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: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Gemwolf made a good point: GENERATIONAL GAY GENE. At first scientists believed the JUMPING GENE theory (proposed, CORRECTLY, by DARWIN, WALLACE and a few others I cant think of rite now). Some seem to have abandoned this idea, however, not all of them have.

It makes sense to me. The Gene simply goes dormant until the rite circumstances present themselves. Science has already proven that DNA is like RUBBER or an INTERTWING STRING, THREAD (or two snakes coiled around each other), etc...and this MALLEABLENESS allows it to double back (so to speak) and dip into the pool and pick up said GAY GENE (albeit 25 years later on the mama's or daddy's side of the fam).

When that happens MY own unscientific THEORY is that the CELL/EGG carrying the baby is bathed in ESTROGEN. That Estrogen penetrates or is absorbed by the egg. And let's say it's carrying a MALE child. Since it's a matter of CHEMICAL BALANCE--that excess estrogen overrules TESTERONE creating an IMBALANCE--and we get a MALE child confused and wondering why he looks like a BOY but FEELS like a GIRL!

Yet the simple answer is: too much ESTROGEN (estrogen is sweet and the child comes out sweet, kinda).




posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
You're missing my point.... If he was born genetically gay, what makes you think that's natural? Its no more natural then someone being born with down syndrome or autism, there is something that is not right with him or her genetically.


Err.. I can't follow your logic at all. Correlation between being (coming.. w'ever?) gay and autism is absurd, to say least.


Geez people if we were living 17,000 years ago when humans lived in small clans this wouldn’t even be an issue, you would have been exiled, as you would have been a danger to the survival of the clan.


Could you explain this. What danger does it make to the clan? If you hunt your food (with 'hetero men') and do your job as any other people. There's no biological reason why gay men - or women - cannot reproduce. If you NEED or WANT to make babies, you just need the other sex.. have sex a few times and you're on your way of 'reproducing' .. it doesn't make you any more or less gay.. It's completely different issue that you can't make babies _having sex with your own gender_.. oknp?



I am not saying who’s better or what people should be doing; I am simply saying that homosexuality is not natural according the biological makeup of humans.


Everything that exist in nature (world?) is natural. You're presenting your own ethical, moral and philosophical views as facts of what's 'natural' .. Animals (other than human) don't kill bi- or homosexual individuals of their own species, at least it's not known to happen. If they kill their own kind, there is always some other reason (as well) than wheter they have sex with the same gender or not. That's because it doesn't make a difference to whether their species 'will survive' or not..

What is most absurd with this kind of opinions, most of the gay people (I know of) don't give a damn, wheter they're what they are because it's genetic or because they have been 'raised' or 'grown' as such. For many (most even, perhaps) it would make as much different as whether you like classical music because of your genes or because you have _learned_ to like it.. it doesn't matter. There's nothing wrong with liking classical music - even if some of us don't. It doesn't make it wrong or right.. or better. It makes you different.. some people might think its bad, sinfull, wrong or .. exciting.. w'ever.. still yet, its natural.

I'm bisexual myself and I haven't never thought it makes a different whether I was born this way or if 'something went terrible wrong when I was raised' or something like this. I don't see anything 'wrong' being gay or bisex, so why would I want to change that, even if I could 'unlearn' it.. I don't want to unlearn liking piano music, blue color, chinese food or my friends or siblings either.. I just want to love and be loved by someone the way I are. And there are TONS of things I'm doing wrong and I wish to make better and correct.. make myself a better person. Loving some other man or woman - a person - is not one of them.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Since human genetics is very dynamic I would say that though there may not necessarily be gay gene, there may be varying degrees of miswiring that leads to correctly assume homesexuality is indeed genetic.
It has to be, otherwise how else would you explain other human oddities, for lack of a better word, such as dwarfism, idiot savants and especially hermaphrodites.

Of course there are some that became gay as a result of some traumatic experience such as child molestation. Same for females, there are the butch type that have been that way since childhood and/or birth, and the lipstick lesbians that do it just to put on a show and to kill boredom.

It's a numbers game, with all the number of human genes involved, how can we to keep up with all the numerous combinations and possiblities.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Great posts, ANOK. Very perceptive.

