossible for a homosexual to reproduce.

Deny ignorace indeed.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Think creatively, dbates. There's more than one way to impregnate a woman.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I know plenty of gay men who have biological children but have never touched a woman in that manner. How is that possible DBates?



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I know plenty of gay men who have biological children but have never touched a woman in that manner. How is that possible DBates?



I'm just saying that anytime you mention the words "children, or pregnant, or reproduce" you know that more than one sex is involved. Again let me say, it is completely impossible for people to reproduce without at least one member from each sex. Find a way around this and you can win the Noble Prize for something I'm sure. Is Homosexuality (One sex) genetic? That's actually not even a good question. I suppose what's implied here is " Is the Brokeback Mountain gene inherited?" The gene that makes you like women and men.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I do know of one woman who was pregnant without the use of a man. She gave birth to Jesus.

I think I remember something that scientists found a way to impregnant women without the use of a man. Anyone remember hearing this and can help me out with finding it? I think I read it on here. I'm not good with the search function on here but I'll try to find it.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Dunno about the no-man part, because I would at least think that sperm would be required to fertilize the egg. And that's how gay people can have biological kids, too. You can have sperm taken out and placed into a woman.

The procedure isn't as uncommon as you might think, and straight couples do it too. I think there are at least two methods for doing this: placing sperm directly into the mother (you wouldn't really even need a doctor to do this for you, now would you?), or removing eggs from the mother, fertilizing them, and then placing them back within her. Older couples do this when their fertility starts decreasing and having kids becomes a little more difficult.

I think bisexuality is a bit too taken-for-granted (referencing the Brokeback Mountain comment). In many cultures, bisexuality is/was the norm, until stereotypical western/religious influences were introduced into those cultures. One can hardly mark this up to genetics.


[edit on 6-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Dbates, you need to provide some legitimate sources for your information about gays not being able to reproduce; which of course you won't be able to do.

I have known a number of gay men who didn't fully realize they were gay until later in life. They got married and had children, and yes it was through having sex with their wife. I, myself, had sex with a gay man (just a fluke) and I had to use birth control so I would not become pregnant, if you catch my drift.

Wherever did you come up with such a ridiculous idea that gay men can't procreate??



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Addendum: I'm saying gay men are capable of procreating with a woman not with another man. Just wanted to be specific.

-Forestlady



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Greetings:

The fact of the matter is that no true ‘Homosexual’ person has ever been born, which can be proven using your Webster’s Dictionary and a simple word study. The three words in our study are: Heterosexual, Asexual and Homosexual, which all have ‘sex’ as the root of the word. The source is Merriam-Webster Online ( www.m-w.com... ) I will highlight the main points:

Main Entry: 1sex
Pronunciation: 'seks
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females
3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
4 : GENITALIA

The first (1) definition defines female or male as these two individual forms. Therefore, by definition every person alive today is either female or male. The second (2) definition includes the specific characteristics of living things by their ability to reproduce. So parents reproduce either females OR males of our species. Definition three (3a) pertains to the phenomena or behavior of ‘sex,’ as in “having sex.” This definition is restricted in its scope by definitions (1) and (2), where ‘sex’ is a behavioral characteristic involved in reproduction of the species. And (3b) is the ‘act’ of having ‘sex,’ again, about reproduction. The final (4) definition pertains to the sex organs; again, of the male and female of the species from the definitions above.

Heterosexual:

Maxwell quotes >> Main Entry: heter-
Variant(s): or hetero-
Function: combining form
Etymology: Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French, from Late Latin, from Greek, from heteros; akin to Greek heis one -- more at SAME
1 : other than usual : other : different
2 : containing atoms of different kinds

This primitive definition of our prefix (heter) means ‘different,’ or ‘other.’ Add the suffix (ual) and we have a word that describes people of different sexes (male and female) according to their ability to reproduce. Thus Hetero-Sex-ual.

Asexual:

Main Entry: asex•u•al
Pronunciation: (")A-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : lacking sex or functional sex organs
2 a : involving or reproducing by reproductive processes (as cell division, spore formation, fission, or budding) that do not involve the union of individuals or germ cells b : produced by asexual reproduction
3 : devoid of sexuality

Here again, the ‘sex’ part of the word causes the definition to include “reproducing by reproductive processes . . .” Both Heterosexual and Asexual organisms are defined by how they reproduce. That is the common trait of both words that contain the root ‘sex.’

