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: 12
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Here's another theory....maybe it's a curse.

I know an older women who had a son that was gay. She was really religious (Catholic). She was not happy her son was gay and was always praying for him to be delivered from homosexuality. Here's the weird thing. She's at church one night praying for her son and before she leaves she meets a man (total stranger). One of the first things that comes out of this man's mouth is "So you think your son is gay." She was floored that this total stranger dropped this line on her. He told her. "I saw you praying tonight. Your family has a curse on it. It goes back 4 generations." This guy told her that the family curse was homosexuality. What's even weirder is that her daughter was in a lesbian affair for 8 years (had a holy union ceremony and all) then left the woman and married her old boyfreind. She also has 2 gay nieces, 2 gay nephews (one died of AIDS), and a gay brother-in-law (died of AIDS). It should be mentioned all these gay relatives are all on her husbands side of the family.




posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
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.



Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
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...


Interesting theory, and it may account for some of the cases, but far from all the cases. The problem is that this theory speculates that gay men are effeminate or lack male hormones. This is far from true, seeing that many gay men are "manly men", and not "feminine queens". Then there's the problem that this theory doesn't explain lesbians, i.e. girls ending up with higher levels of "male hormones".

The theory would like us to believe that the "gay fetus" is actually a girl in a boy's body. This may explain transvestites who feel they are women trapped in men's bodies. They want to be women. Whereas homosexuals don't want to be a different gender, they're merely attracted to the same gender.


Originally posted by mirror2U
Here's another theory....maybe it's a curse.

I know an older women who had a son that was gay....

It should be mentioned all these gay relatives are all on her husbands side of the family.

I think your story rather gives support for the "homosexuality is genetic" theory. How can an innocent child be cursed? And how can sexuality i.e. love or attraction be a curse? Homosexuality isn't a curse. It's society's views of homosexuality that's the curse.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
I think your story rather gives support for the "homosexuality is genetic" theory. How can an innocent child be cursed? And how can sexuality i.e. love or attraction be a curse? Homosexuality isn't a curse. It's society's views of homosexuality that's the curse.


I just wanted to share the point of view (not particularly mine).

As far as curses go, I'm pretty sure a person can start a curse in action by invoking it to another (or say, a family). It doesn't necessarily have to come from God to an innocent child. It can start from one person and be cursed upon another. If you believe in curses.

Soooo "if you were to believe in curses", it could be like.........wishing disease/drought/famine/etc on someone's family for 5 generations, or wishing homosexuality onto 4 generations. A curse is a curse. Whatever it's subject is, but it's usually to cause a problem. Homosexuality is something many families can't deal with (they have a "problem" with it). How many straight men would want a homosexual curse put on them? Guess it depends on who you are? I wonder how many gay men would want a heterosexual curse put upon them?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
To start out, I want to say that I am not a Christian, or even religious for that matter, so spare me that attack.

Anyways, My mom's best friend has identical twin sons. One is gay, one is not. That to me says that being gay has nothing to do with genetics, as these two people have the EXACT same genes. Instead, perhaps it is a psychological reaction to experiences or a traumatic event.

Any way, this kind of cements it as far as I am concerned, and to be honest, I was always of the opinion that being gay was a genetic condition.

[edit on 2-12-2005 by John bull 1]


I'm not hating on the gay people but:
Being a homo is totally not genetic, the only homos i see are the ones who can't get laid with a chick or got tired of laying with them and now just want to lay guys. and dont let me get into bisexualism thats defenetly a bunch of sexual perverts right there.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirror2U
I just wanted to share the point of view (not particularly mine).

Soooo "if you were to believe in curses", it could be like.........wishing disease/drought/famine/etc on someone's family for 5 generations, or wishing homosexuality onto 4 generations. A curse is a curse. Whatever it's subject is, but it's usually to cause a problem. Homosexuality is something many families can't deal with (they have a "problem" with it). How many straight men would want a homosexual curse put on them? Guess it depends on who you are? I wonder how many gay men would want a heterosexual curse put upon them?

I understand, and I respect your input as much as anyone else's. As interesting as the theory is, it holds little water. How many people do you know that can put a curse on someone? Now compare that amount with the amount of homosexual people... Can't really compare them, can you? And homosexuality occurs in all cultures, in all countries amongst all kinds of societies. Even those with no culture of “cursing”?
I doubt if any "magic" (should it exist) be strong enough to take control over a person's behaviour. Maybe lesser behaviour, but something as strong and complicated as sexual preference?



Originally posted by razor1000
I'm not hating on the gay people but:
Being a homo is totally not genetic, the only homos i see are the ones who can't get laid with a chick or got tired of laying with them and now just want to lay guys. and dont let me get into bisexualism thats defenetly a bunch of sexual perverts right there.

