Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why homosexuality is not genetic

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The two do not have the exact same genetics, they inherit their genetics from the same source. Assuming one does not have water on the brain, they will both have 23 chromosomes each. Some brothers and some sisters share different qualities, though do share many.

It may not be purely genetic but genetics plays a role (I would think) and it is all chemistry.




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
Being attracted to the same sex does not mean that they would not have had sex with the opposite sex. Sodomy is different from homosexuality; I know bi-sexuals that find anal sex disgusting.


And I know "staight" men who enjoy anal stimulation if not outright anal sex...That kind of sex is not something that just homosexuals do, believe it or not.

There is no black and white, no totaly straight or totaly gay imo.
I think the people who claim to be one extreme or the other are making the "choice". In reality we ALL fall somwhere inbetween.
Even the most tough butch ex-cons often, posibly through no other choice, turn to same gender sex. So point is I think it's in all of us, just takes something to bring it out. And when it comes out (no pun lol) they find they actualy like it and continue after they're released. The "low down" as I mentioned before.

Bi-sexuals are just ppl who are not hung up on the butch male, football watching, concept of what a man is supposed to be. Ppl who are fully excepting of their true inner desires. Everyone is bi-sexual, if only you would allow yourselfs to be true to yourselfs, IMO of course. Homophobes are everywhere. Too many john wayne movies or something...LOL

I mean look at men in the 1700's, very effeminate.

[edit on 16/11/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
The twin studies indicate that indeed there is a genetical factor to homosexuality - since there is a far larger correlation between identical twins than with fraternal twins...


I wouldn't be surprised if genetics was sometimes a factor, but did you notice the 11% of adoptive siblings? That's still high, compared to the % of gays in the world, which are pretty low (if those figures are indeed accurate - I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't). Some of those cases of twins, etc., may stem from psychological influences that were shared, since they would usually be living in the same household, etc.


1% of females and 2% of males have homosexual inclinations.
It can't be genetic.


Many things are genetic that don't necessarily help our survival. Many things are genetic that greatly enhance our survival, and yet only a very small number of people receive those genes.


Also, to add on to a discussion that was going on earlier in the post, my psychology textbook describes homosexuality as romantic attractions to members of the same sex, and not the usual pleasure-driven desires. Without romance, I think the proper term for the behavior is just homosexual experiences.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I just don’t get it. I understand chromosome imbalances, choice and other factors that may determine ones sexual orientation, but from a biological and reproduction standpoint it’s completely wrong.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I've heard it said that the reason for a lot of people being gay is too much Mom and not enough Dad.

Fathers are important, in other words.

If you look at that NARTH site I posted a link to, it points out that if a lesbian couple raises a child, any girls will be too masculine and any boys too feminine. Not good.

As for the "minding your own business," well--no man is an island.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Homosexuality is a choice the same as commiting a crime.

Other people have already brought up the point about homosexuals not being able to reproduce but I want to bring up another point. The most basic purpose of life is propagation of the species. The very nature of Homosexuality goes against this basic principle.

Obviously homosexuals can engage in heterosexual activity and reproduce but then that makes them hypocrites. Even if one were to donate sperm or an egg and not physically engage in intercourse life does not reproduce without sperm and egg. Plain and simple.

I want to say that I'm cool with people doing what they want to in the privacy of their own bedroom but I don't feel that homosexual is right and it kind of burns me when people say "stop moralizing" as if having morals is a crime (sin?). Hey, if you can get away with something just by saying other people are moralizing against you then where do we draw the line?
Anarchy?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuickSilver_2005GT
I want to say that I'm cool with people doing what they want to in the privacy of their own bedroom but I don't feel that homosexual is right and it kind of burns me when people say "stop moralizing" as if having morals is a crime (sin?). Hey, if you can get away with something just by saying other people are moralizing against you then where do we draw the line?
Anarchy?


The problem is that your "morals" are not the morals of many other, more considerate people. Morals are subjective after all, not absolute. If you think reproduction is the ultimate in human existance, that's fine, but don't expect everyone else to believe that as well. Humans are very complicated beings, as compared to animals that do nothing but eat, sleep, hump and die (even though many of them, as has been brought up many times here, engage in homosexual activities themselves).



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuickSilver_2005GT
The most basic purpose of life is propagation of the species. The very nature of Homosexuality goes against this basic principle.


I can't reproduce and I"m heterosexual. What am I? A freak of nature?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I can't reproduce and I"m heterosexual. What am I? A freak of nature?





posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They're twins, not clones.

