Why homosexuality is not genetic

You’re taking things tit for tat and that’s simply not the case. Just because you and your husband can’t reproduce doesn’t mean you fall into the same category as homosexuals although you share a commonality your situation is completely different. Your husband’s reproductive organ and your reproductive organ go together do they not? You can’t say the same about members of the same sex.

As far as us being part of the animal kingdom and having instincts that we act upon, well of course we do. But I am not going so far as to say our decisions are guided the same as other animals because they are not, we have the ability to critically think, the fact we’re having this conversation should be proof enough that we are far removed from the rest of the animal kingdom when it comes to thought vs. instincts, its just poor science in my opinion to compare human motivations and thought process to animal behavior.

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
....But I am not going so far as to say our decisions are guided the same as other animals because they are not, we have the ability to critically think...

Trust me, that 9 y/o kid I was talking about didn't have the ability to "critically" think about such things at his age, you know it and I know it. He was just doing what came natural to him.

Peace

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1

you would have to include parental killing of offspring

Hmm...kinda like abortion or religious fundies drowning their babies because God told them to?

and intra-species devouring.

Like tribes in Africa that canabalize?

[edit on 17-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]

Their is a tropical fish called the parotfish, I think, that changes colors AND sexes if need be. Now I'm not saying that humans mimick fish but if something like this CAN happen in nature...then why not homosexuality? And don't get me started on hermaphrodites.

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
You’re taking things tit for tat and that’s simply not the case.

I'm having a discussion. Mostly one-sided, I admit, because you seem to ignore 80% of my points, but it's a discussion, nonetheless. I have no idea what you mean by 'tit for tat'.

Just because you and your husband can’t reproduce doesn’t mean you fall into the same category as homosexuals although you share a commonality your situation is completely different. Your husband’s reproductive organ and your reproductive organ go together do they not?

So you ARE talking to me, then.

By the way, if the "parts that fit together" are your criteria for what's biologically acceptable, then the old horse reference could come back into play. Because like it or not, a male reproductive organ will fit into a female horse's reproductive organ...

I'm not trying to argue that there is a biological reason for homosexuality. Nobody is. It's well-known that homosexuals cannot reproduce. So we agree on that.

But further than that, what's your problem with it? You said you don't 'get' the argument, that from a biological standpoint, it doesn't make sense. Well no one is saying that it does.

So, it seems that we agree after all. Or is there more to your disapproval and you're just using the biology slant to make your point that homosexuality is WRONG?

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. 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.

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.

Originally posted by MacMerdin




Hmm...kinda like abortion or religious fundies drowning their babies because God told them to?

Do you consider that natural?



Like tribes in Africa that canabalize?

Do you consider that natural?



Their is a tropical fish called the parotfish, I think, that changes colors AND sexes if need be. Now I'm not saying that humans mimick fish but if something like this CAN happen in nature...then why not homosexuality? And don't get me started on hermaphrodites.

There is a reason this fish has a complex social and reproductive structure. I wouldn’t compare it to that of humans. And again are hermaphrodites natural? Or is all of this subjective?

I thought this thread was about if one could be "born" gay???? Wouldn't that make it genetic? Are you saying homosexuality is a birth defect?

Peace

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
By the way, if the "parts that fit together" are your criteria for what's biologically acceptable, then the old horse reference could come back into play. Because like it or not, a male reproductive organ will fit into a female horse's reproductive organ...

Funny you should bring this up. Evidently there is a connection, or at least some people in Massachusetts think so.

worldnetdaily *cough* Bill softens bestiality statute

Four state legislators in Massachusetts have introduced a bill that would soften the crime of bestiality, a move pro-family activists say is a natural progression of the state's legalizing same-sex marriage.

You’re being too literal. I can take a pen and put it in the hole of a hose and they would fit, but they do not go together. Same as a male reproductive organ can fit into that of a female horses; however they do not go together. I personally don’t care what people do; I am just saying that homosexuality is not natural for humans. Wrong or right is a subjective opinion, but it being a natural act of mankind is a pretty simple answer if you ask me.

If that's true...dBates...then all I have to say is the homosexual movement is doomed. I don't think that after this small amount of time that they would actually do this. They aren't dumb after all (well that's another debate).

Can I have a link to something other than WorldNewsDaily?

edit: clarity

[edit on 17-11-2005 by MacMerdin]

[qoute]Section 34. Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. [/qoute]

Anyone know what the old law states?