You may not "hating on gay people", but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?
I don't even know where to begin; there isn't a half-truth in any of your statement...
Let's see.
1. You make outlandish claims without giving any basis or "backup" for your views. Don't you think you should explain why you say this? Have you ever thought about why you have such absurd views about homosexuality?
2. As a million other (homophobes) you focus on males. You forget that females can be homosexual as well... Where do they fit in your theory?
3. "...is totally not genetic..." Wow. Such a scientific approach. Do you have any, and I'm willing to accept even the most basic knowledge about genetics?
4. So, gays are guys who can't have heterosexual sex, for what reason ever (again you fail to explain). They don't have the interpersonal skills to "get laid" with a female? That doesn't explain why some homosexuals never even try "their luck" with "chics". Or they've been with so many "chics" that they want to try something new like guys? I am yet to meet a heterosexual guy that's "tired" of sex with females.

You clearly have no understanding of relationships, attraction or sexuality. Not everything is about sex. And you're up for a rude awakening, especially as long as you refer to girls as "chics".

Talk about ignorance.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
This is my basic problem with the idea that Homosexuality is genetic: for millions of years evolution has designed humans for 1 thing Species SURVIVAL!!! And our basic functions of life include survival, food, and reproduction. So why would evolution possibly allow our genetic code to allow for homosexuality, which in essence would be a viloation of what evolution designed us to be. Evolution designed us to pass our DNA on to the next generation for the survival of the species (like all other species) so why would it possibly have another gene hardwired into our brains that allows the species to be dysfunctional that would "tell" the brain that for the continuation of the speices (sex) you must mate with the same sex. It doesn't make sense why evolution would allow our genetic code to do that, now i know that our genetic code isnt perfect, but for the basic functions of the body our genetic code functions properly it operates pretty damn good. Our genes don't change and allow our brain to think that eating rocks will give us nutrition, it sticks to a survival mindset. Homosexuality is like telling your brain that rocks will give you nutrition, it has no place in the evolutionary process that happened to our bodies over millions of years. It is a made up idea that is so set in the mind that one thinks he/she is gay. Homosexuality must be made up in the mind since our survival depends on the Non-existence of such a Genetic train. Genetic



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   
any sexual preference can not be realted a genetic reason, because the only reason we as humans have sex is for pleasure. If it was only to reproduce I honest believe there would be no gay people in this world. weird huh?

To further elaborate, genetics and biology are based on survival (many acknowledge this fact and the world now considers it true).

[edit on 6-10-2006 by Aether]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by seeuathemovies
acutally they don't have the excat same genese just becuase they are twins.


true twins have exactly the same genes, like a clone would have.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TenaciousGuy
Well, I can't really understand how it can be genetic, since if it was, it wouldn't matter because homosexuals can't reproduce in the first place.

It can be a recessive gene..



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TexanDan
This is my basic problem with the idea that Homosexuality is genetic: for millions of years evolution has designed humans for 1 thing Species SURVIVAL!!! And our basic functions of life include survival, food, and reproduction. So why would evolution possibly allow our genetic code to allow for homosexuality, which in essence would be a viloation of what evolution designed us to be. Evolution designed us to pass our DNA on to the next generation for the survival of the species (like all other species) so why would it possibly have another gene hardwired into our brains that allows the species to be dysfunctional that would "tell" the brain that for the continuation of the speices (sex) you must mate with the same sex. It doesn't make sense why evolution would allow our genetic code to do that, now i know that our genetic code isnt perfect, but for the basic functions of the body our genetic code functions properly it operates pretty damn good.


There are many scenarios that could explain a genetic influence for homosexuality.

It is possible that some genes that provide an evolutionary adaptive trait in the mother could, in some circumstances, result in homosexuality in their male offspring. For example, if there are genes that promotes fecundity in the female but may result in a proportion of homosexual children. It needn't be a direct selection for homosexuality (like the genes underlying sickle cell actually provide protection against malaria)

Then it could also be a sort of 'worker bee' altruistic type selection. There is evidence that in large families the later children have a higher proportion of homosexuality. These children would aid the family through promoting survival of the other offspring, so although, the homosexual's reproductive fitness is low, the others in the familial group would be of increased fitness.

It could just be that when a certain group of individual alleles are expressed in a particular person (or certain mutations) the result is homosexuality.

So, we need to look at group level fitness and secondary effects of genes. We also see homosexuality in other species, sort of kills the pure social learning approach. It will likely be an amalgam of environmental and genetic factors.

Oh, and homosexuals can reproduce if they like. Many do


[edit on 9-10-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I'm not so sure it's genetic myself. I stand on the ground that we're animals, and considering two females having sex requires a penis-shaped object, that would indicate that they like male genatalia, meaning they're sexually attracted to males in some manner - it's just their choice. The same goes for males, really.