Interesting article, I'll have to disagree with it in general terms tho, a clone is a twin and a twin is a clone, derived from different processes though. If I were to differentitate between them, I'd say that twins are clones that have the same ontogeny, and a clone has a seperate and distinct ontogeny. But for all intents and purposes, especially with respect to genetics, twins and clones are the same.

Of course, even identical twins have different fingerprints.
Nature/nuture/nuture/nature, round and round we go!

flyersfan
and natural selection says that homosexuality being genetic is impossible.

No, think of it this way. There are inheritable diseases that are absolutely fatal, and that can even result in death in the womb or just before reaching a child rearing age. Failure to reproduce and early death are precisely the same thing in evolutionary thinking. If we think of a hypothetical situation, and say that there is a gay gene (there doesn't appear to be one tho), it might be rare and recessive, such that a person would have to have two alleles of the Gay Gene to be Gay, but can have one gay allele and one straight allele, and thus be a 'carrier' of the gay 'trait', just like with rare recessive alleles, like the one for sickle cell anemia. If you have one copy of it, you get pretty sick from sickle cell, but won't die, if you get two copies, you die, horribly, in your youth.
So there definitly are ways for a 'gay' gene to work.

But really, we don't normally talk about 'hetersexual' genes, even though there's an obvious genetic components. All these sorts of behaviours and 'preferences' are structures in the inheritable brain, and that brain can have all sorts of genetic controls on its form to 'set the stage' for homosexual behaviour. A gay man's brain, from a study I've heard about but don't know the citation (
) found that gay men have brain structures similar to straight women, in the regions associated with sexuality.

Animals engage in homosexual behaviour, and we don't normally ascribe 'choice and preference' to animal actions, as another example.

Another interesting theory that I have heard is that the later born male children, ones who have lots of older brothers, have a 'tendency' to be gay, and its thought that perhaps there is some sort of immunization reaction within the mother. Sort of like being exposed to a foreign disease agent, and the body 'learning' to identify it and deal with it, with the first bunch of male children being that 'foreign' agent that the body learns to recognize. And then when the much later male child is conceived, the body is ready for it and 'does something' that affects the brain chemistry. Not really a 'genetic' issue tho, in a sense, but still somethign that is developmental.


CogitoErgoSum1
Humans and Dolphins are the only mammals I am aware of that have intercourse for pleasure.

Male Primates (outside of man) will fellate each other, and females will do the same to one another.


The most basic purpose of life is propagation of the species. The very nature of Homosexuality goes against this basic principle

Humans do a heck of a lot of things that are motivated beyond and often work against their own propagation (not propagation of the species btw, in nature organisms don't do stuff, normally, for the species, they do it for themselves and their genes). Homosexuality works against 'making more copies of yourself and spreading your genes', but, then again, so does not going to the sperm bank every other day and having your genes literally spread throughout the world. So does fighting in war, can't have more kids if yer dead. Humans are intelligent and can do stuff far beyond what 'mean' genetics and nature is limited to.
Besides, what does it matter if 'natural selection' disfavours homosexuality in general? Since when should one look to nature for morality and ethics? Darwin himself laid great stress upon the fact that nature is not a source of ethics and morality.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
...

***Applause*** Again a brilliant post Nygdan!
Pity I can't give you a way above vote! And the same goes for ANOK
and Benevolent Heretic
!!!!



Originally posted by QuickSilver_2005GT
Homosexuality is a choice the same as commiting a crime.

That's probably the most ignorant statement I've seen in ages! QuickSilver, you have no knowledge about homosexuality, do you? Do you know a homosexual person? Do you understand how they feel? How they think? Do you understand the psychology behind homosexuality? I strongly doubt it if you're making a statement like that. How about getting informed before you utter something like that.
Ever heard about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes? Maybe you should try it.


Originally posted by dbates
When you quit candy-coating the subject with cute terms like homosexual, and gay it becomes very obvious what the focus of this gene would be. A man putting his reproductive organ in another's digestive tract (food intake on one side, feces elimination on the other) has no biological purpose and does not ensure survival of the species.

Many people (homophobes and the uninformed) keep hammering on about Homosexuality and reproduction and anal sex and so forth. That's what ANOK, myself and a couple of others have been trying to say... There is a HUGE difference between "homosexual sex" and homosexuality. Yes, homosexuality will most probably include sex - but NOT always sodomy. Not all gay people like anal sex. And what about straight men who enjoys anal sex with their wives? Is that "natural"? Is that for the "good of the species"?