While the bill would keep bestiality technically illegal, it gives the option of less severe penalties. Previously, those convicted of "a sexual act on an animal" could receive up to 20 years in prison.

Explains the local weekly: "The new measure would give activist judges the option of slapping perps with a mere two and a half years in plush local jails, or even letting zoophiliacs walk with a $5,000 fine."

Sounds pretty much the same to me except for the off chance that an "activist judge" will give them 2.5 years in a "house of correction?". I thought a State prison WAS a house of correction. Therein lies what the problem is...what defines a house of correction?


[edit on 17-11-2005 by MacMerdin]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
dj, the stats mean little. 100% of the "gays" are men; .

Women are gay also.

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. 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.

How do you know this, the clans top hunter could also have been a screaming queen, he may have been a great thinker, organiser, tracker, shamen. His homosexuality and it's speculative negative stigma may have been outweighed by any number of other contributions, we simply have no idea what cultural mores were important 17,000 years ago and how negotiable they were. Homosexuality seems to have been a naturally occuring impulse amongst a certain percentage of humanity since forever.

Sorry. It's really in poor taste, I know. But I was born this way. I can't help it.

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Can I have a link to something other than WorldNewsDaily?

Here's the original law and the new proposition. Looks like they are capping the fine at $5000 and reducing the amount of prision time you can get in a local jail to 2 and a half years. You can still get 20 in a state prision. I suppose it would be hard to get that conviction.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by dbates]

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
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.

OK. Is anyone 'genetically perfect'? Born with absolutely no genetic defects? I have seizures, allergies, I'm infertile, have a slight overbite (but it's cute), have had cancer (both of my parents had cancer), diabetes is in my family so I have to watch it... and I could go on. Are you simply saying that if there is a gay gene (and I'm not convinced there is) that it's simply a genetic imperfection like baldness or color blindness or any of a million genetic flaws?

I am simply saying that homosexuality is not natural according the biological makeup of humans.

Well, if you're saying that being homosexual is similar to being color-blind or genetically predisposed to being overweight and that if compared to the genetically perfect human (of which I don't think there are any) they come out as 'different', then I might agree. IF there's a gay gene. But then we ALL fit that category of genetically imperfect, don't we?

Originally posted by dbates

Here's the original law and the new proposition. Looks like they are capping the fine at $5000 and reducing the amount of prision time you can get in a local jail to 2 and a half years. You can still get 20 in a state prision. I suppose it would be hard to get that conviction.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by dbates]

This is the most moronic thing Mass. could be doing at this point. "Gee...let's give the "slippery slope" people just what they want so we can ban gay marriages forever....MUAHAHAHAHA"

[edit on 17-11-2005 by MacMerdin]

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
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.

Yeah? And? So? What?
As if we need more people on this earth.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


OK. Is anyone 'genetically perfect'? Born with absolutely no genetic defects? I have seizures, allergies, I'm infertile, have a slight overbite (but it's cute), have had cancer (both of my parents had cancer), diabetes is in my family so I have to watch it... and I could go on. Are you simply saying that if there is a gay gene (and I'm not convinced there is) that it's simply a genetic imperfection like baldness or color blindness or any of a million genetic flaws?

Nobody is genetically perfect of course, but you're taking it to the extreme. I’m going to be real basic here…. You need a man and a woman to produce offspring. Neither two men nor two women can achieve this. This point is important because it holds for the propagation of the human species.

Well, if you're saying that being homosexual is similar to being color-blind or genetically predisposed to being overweight and that if compared to the genetically perfect human (of which I don't think there are any) they come out as 'different', then I might agree. IF there's a gay gene. But then we ALL fit that category of genetically imperfect, don't we?

Again, I am not judging, but to address your point we are supposed to see in color, if you do not there is something that is not “normal” about you. I’m not saying you should be treated different, I am simply saying that something is different about you thats not “natural”. Its natural for humans to detect color is it not?

I think whats being said, to which I'd agree, is that people choose to be gay, like they would choose to purchase a pair of Nikes over addidas. That being said, ones genetic coding would have little to do with it other than being born without the ability to think rationally. Humans are capable of eating with our feet, yet we dont. Just because some individuals sucome to wild immoral tendencies doesnt mean that our genetics allow for it, and more importantly doesnt make it right!! I could care less! But then again, I too have been programmed to be less conservative and except things that at one time or another werent tolarable. At what piont in the future will the legal age for consent be 10 or as soon as cycle starts?