I don't really care either way, but rather than taking a completely genetic view on things, sometimes I think biologists need to step back and look at behavior rather than anything else. Their behaviors indicate that they'd like the opposite sex, but they've chose the same sex.

To me it doesn't matter what your sexual preference is...do whatever you wish. I just threw in my two cents on the subject, maybe taking a different view than others in the previous 12 pages (as I didn't read all of them)



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by T_Jesus
I'm not so sure it's genetic myself. I stand on the ground that we're animals, and considering two females having sex requires a penis-shaped object, that would indicate that they like male genatalia, meaning they're sexually attracted to males in some manner - it's just their choice. The same goes for males, really.

I don't really care either way, but rather than taking a completely genetic view on things, sometimes I think biologists need to step back and look at behavior rather than anything else. Their behaviors indicate that they'd like the opposite sex, but they've chose the same sex.


It's much more complicted than that. You forgot to mention the bottom of a male-male relationship. Does that person like female genitilia? Or the top in a female-female relationship. Does that person like male genitilia? And there are more versitile people out there that like it both ways.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   


This is my basic problem with the idea that Homosexuality is genetic: for millions of years evolution has designed humans for 1 thing Species SURVIVAL!!! And our basic functions of life include survival, food, and reproduction. So why would evolution possibly allow our genetic code to allow for homosexuality, which in essence would be a viloation of what evolution designed us to be.


First off, you're assuming that evolution is at fault. So let's argue that point. You're forgetting that there are many evolutionary dead ends, which crop up, and then die off. You're also being somewhat egocentrical thinking that there's only one possible evolutionary destination. It may be the fate of the human race to become hermaphroditic, and homosexuality is only the first genetic expressions of that trait. I, personally, don't think that, but it's an unknown that shouldn't be tossed aside.

But even if it's genetic, it doesn't mean it evolved. Any number of things can happen, or be introduced, to cause any number of genetic mutations. It's still in the person's genes, even if it's not by design.

And how is anything, ever, a violation of what evolution designs? Evolution designs nothing, it's all about adaptability, and which traits begin to express themselves over a period of time to environmental stimuli. It can't, in essence, violate itself, unless of course there's an intelligence at work behind it... but that's a whole other can of worms.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Hi Gemwolf:


Gem >> 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.


“Sex” is the common root of all these terms and not “reproduction.” My post above has nothing whatsoever to do with what is ‘not genetic.’ The common denominator for everyone reading this post is they all have one heterosexual mother and one heterosexual father. The result is either a heterosexual male or a heterosexual female. The woman can ‘call’ herself a homosexual like the man, but that changes NOTHING about their true sexuality with which each was born. Heterosexual parents produce heterosexual offspring . . . PERIOD, so stop being foolish. Some reckless people change their sexual ‘orientation’ anytime they wish, which should not afford them any superior rights than those given them at birth by the Constitution of these United States.

How do two homosexual men join to bear children naturally? How do two homosexual women become one flesh and bear their children like a man and a woman? Those two sexually oriented groups can keep burning in their desire for one another until Christ returns and the result will continue to be NOTHING. They enlist new members into their minority groups by another heterosexual male or female deciding to change their sexual ‘orientation.’ All of them are just one sexual experience away from meeting the right person of the ‘opposite’ sex to revert back to the original sexuality with which they were born.

That is the long and short of this topic, whether you guys want to accept it or not . . .

Terral



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral
Some reckless people change their sexual ‘orientation’ anytime they wish, which should not afford them any superior rights than those given them at birth by the Constitution of these United States.


Equal rights = superior rights when you're a bigot? I guess it does makes sense.


Those two sexually oriented groups can keep burning in their desire for one another until Christ returns and the result will continue to be NOTHING.


I have bad news for you, man.

I was out weeding my vegetable garden a month or two back, when I saw this guy walking up my driveway on the other end of my property, about 200 feet away. Being the hateful person that I am, I ran inside and got my rifle, came out and shot him in his chest for trespassing on my property. I walked out to him to see if he was still alive, and turns out, it was Jesus. And you know what he said? His dying words? He said, "My son.... I'm gay. DON'T TELL DAD LOL", and then he died, again. Except this time he didn't rise up, and I had to bury him because of the smell (even before he started to rot, because apparently he was not fond of the shower), and to avoid cops' suspicions. So unless he comes back a third or fourth time or however many attempts it's been for him to fix our messed up world (which I don't think is provided for in the Bible), then you're out of luck, and might as well get used to the idea of gays and lesbians living amongst you as fellow human beings.

There's also a wonderful thing called the Bill of Rights, which you may or may not have heard of. I'm pretty sure separation of church and state is in there somewhere, which translates to laws being able to have NOTHING to do with religion. I can even express myself freely, wouldn't you know it, and that's in there, too. And really, I just felt like expressing myself, to counter-balance all this pseudo-religious crap that people take too seriously, and forget to live.