IMO, as someone who has been attracted to both sexes as long as I can remember, sexuality is far too complex to be limited strictly to either genetic or learned/psychological/experiential motivations. It is very difficult to draw definite lines between the lust for pleasure, and a biological drive to procreate. The simple fact is that we are all slaves to our hormones. In the absence of hormonal drives and the seeking of pleasure, I dare say that none of us would be having sex, as objectively, it’s really rather gross. You youngsters will realize this as you grow older, though I’m sure some of you do already. I guess my point is that narrow definitions are simply incapable of describing the reality of human sexuality.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 


Being that you say you have been attracted to both sexes for some time, I really shouldn't do this but I have to ask:

Were you molested as a kid by some closet pedophile republican?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
there's the machine, and the gasoline.
the machine is the body.
the gasoline is the soul.

it is my belief, souls live life to life until their need for learning has been
quenched. i'm a man this time (not gay) but i could have been a woman
last time, or the time before that. the fact i'm here is evidence i didn't complete my assignment. sometimes there are holdovers from past lives. this (in my opinion) is very possibly AN explanation of some instances of homosexuality although not all instances. why should a person be punished because they are gay? if everything is known by god, is it then possible that soul was put in that body to overcome or learn something not yet attained? i had a very good friend who was gay. we grew up
together. i once asked him when he knew he was gay. he told me from
his earliest memories. he was a good guy. he eventually left this mid-sized
industrial town and went to san francisco to live in peace. he passed away
about 10 years ago. i really hope he found the peace he desired in life.
a gay is just like us all. a soul in a body just attempting to satisfy god.

i guess my point is, it does not matter the "whys" of homosexuality!

[edit on 24-12-2007 by last time here]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Actually, when you think about it, it's pretty cool how much of a 'blank slate' and 'neutral' a human embryo is, such that a little bit of nature, a little bit of hormone bath in utero, a little bit of behavior, and a little bit of nurture...can turn out a seemingly endless variety of creatures with a whole spectrum of potential behavior in an vast number of traits and abilities.

As a trade off, you get extremes as well as medians.

Would we rather that people should fall into tighter ideals? That's sort of asking for a society of robots, is it not?

2 cents.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by resistor
 


Being that you say you have been attracted to both sexes for some time, I really shouldn't do this but I have to ask:

Were you molested as a kid by some closet pedophile republican?


No. But I was exposed to sexual behavior and images way before puberty, and I've no doubt that this contributed to my being more open to different sexual behaviors. There was also a psychological component of feeling rejected by my father, which led me to seek that needed male affection and acceptance from others. Experience alone doesn’t explain sexuality though, IMO, as people with similar experiences often have different reactions. That’s where the genetic factor comes in.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
They also had gay and lesbianism in the oldest history book around.... the Bible and the entire city was destroyed for its immorality- Sodom and Gomorrah .... I don't care what the INdians did - they do not have the power to judge in the end- it is ultimately God and He tells us it is SIN! This is enough for me to avoid not only this sin but sin in general and accept Christ as my Lord and Saviour (after all He is the only man who walked this earth with the same temptations as us and avoided them with 100% sucess)

Christ Warrior



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by xander68
 


wrong. your example proves nothing. his example doesn't prove anything either but it offers more evidence than your example does.

however your example was a lie to make a point. his was real. so his is more meaningful than yours doubly.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by American Mad Man
 


According to Darwin's and based on the premise that the species that survives is the one that is best suited to the environment, it is not possible for homosexuality to be genetic. Why? Suppose there is a gene for homosexuality. By definition that gene would not be mating with the oposite sex. Therefore it would not be reproduced in the next generation. Therefore each new appearance of homosexual behavior would a choice rather than a biological driven action. The only possibility for homosexuality to be genetic would be if there were somehow the same mutation each time asexual reproduction happens and the chance of that are practically non-existent. In order for homosexual traita to be passed on in a survival of the fittest mode, there would have to be something in homosexuality that made them better breeders. It would not matter if they were faster, smarter, better suited to the environment. As long as they are not reproducing, those qualities would not be passed to the next generation, because there is no next generationl.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I am going to make a few factual statements and see what sort of response I get (especially from this christ warrior person since this person can instantly know when someone posts the truth or a lie based on his intuition).