Homosexual:

Main Entry: 1ho•mo•sex•u•al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

Right here is where the dictionary fails to hold to the rules of grammar. As defined above, the root ‘sex’ appears to signify a means of reproduction. The word homosexual here is void of such language. In fact, these words ‘sexual desire’ are wrongly used to describe this behavior. Homosexual activities DO NOT involve reproductive processes. This word does not accurately define anyone according to their ‘sex.’ Homosexual is not an accurate scientific term that describes any living thing on this planet. The joining of two sperm cells or female eggs will never produce a ‘homosexual’ male or female. By definition it is impossible for two people of the same sex to have ‘sexual intercourse.’ Instead, every living person on this planet is either a heterosexual male, OR a heterosexual female by definition. They can call themselves homosexual males and females in the same way people call themselves all sorts of things. The problem is that being male and female places them solidly within the heterosexual group.

This point becomes plainly obvious when we consider that ‘reproduction,’ creates copies/duplicates of the male and female parents. Every single person born naturally on this planet is the product of one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female. Therefore, every person ever born is a duplicate/copy/facsimile of their heterosexual parents. Therefore, according to the definition of the terms, a true homosexual male or female has never been born.

Terral



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I could care less if homosexuality is genetic or if it's is a chosen path. What is wrong with 2 people being happy? Even if there was proof that homosexuality was not genetic ... what difference would that really make? Okay ... so your saying someone chooses to be gay. I choose to be straight. Maybe my neighbor/friend/whatever chooses to be bisexual. Life is full of choices, should I really care that someone chose to be gay.

The whole "save the sanctitiy of marriage" argument against gay weddings to me is ridiculous. When I can go and get married and subsequently divorced at drive through services in Las vegas ... when people get married and divorced within months ... when people marry others for money ... how can one purtend to protect the "sanctitiy of marriage"?

I think it's sad that people in this day an age feel the need to hide their sexual orientation and are not allowed to go through a ceremony and get a piece of paper to show their committment to someone. If gay marriage was legalized it would be interesting to see statistics for the length of marriage in gay vs straight marriages.

For those against gay marriage/homosexuality for "bible" related purposes ... there's a little thing called seperation of church and state. You choose to believe that someone is evil/going to hell/etc based on religious reasons ... but my recollection the bible also says that we should not judge each other and allow god to be the judge. If you truly believe that why can't you allow your fellow man to be judged by god ... are you worried they may actually make it into heaven??

I just realized this is kind of an old topic ... but oh well I just spent several minutes typing this up.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Interesting theory... Only one or two problems... You focus on sex - or rather "reproduction". Defining words is far from proof that homosexuality (or any sexuality) is not genetic or a genetic imprint.


Originally posted by Terral
Main Entry: 1sex
1 : female or male
2 : reproduction
3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
...
Definition three (3a) pertains to the phenomena or behavior of ‘sex,’ as in “having sex.” This definition is restricted in its scope by definitions (1) and (2), where ‘sex’ is a behavioral characteristic involved in reproduction of the species. And (3b) is the ‘act’ of having ‘sex,’ again, about reproduction.



Originally posted by Terral
Homosexual is not an accurate scientific term that describes any living thing on this planet.


The act of having sex does not necessarily having anything to do with reproduction as you assume.
Also you are assuming that the "sex" in sexuality (be it hetero-, homo- or bi-) is strictly about reproduction, while it's actually about gender. You need to keep the rest of the word in mind where homo means "the same", hetero means "different" and "bi" means two. Thus it is an attraction to the same sex, a different sex or any of the two sexes aka genders. Asexual thus no attraction to any sex aka gender.

Reproduction has little to nothing to do with this attraction or sexuality. If you removed the reproductive system from the equation (let's say storks delivered babies), then you would still be left with the emotional, and intellectual attraction between two people. The attraction is based on the need to be with someone, i.e. talk with them, watch a movie with them, touch them, etc. Yes, there is a physical attraction as well, the need to have sex with someone, but that need is based on the pleasure of having sex, not the chance of having a baby, i.e. reproducing.


Originally posted by Terral
By definition it is impossible for two people of the same sex to have ‘sexual intercourse.’ Instead, every living person on this planet is either a heterosexual male, OR a heterosexual female by definition. They can call themselves homosexual males and females in the same way people call themselves all sorts of things. The problem is that being male and female places them solidly within the heterosexual group.

No dissection of words or definitions serve as any sort of "proof" that a person is born homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or asexual. Being male or female gives you a sex. Having sexual intercourse with someone (male or female) means you have sex. Getting your wife pregnant, also means you had sex. Being attracted - in whatever way - to someone (male or female), means you have (a) sexuality. See words have absolutely nothing to do with genetics.


