Why homosexuality is not genetic

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
You need a man and a woman to produce offspring. Neither two men nor two women can achieve this.


Like I said, we agree on this point. Homosexuals cannot procreate. No argument there.



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?


Again, it depends on what you mean by 'natural' and 'normal'. It is natural for so many people in the population to be color-blind. Can they see color? No. But it is natural for them to be color blind. No outside force took over. It was a natural occurance.

IF there is a gay gene, I suppose it would be a matter of opinion if the gay gene is more similar to Down's Syndrome (a more severe genetic defect) or color-blindness, (a more benign genetic defect).

By your explanation, nobody would be 'natural' or 'normal'. And yes, I'm taking it to extremes, but by making homosexuality all about reproduction and trying to say that homosexuals are more 'unnatural' or 'un-normal' than other people is also taking it to extremes.

I will only agree that homosexuality is not 'natural' or 'normal' if we can apply the same judgment to bald people, color-blind people, overweight people, infertile people, asexual people, hermaphrodites, people with cancer, people with overbites, any number of propensities to diseases and on and on and on about genetic imperfections, which we all have!

So, it becomes 'normal' to be genetically imperfect. Because we all are.

And that's all IF there is a gay gene, and I don't know if there is or not. If there's no gay gene, then the whole argument is moot.

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




posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Well then, it’s a matter of how you want to categorize things. I would only say that the difference is that its not like homosexuals have a genetic defect whereas they can’t use their anatomically correct equipment. Whatever dictates their patterns for sexuality prevents them from using it naturally/normally.

Good talk…



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Has anyone considered that maybe the rise on homosexuality is a evolutionary response to overpopulation...

Adaptation does not occur for the 'good of the species' tho, it occurs for the good of the individual.

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

We're talking bull-lesbians here, close enough to men....

cogitoergosum1
if that’s a basis for argument on it being natural in the animal kingdom and so it should be for man

No one is claiming that because monkeys have gave sex that human men should have gay sex. Infact, I've repeatedly stated that there's no sense in drawing moral and ethical messages from the a-moral and an-ethical natural world.

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

So for animals there can be a genetic basis for the behaviour ('its instinct'), but for some magical reason that just doesn't apply to men?

you would have been exiled, as you would have been a danger to the survival of the clan.

Certainly not. Its definitly not the case in the more 'primitive' societies, and clearly man-on-man sex didn't keep the spartans from overpowering the athenians.

I am not saying who’s better or what people should be doing;

Sure you're not saying it, but come on man, we know what your saying. (and this ignores that fact that you constantly refer to it as 'an unnatural act', which is certainly the language of condemnation).

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

Yes, we know you are saying that. You're simply wrong. Its not 'unnatural'. Animals do it. By definition its natural.

And again are hermaphrodites natural?

Of course. How can you even suggest that they're not? Asexual and hermaphroditic organisms far outnumber sexual ones by the way.


spittin cobra
Women are gay also

Yes, but we ain't complaining 'bout that!



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
Well then, it’s a matter of how you want to categorize things. I would only say that the difference is that its not like homosexuals have a genetic defect whereas they can’t use their anatomically correct equipment. Whatever dictates their patterns for sexuality prevents them from using it naturally/normally.


So, still in your mind you want to categorize homosexuals as somehow different than regular, normal people. You want to set them apart as having something somehow 'wrong' with them.

I wonder... If we're all a little 'abnormal' in that no one is perfect, why is it important to single out homosexuals as abnormal. Why are you looking at reproduction only - as a determining factor of how normal someone is?

If we look strictly at reproduction, we can say homosexuals and infertile people are not normal.
If we look strictly at hair, we can say bald and hairy people are not normal.
If we look strictly at height, we can say dwarfs and basketball players are not normal.
If we look strictly at hand use, we can say left-handed people are not normal.
If we look strictly at weight, we can say skinny or fat people are not normal.
If we look strictly at teeth, we can say cavaties are not normal.
If we look strictly at intelligence, we can say geniuses and idiot savants are not normal.

But if we look at the whole picture, we can say that none of us is normal... Which makes it normal to be abnormal.

You say you don't think they should be treated differently, so I'm assuming you support gay marriage and adoption?

Great discussion!


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



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Yes, but we ain't complaining 'bout that!



I hear you, its a problem when its so "ok" that its not gay anymore, "and gay is still wrong."