If we're concentrating on "Let's be animals and make sure we all reproduce to ensure that the human race survives" we might just as well pull out the contraception debate. (Let's not, please!) That goes against nature as well, yet there's nothing socially unacceptable about that. (Unless you're Catholic.)

The fact is that there are a million facets to homosexuality. It isn't just about the sex. It's about one person's love for another! The romantic attraction. Is it wrong for one man/woman to love another man/woman (of the same sex)? Since when is love wrong?

And we can once again call upon the debate as to why homophobes can look for hours at end at Lesbian Pornography, but are totally disgusted when a gay man walks hand in hand with another man down the street... (Let's not do this debate either, please!) It's simply because their own sexuality is threatened.

I think these homophobes should look at exactly why they are threatened by homosexuality. The "it's unnatural" argument doesn't sell anymore. There is no way love for another person is "unnatural".



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I believe some people are genetically predisposed to be gay. Some arent, but become gay because they like it from experience.

But I dont believe everyone is "potentially" gay, nor do I believe it is a normal state of being, since it is counter to natures purpose for sex: reproduction. Homosexuality and bisexuality in animals, while common in certain instances, especially involving domestic or captive animals, has not been truly observed in any great amount in the wild. It happens, but no where near as much as activists and some with agendas claim.

But I do not believe that homosexuality is wired into most or all of us. The vast majority of heterosexuals probably do not have any gay inclinations, nor would they ever. Only a small portion of the population is either bi-sexual, or hetero who are curious.

I dont think homosexuality is immoral, since I dont enspouse Christian beliefs, nor do I think its wrong or sick. I do believe it is not totally normal, but a mutation that perhaps influences behavior. Nature is only interested in useful genes. If we did not have civilization, homosexual would be a biological liability, since they do not mate with the opposite sex, and pass on their genes. Its a gene that doesnt harm the persons basic or complex bio functions, but instead takes them out of the breeding race.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Again I just don’t get the logic behind this argument. You can throw the fact that we are a complex enough species to make decisions that defy the natural balance of things. There are men and women for a reason; we need each other to procreate. I personally don’t care who falls in love with what, and most of you that are so into “subjective” arguments on morals would automatically condemn someone who loved their horse and wanted to have relations with it (this does happen), what makes bestiality any different from homosexuality? Both acts go against our biological makeup. If you take away the new age science and stick everyone who was homosexual on an island that human population would eventually die off. I’m not condoning the actions of people to love and grope whomever they wish, I am simply saying its not the way we were built.

Don't take the bestiality reference to harshly, I was simply making reference to both being unnatural acts.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Both acts go against our biological makeup.

Again, why does this matter? Noble Sacrifice goes against our genetic makeup. Getting married and sticking around with one woman and 2.5 kids rather than having lots of babies mommas all over the place goes against our genetic makeup. Not impregnating every woman that a man runs across, and a woman doing practically anything other than being pregnant, goes against our genetic makeup. Ethics is not applied genetics.

If you take away the new age science and stick everyone who was homosexual on an island that human population would eventually die off.
Why? The gay men would have reproductive sex with the gay women.


I am simply saying its not the way we were built.

Why would that be relevant anyway? Man wasn't built to fly in planes. What of it?


Don't take the bestiality reference to harshly, I was simply making reference to both being unnatural acts.

Any sex act that includes contraception is, by this reasoning, the same as man on man anal sex. Use a condom? Might as well perform sodomy on another man. I don't 'buy' it, but its an extention of what you are saying.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Again I just don’t get the logic behind this argument.


I cannot speak for anyone else's argument, but I can try to clarify mine.


Please don't answer these questions, but have you ever had oral sex? Anal sex? Ever messed around with sex other than straight procreational sex? Ever do it for fun? Are you attracted to blondes over brunettes? Large breasts over small ones? (I'm assuming you're a man, disregard the breast question if I am mistaken)

My point is that if you put people on an island who only had oral sex, the population would die. Is oral sex unnatural?




what makes bestiality any different from homosexuality?


The argumant about the horse is, as you realize, ridiculous. Horses are a different species. That's the difference.



Both acts go against our biological makeup.


So does oral and anal sex, yet hets do it every day.




I am simply saying its not the way we were built.


It may not be te way YOU were built, but try to tell a male homosexual that he 'wasn't built' to be attracted to other men.