Originally posted by Terral
This point becomes plainly obvious when we consider that ‘reproduction,’ creates copies/duplicates of the male and female parents. Every single person born naturally on this planet is the product of one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female.

And if either a mother or a father has a dormant "gay gene" then that gene may be copied to the child as active. That is why some grandparents have heart problems, their children/a generation is skipped and the grandchildren have the same problems.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Well constructed, and well presented Gemwolf


I really dont understand the debate here...

You cant prove a negative, so you cant prove that "gay" is resultant from purely genetic factors...

But you can prove that genetics plays an important part in some peoples choices of sexual preferance, hence the gay animals...

or where they just exposed to gay duck porn as a young duckling?
or dog, or cat, or penguin...
there are so many examples that i dont know where to start...

If we look at nature, then it tells us that "gay" was in the (gods, universes, evolutions) plan... plain and simple...



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I've seen shows on TLC, Discovery, and such of people who were born hermaphroditic, and the doctor's decided which sex to assign them. So a baby is born with both female and male sex organs, the doctor takes a guess, and decides that the baby should be male. The proper surgery is done, and the child is raised as a boy. When puberty hits, it turned out that said baby was really a girl, and has always felt more like a girl anyway, and is now, because of man's intervention, a female trapped in a males body, and lives their life as a gay man.

What I've speculated upon (and by no means believe concretely,) is that perhaps, homosexuality is some form of natural (ie: genetic) mix-up, where a person is born with a purely "healthy" body, but is essentially hermaphroditic, in that they are basically in the wrong-sexed body.

As I said, it's entirely speculative, and I've not given it all that much thought. I just thought I'd post it into this discussion because I've thought about it in the past.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I was reading something in a scientific journal a while back that suggested that Homosexuality is neither genetic, nor a choice. Most of you will be saying... umm... thats not possible... let me explain.

The journal explained that a chemical reaction within the woman's womb could alter the chemical structure of the babies brain. Essentially, the mother's womb can confuse the fetus for being a foreign object because of the male hormones within that fetus. The womb then would do what comes naturally and attempt to expell the foreign object. Of course, in the most severe cases, it amounts to the fetus dying. In other cases it amounts to an alteration in the hormonal makeup of the fetus, resulting in the very chemicals that would depict natural male hormones to become non-existant. Being overrided in a way, with the mothers.

I cant remember the statistical evidence. But they explained it alot better than I ever could. I just wish I had the scientific journal still.

Either way, they explained that it wasnt a genetic flaw, and it wasnt a choice. It was a chemical reaction that screwed with the fetuses natural hormone production.

I am in no way the author of this scientific journal, so any attempt to flame me would be rather stupid.

...And yes, I do believe it should be legal.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
There was also a study done, that found an extremely high incidence of gay male children born to females that had gotten pregnant while on the early forms of the birth control pill...

it was extemely high percentage... cant recall how much, but regardless...
it showed that there was a chemical reason for "gay" in some cases also.

In gay men, they have found higher levels of female hormone, and a lack of male hormone... is this genetic, or chemical?
who knows, but one thing is for sure...

it sure wasn't just by choice...



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
That's true... in fact, any teratogen, regardless of source, can cause a wide range of abnormalities. The only problem with this (ethically) is that it makes homosexuality, in essence, a birth defect, or something wrong. Not many people would want to accept such a thing.

I tend to take a libertarian standpoint on this issue: ie: It shouldn't be legal or illegal. It shouldn't even be in the law. Consenting adults have the right to do as they please without intervention by the government. In that same vein, however, I believe in the right to free speech, in that if someone speaks out and offends a homosexual (or anyone else for that matter), then tough-luck for the offended person. They have no right to *legal* protection against a viewpoint.

Some people believe that homosexuality is perfectly normal, and homosexual marriage should be allowed. Some people believe that homosexuality is bizaar and abnormal, even "sinful," and that homosexual marriage is some vague threat towards ... something, and should be outlawed.

I believe that everyone has the right to believe and behave in any manner which they so choose (as long as those rights don't impede someone elses rights), and that the government doesn't (or shouldn't) have the power to force acceptance on either side. If you want to be homosexual and married, then it's your *right*. If you want to despise homosexuals, and openly ridicule them, then it's your *right*.

It seems that whats being pushed by BOTH sides of the argument is an all-or-nothing attitude: It's either right or wrong, legal or illegal, and a DECISION must be made, so that a law can be written which tells everyone how to act.

Tolerance, and self-education seem to be on the decline in America - more and more people seem to just look to the government, or a major media outlet, when they need to know what to believe.

It's my opinion that our government is attempting to govern way too many aspects of our personal lives.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join