I am curious how many readers are familiar with dominant and recessive genes? Our genes can carry information but not express it in the current generation thanks to these dominant and recessive genes. A good example to site would be when a child with red hair is born to a set of parents neither of which have red hair. The red hair gene is recessive and can only manifest if both parents carry the recessive gene and pass along a double recessive allele to their offspring. This also explains how a homosexual gene can be passed from heterosexual to homosexual offspring.

The next factual statement addresses one of my own personal observation. I know a set of male triplets all three of which are homosexual. This statement is fact from my own personal experience with these three individuals along with their self proclamations of their homosexuality. I am curious to know how this fact fits into the discussion.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I think its actually quite simple.
A male fetus getting "or getting too much" female hormone OR a female fetus getting too much male hormone OR quite possibly they were the opposite sex in their past life and it quite simply just carried over.

I mean of course if you believe in that sort of thing. And as far as 1 twin being gay and not the other... he just got more of the female hormone than his brother OR he was female in past life. LOL! That be IT !


I don't believe that gay is a choice by any means what so very ever, but I do in-fact believe that BI-SEXUALTY most certainly is.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
People who argue the gene or choice theory are so far off base it isn't funny. It doesn't matter.

People have a right to choose to live the life they want to. It is not a crime to be gay. If they want to be gay, good for them. i won't judge them or cast my asperations upon them. I wish them happiness in all the choices they make in their lives.

Matter of fact, they have a constitutional right to life, liberty and happiness. The only ones that want to deprive them of that ar the homophobic weirdo's who can't keep their noses in their own bedrooms.

Its not wrong to be gay or lesbian. For the record i'm neither, just someone who believes in minding my own damn business.

Love and light my friends,

Wupy


Would it matter if they didn't have the constitutional right ?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by American Mad Man
 


Seriously, who CARES. Love is love folks and I could personally care less whether that love involves fudge packing or muff diving. Big deal, two guys or two girls kiss and screw, it ain't the end of the world, so build a bridge and grow the *F* up already.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Homosexual Activist Agenda–Abridged Summary

1. All sex acts between consenting adults to be decriminalised.
2. Homosexuals or Gays to be provided, by special laws if necessary, free access to media and other forms of public expression.
3. Gays assured of protection of (human) rights, through formal equal opportunity and anti-discrimination, legislation.
4. Gays (& lesbians) to be given the equal rights of marriage and parenting (incl. child custody, adoption etc)
5. Gays (& lesbians) are to be afforded protection, under law, from all forms of harassment and expressions of intolerance. (eg. hate crime legislation or homophobia)
6. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

The above kinds of strategy were first proposed by ‘Gay’ activist Dennis Altman as recorded in his book "The Homosexualization of America". Later they were debated in a ‘Gay Council of War’ of 175 leading ‘gay’ activists in Warrenton; Virginia near Washington DC in 1988. Details of their agenda had previously been documented in the November issue of the Gay Journal –Guide– by Kirk and Pill * under the Title–"the Overhauling of Straight America". (*Erastes Pill was then a pseudonym used by Hunter Madsen)

www.albatrus.org...



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Biology 101

For a gene to survive if must contribute to an individuals ability to reproduce. Sexual reproduction, in the aggregate, removes deleterious genes and increases the frequency of those genes that contribute to reproduction.

Theories aside about how homosexuality increases the reproductive capability of the group, individually this gene, if it arose, would still be eliminated in the individual by its very nature. A "gay gene" seems impossible, although feminization through increased exposures to estrogen in the womb relative to testosterone concentrations or estrogen analogues in the environment, natural or man-made (in the case of a gay male, opposite for gay female) can contribute.

Ultimately though it is all choice, do people who have anger issues have it in their genes? Perhaps, but they still make a choice on how to respond to situations that would precipitate an anger response. The "gay gene" issue seems like an attempt to shift this issue onto the 'I can't control it, it is who I am' excuse. This excuse doesn't fly,... come on folks we all need to take personal responsibility for how we live our lives.

Peace

[edit on 15-8-2010 by slane69]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Homosexuality is just wrong.
What did one gay sperm say to
the other gay sperm?
How are you supposed to find
an egg in all this s**t.

I have understood that an
orgasm via anal sex is more
intense that a vaginal orgasm.

The gay behavior is pleasure seeking
it is not procreative seeking in the least.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join