Why homosexuality is not genetic, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 16-11-2005 @ 10:40 PM by Nygdan
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.


reply posted on 17-11-2005 @ 12:56 AM by Gemwolf
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".


reply posted on 17-11-2005 @ 10:42 AM by Benevolent Heretic
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??



reply posted on 17-11-2005 @ 11:33 AM by Benevolent Heretic
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]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



First Heartless Man - You Don\'t Really Need A Heart or A Pulse
  Posted 7 days ago with 51 member flags
Doctor Uses Coconut Oil to Reverse Husband\'s Alzheimer\'s Disease
  Posted 13 days ago with 28 member flags
A brief look at water fluoridation and the insanity of it
  Posted 10 days ago with 28 member flags
Brains of Addicts Are Inherently Abnormal
  Posted 7 days ago with 20 member flags
FDA say body is a drug and has the right to regulate it!
  Posted 10 days ago with 18 member flags
MPD/DID and Quantum Psychiatry
  Posted 14 days ago with 12 member flags

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 27 flags
My Brain = about to explode
  Member Art, Posted 9 hours ago, 23 flags
ATS's Gutter-rats and the 90+ intro thread
  Rant, Posted 17 hours ago, 21 flags
Amazing French Indigo Girl in Africa (Tippi)
  Survival, Posted 8 hours ago, 17 flags
Invasion of Korea underway
  ATS Skunk Works, Posted 17 hours ago, 10 flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 122 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 13 hours ago, 67 replies
I saw a cat turn into a bag..
  The Gray Area, Posted 17 hours ago, 44 replies
My Breakfast with a CIA Whistleblower.
  The Gray Area, Posted 17 hours ago, 36 replies