I was under the impression that pretty conclusive correlations were found at some point between sexual orientation and exposure to certain chemicals in the womb (or in the case of homosexuality amongst males, a lack of exposure), which, if I remember correctly, was hormonal. Either way, homosexuality (or rather, bisexuality) has been more or less a common feature amongst most societies throughout history, and is even common in nature amongst other mammals. You can argue with nature on that one, I guess, because she apparently goes about her way regardless of whether or not it makes any sense to you.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Hi bsbray:


Bsbray >> I walked out to him to see if he was still alive, and turns out, it was Jesus. And you know what he said? His dying words? He said, "My son.... I'm gay. DON'T TELL DAD LOL", and then he died, again.


No problem, BSdude, because every time someone with a ‘scholar’ tag posts something in my direction, I am left wondering about the massive expanse between their ears. No exception to the rule yet, but I will keep trying. Thanks anyway,

GL,

Terral



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terral
every time someone with a ‘scholar’ tag posts something in my direction, I am left wondering about the massive expanse between their ears.


Well at least I'm in good company, right?

I'm sure this thread has had a number of posts that cited actual scientific research, but that hasn't been the trend in the last few posts, and I certainly haven't been tackling this thread from any scholarly angle. Just posting my thoughts, feelings, expressions on the subject, which is more in line with what's being posted on this thread now.

I am curious, though, as to anyone knowing what I was vaguely referencing in my previous post, on the exposures in the womb and the correlation to sexual orientations.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I have something to say about the matter.

Both of my sisters are gay. One of my cousins is gay. One of my aunties is gay.

So if it isn't genetics then i just don't know what it is.

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

“Sex” is the common root of all these terms and not “reproduction.” My post above has nothing whatsoever to do with what is ‘not genetic.’ The common denominator for everyone reading this post is they all have one heterosexual mother and one heterosexual father.


I know that you may tend to think this but it need not be true. It is easy for a lesbian and a gay-man to produce offspring. They could do the deed themselves or use a turkey-baster



The result is either a heterosexual male or a heterosexual female. The woman can ‘call’ herself a homosexual like the man, but that changes NOTHING about their true sexuality with which each was born. Heterosexual parents produce heterosexual offspring . . . PERIOD, so stop being foolish.


I don't think a one-day old child can be considered as really possessing sexuality. They can be biologically sexed, of course, but this is not always so clean cut.


How do two homosexual men join to bear children naturally? How do two homosexual women become one flesh and bear their children like a man and a woman? Those two sexually oriented groups can keep burning in their desire for one another until Christ returns and the result will continue to be NOTHING. They enlist new members into their minority groups by another heterosexual male or female deciding to change their sexual ‘orientation.’ All of them are just one sexual experience away from meeting the right person of the ‘opposite’ sex to revert back to the original sexuality with which they were born.


Yeah, and bisexuals would cause a problem here



That is the long and short of this topic, whether you guys want to accept it or not . . .


If only the world were so black and white, bit like sexuality and gender really



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terral
Hi Gemwolf:
...
My post above has nothing whatsoever to do with what is ‘not genetic.’
...
Heterosexual parents produce heterosexual offspring . . . PERIOD, so stop being foolish. Some reckless people change their sexual ‘orientation’ anytime they wish,
...
deciding to change their sexual ‘orientation.’ All of them are just one sexual experience away from meeting the right person of the ‘opposite’ sex to revert back to the original sexuality with which they were born.
...
That is the long and short of this topic, whether you guys want to accept it or not . . .


I don't even know where to begin...

Do I ask why you throw something in here if it's off topic? The actual topic is actually "why homosexuality is not genetic"...

Do I point out all your erroneous assumptions? Like you assume that two people that produce offspring is heterosexual... Like you assume that people can change their sexual orientation by will... Like you assume Christ "hates" homosexuals.... And what not.
Actually Melatonin effortlessly corrected your wrong assumptions, thus me correcting you will just be an over-kill.

No. I'll rather ask where you get all of this from? Did you study homosexuality - or even sexual orientation in general - for years and years to ultimately come to these conclusions? Did your preacher tell you this? Did your parents tell you this? Did you lie on your bed, when it suddenly came to you in a blinding flash of light?

See, it's clear that you have no understanding of sexual orientation or sexual attraction or attraction in general. You have not walked a mile in a homosexual man or woman's shoes. You have this idea in your head what it's all about, but merely thinking something doesn't make it true. Don't believe everything you think. My suggestion is go back to the drawing board. Wipe what you think you know, and start over, but the next time round, don't rely on your own opinions alone. I'll stop being "foolish" if you stop being ignorant. Deal?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join