I for get the word for this, I think it starts with a H.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Hahaha

We each have our own opinions on the subject. You are an extremist and according to you if homosexuality is abnormal because of reproduction issues than so must we categorize infertile heterosexual couples as the same even though there is a huge difference between someone being homosexual and someone who is infertile. To argue the reference of biology is absurd to me, if there was no need for reproduction in the fashion we as humans partake in then there wouldn’t be any difference between us anatomically or sexually…..but there is. And you explain it away as normal because some couples or people are infertile. Or since nobody is genetically perfect we are all normal in a sense….. By your logic you can write everything off as "normal" and you shouldn’t frown upon pedophiles, crazy people or murderers.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Animals lack reason; their means of expressing feelings, pleasure, pain, and desire are limited. Its purely sensorial and they do not have the same perception of humans. In saying that animals often confuse senses and objects with another. Give me a break on the animal argument, I can replay the sound of a door bell dinging on the television and my dog will bark every time because he has no way to reason between the television sound and the actual door bell he is acting purely on instinct whereas humans can actually decipher what they heard and apply logic to it. You guys bringing up the animal vs. human argument really need to do your research.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
We each have our own opinions on the subject.


You say you don't think homosexuals should be treated differently, so I'm assuming you have no problem with gay marriage and adoption?


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



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I don’t see how my opinion on marriage has any basis in this argument. But if it entertains you I will let you know that I do not support homosexuals getting “married”. I support civil unions with all the benefits of marriage or just come up with another damn term for marriage and have it apply the same. However knowing the history of marriage its not fair to change how its defined. Adoption I could care less, as long as they are good parents, but that goes for anybody.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
I don’t see how my opinion on marriage has any basis in this argument.


Thank you for answering anyway. The reason I ask is that I suspect that you only SAY you don't want them to be treated differently, but in reality, you do.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
I don’t see how my opinion on marriage has any basis in this argument.


Thank you for answering anyway. The reason I ask is that I suspect that you only SAY you don't want them to be treated differently, but in reality, you do.


Simply not the case..... There are plenty of institutions and organizations that are geared toward specific people, gender, race and religion. Why should the definition of marriage be redefined? How come we can't call it something else with the same benefits as marriage? Or even have civil unions with the same benefits of marriage?



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
How come we can't call it something else with the same benefits as marriage? Or even have civil unions with the same benefits of marriage?


Oh, we can. And for now, it's not even allowed in most states. But the fact is it's treating gay people differently than the rest of the people. It just maintains that mindset that you seem to be so fond of that they're 'different', 'abnormal', 'unnatural'.

By whose definition? We all have different definitions of marriage. You define yours (if you're married) and I define mine. Our marriages are very different, I assure you, probably more different than they are alike, but the one thing they do have in common is that there's one man and one woman, which seems to hold all the priority for you. It's not the same for me.

It just comes down again to your wish to separate out homosexuals from the rest of the crowd, as far as I can see.

Why call it something different? How would it affect your marriage?

From the American Heritage Dictionary (renumbered for clarity):

Marriage:
1. NOUN:

A. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
B. The state of being married; wedlock.
C. A common-law marriage.
D. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

2. A wedding.

3. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).

4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
It has been a religious structural part of society throughout most civilization and not always having to do with love. For this simple fact it should be defined as it’s always been defined otherwise you’re basically pooping on the religious history of the word, which isn’t fair to everyone else since homosexuality is condemned in almost all religions. However I don’t see a problem with compromise, and to be quite frank I am not even a fan of marriage because I don’t believe people need documentation to profess their love for one another. If it’s not about the title and it’s about the benefits then I see no reason why those shouldn’t be given to couples regardless of sexual orientation.

Sorry, I am at work and its hard to really get into this in detail.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
It has been a religious structural part of society throughout most civilization


Marriage predates religion. And government, for that matter. Religion does not own marriage. Marriage is not a religious institution. Some people's marriages have a religious component, sure, but many do not. Mine does not. I was not married in a church and there were no religious words spoken, yet I am still legally married.

And even religious ceremonies must have legal documents signed or it's not a legal marriage. So, legal marriage is not at all about religion.

Marriage is a legal institution here in the USA.



If it’s not about the title and it’s about the benefits then I see no reason why those shouldn’t be given to couples regardless of sexual orientation.


It is about the title. I wanted to be married. No one asked my about my religion. Religion is not an issue in marriage, only in some marriages.



Sorry, I am at work and its hard to really get into this in detail.


I think you're doing a great job and if you'd like to wait till later to answer, I'll be back tomorrow, too.
Just can't get rid of me. This is one of my favorite topics (if you couldn't tell).

Although we are quite off topic...



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



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Just wanted to add that it's not important to me why you want to treat homosexuals differently or how justified your reasons are in your mind. The point I was trying to make is that you DO wish to treat them differently regardless of how many times you've stated the contrary.