Procreation is by far not the only reason people form couple groups. It's only one aspect of a couple. We're not rabbits. There's friendship, companionship, caretaking, love... There's more to couples than procreation. I cannot procreate and I'm married anyway.

I get very frustrated when people cannot look outside their own experience. You just cannot possibly understand how it may be the most natural thing in the world for a man to be attracted to another man. Not just for sex, but for everything mentioned above?

If you want to look at it in your terms, think of this... Perhaps homosexuality is nature's way of guarding against overpopulation.
If we were all breeding like bunnies, we'd have been gone long ago. Maybe... just maybe, nature made a certain percentage of people who wouldn't naturally procreate so that we wouldnt reproduce unchecked!

My point is, you don't KNOW everything about nature. How can you be so sure that homosexuality isn't the biologically 'natural' way to prevent overpopulation of the planet??



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Has anyone considered that maybe the rise on homosexuality is a evolutionary response to overpopulation...

in theological terms... maybe God knew we would get to a point, where overpopulation would cause human suffering (and planet suffering) so he built us with a "overflow valve" wherein a portion of the population starts to become attracted to the same gender.

Nahhh....Surely God wouldn't have been able to foresee such implications of creating a species that enjoys sex so much... Afterall, he is only God, ... not some sort of omniprescent, mega intellegent being... Oh wait...scratch that...
I forgot... he is God... he knows all, AND CREATED ALL....



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
What makes you think that homosexual men would or even could get it up for homosexual women? Although biologically built for procreation we also are driven by pleasure. Most true homosexuals are disgusted with the thought of getting it on with the opposite sex, as are most true heterosexuals turned off with the thought of getting it on with members of the same sex. And I just don’t know what to say when you have an argument that completely throws biology out the window and deems it irrelevant. The fact that men have a certain type of reproductive organ and women have another is completely relevant in my humble opinion.

You can also toss the fact that homosexual behavior is occasionally observed within the animal kingdom out the window as well because if that’s a basis for argument on it being natural in the animal kingdom and so it should be for man then you would have to include parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring. Animals are instinctive and irrational animal behavior shouldn’t be used to measure behavior in humans.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
What makes you think that homosexual men would or even could get it up for homosexual women?


What? Who are you addressing here? I said nothing about homosexual men and women having sex with each other...



And I just don’t know what to say when you have an argument that completely throws biology out the window and deems it irrelevant.


Again, to whom are you speaking? I do not deem biology irrelevant. It's just not the complete picture. There are many more aspects to human nature than just biology. I think we're all pretty clear that biologically, homosexuals cannot reproduce. But neither can my husband and myself. It's not the total picture.



Animals are instinctive and irrational animal behavior shouldn’t be used to measure behavior in humans.


So, your point is that we, as human beings, have nothing whatsoever in common with animals and that we are entirely 100% rational and never have instincts???

You should have seen me when there was a bobcat in our front yard threatening my puppies lives.
It was not rational, but I ran out there with absolutely nothing in my hands and chased that wild animal away. What drove me to do it? Instinct.

Some would like to think that human beings aren't animals, but we are. Sure, there are differences that separate us from non-human animals, but we have much more in common than many would like to admit or acknowledge.

Did you read my post?




[edit on 17-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
It is genetic. I remember back in elementary school there was this one boy who was really effeminate and was always trying to get up on all the other boys, including me. We used to tease him unmercifully. We would threaten him but it didn't stop him. He was just into other boys. That kid was a 9 y/o homosexual.............no freakin' doubt about it. At that age it can't possibly be a choice, it's got to be genetic.

Peace



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Your genetics determin your hair, skin, eye, etc.... color. They determin your height, your gender, whether or not your at risk for heart dieseases, and a host of other things THAT YOU CANNOT CHANGE WITHOUT THE HELP OF ALL THE CRAZY TECHNOLOGY we now have avaliable. Your genes dont tell you where to stick your thing or what things you will be let stuck in you. Give me a break! Is there a gene that determines pedaphiles and pyrobeastiality as well. Because if there is a gay gene then I think criminals can claim a criminal gene, when in reality its your enviornment and the various things you have expierinced throughout your life that make you choose your lifestyle habits. A gene has nothing to do with you meeting a person of the same sex and them being able to talk you into something crazy. Does a gene determin when a person gives up there virginity as well? Thinking about something doesnt constitute you acting on it, and if you do act on it DONT say your genetic make up made you do it!






top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join