So we don't need to get into the whole gay marriage debate. This thread isn't about that.


I was curious about your adamant stand that gay people (if it is a genetic issue) have something 'wrong' with them, a genetic flaw. And having followed up on these key issues, I'm pretty clear on your feelings about that now, and it's also clear that you do wish for them to be treated as 'different' and 'separate' from 'regular' people. Which is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I don't hold that against you.


I just like to be clear.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Something I've been thinking about lately is why people turn out the way they do, gay, criminal, whatever...

First off I think ALL Human are potentionaly gay or criminal or saints etc....
It takes an outside influence to bring out (or visa versa) those traits IMO.
(You'd be surprised how many "staight" people have tried same gender sex out of curiosity, Winston Churchill for one said he enjoyed it and would do it again.)


That is kind of what I was getting at in this post, though unfortunately, I wasn't able to respond and clarify my opinion sooner.


So maybe it comes from the need for attention as children? We search for attention as children and we'll take attention positive or negative. If a child acts good and gets no attention they will soon learn to act bad, IF that gets them the attention they crave.

And look how much of an attention seaking society we've become. Everybody acts like they are on stage and everybody else is the audience.

I've had a few Gay friends and they are some of the biggest attention whores I've ever known (not a put down, Gays would agree with me).
So maybe they had a bigger desire for attention in early childhood than most, and so were more effected by it or the lack of.
For example, the male child gets more attention from Dad and Mom is distant, so the child grows up feeling more comfortable with men.


That is an interesting theory.


I know a lot of gay men (though few gay women), and I would have to agree that there is a dissproportionate number that would seem to crave attention. Now, I don't know if they crave attention so they become gay, or if they are gay, and there for are more apt to want attention...




BTW AmericanMadMan (no miss type lol) I don't agree that your twins prove it's not genetic, there are exceptions to every rule.




As far as the genetics go, I am no biologist nor do I have much of an education in the field outside of an AP bio class in HS, but I was under the assumption that identical twins have the exact same DNA. There for, would they not BOTH need to be either hetero/homo if it were determined by genetics?


I think it IS genetic because I believe we are ALL geneticaly wired to be Gay. I'm sure that will not sit well with your testosterone though


Well, this is kind of where I dissagree. I think that people are wired to be heterosexual, but some experiences can impact our personality.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


I just like to be clear.


As long as you’re clear in your own mind….


However I hope you realize at some point that everything isn’t black and white, and if you say I am treating them differently by my opinion on marriage then I guess my statement that they are different for biological reasons holds merit. It’s all subjective anyway….

Also, can you please elaborate on the origin of the word marriage and its history with religion? It’s a foundation of all major religions and I believe it’s derived from a French word meaning to marry. Interesting that the use of the word marriage I can only find with religious implications in society. Maybe I need to do some more homework…….. We’ll see..



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
By your logic you can write everything off as "normal" and you shouldn’t frown upon pedophiles, crazy people or murderers.


I don't frown on 'crazy people' but comparing pedophiles and murderers to homosexuals isn't in my realm of judgment, either.

What goes on between homosexuals is between consenting adults and therefore none of my business. In pedophilia and murder, at least one party does not consent or is not an adult and is assumed not to be qualified to make a consenting decision.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   
As I said earlier, what goes on between two consenting adults is between them and no one else. If you think its your business then YOU are the pervert, they are not.

Its not a crime to be gay. The only reason its condemned is many people believe their imaginary friend called God doesn't like it. Human beings should not have to base their lives on other peoples imaginary friends. God is bigger than that. Human beings are the ones that are petty.

Free the chains on your mind and the chains on your soul will melt away. Life is too short to be a slave to the dogma. Deny ignorance.

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
As other posters have mentioned, the identical twins do not have the same genetic code. True, they both started with the same code, but the rate of mutation in them is constant and may be affected at different cell devisions.

Secondly, I believe it is genetic.
There are studies which show that gay men appear to have a larger suprachiasmatic nucleus, a part of the brain that affects behavior, and some studies show most gay men have a larger isthmus of the corpus callosum - which may also be true of left-handed people, this is intriguing because gays are 39 percent more likely to be left handed than straight people.

At this point we don't the genetic basis that codes for the proteins that make up this deviation. This doesn't mean that we're looking for correlations just to support a theory - just that not everything is known as of yet.
It has been known since for centuries that the corpus callosum of is larger in women than it is in men. Still, there is no evidence at the genetic level as to which nucleotide sequences code for this.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join