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.

 

Gays, medically born Gay? Gays superior to Strieghts?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a couple quick things here. There is certainly no strict adherence of men to be left brain dominant and women right brain. I am a hypnotherapist and have to deduce which my patients are, and there are many of both sexes that have left or right and this in no way i have seen corresponds with their sexuality. That being said, as they taught us in religion class in a catholic high school, very few people are completely hetero or homosexual, most people are somewhere on a scale in between. I would venture that wether we explore that option of our taste has much to do with social pressures and obviously in our society, it is more acceptable for women to explore themselves emotionally and thoroughly than it is for men to explore, and as such i think women more often develope both sides of their sexuality while men more often have to hide it. Coming from a background of chinese medicine theory, i DO believe that exploring both your masculine and feminine nature allows you to better balance your yin and yang, and this has to do with equalizing development of both brain hemispheres as well, but that doesnt necessarily mean you have to engage in acts of sex with both groups. I DO know however, that in many native american tribes, homosexuality was seen as a mark of divinity and these people went on usually to become shamans and medicine men. Maybe this is due to the greater balance between their left and right nature giving greater perspective and wisdom over time....however this is no longer the case, as wisdom and maturity are no longer things that are truly developed in american society, and nowadays homosexuals tend to stay as immature as everyone else.
One last point....i do recall lately reading of a study on nutrients done with dogs where the scientists found that when the dogs got certain combinations of nutrients in certain amounts their sexual orientation would switch, so perhaps there is a chemical factor there as well.




posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I was wondering why with so much mention of this kind of research, both with its cautions and its indicators (ie. mixed results that nonetheless kept indicating more research along certain areas:


www.pbs.org...

What might be the origin of biological differences underlying male sexual preference? In 1993 Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute discovered a preliminary but nevertheless tantalizing clue.[9] Hamer began his painstaking search for a genetic contribution to sexual behavior by studying the rates of homosexuality among male relatives of seventy-six known gay men. He found that the incidence of homosexual preference in these family members was strikingly higher (13.5 percent) than the rate of homosexuality among the whole sample (2 percent). When he looked at the patterns of sexual orientation among these families, he discovered more gay relatives on the maternal side. Homosexuality seemed, at least, to be passed from generation to generation through women.

Maternal inheritance could be explained if there was a gene influencing sexual orientation on the X chromosome, one of the two human sex chromosomes that bear genes determining the sex of offspring.[10] Men have both X and Y chromosomes, while women have two X chromosomes. A male sex-determining gene, called SRY, is found on the Y chromosome. Indeed, the Y chromosome is the most obvious site for defining male sexuality since it is the only one of the forty-six human chromosomes to be found in men alone. The SRY gene is the most likely candidate both to turn on a gene that prevents female development and to trigger testosterone production. Since the female has no Y chromosome, she lacks this masculinizing gene. In forty pairs of homosexual brothers, Hamer and his team looked for associations between the DNA on the X chromosome and the homosexual trait. They found that thirty-three pairs of brothers shared the same five X chromosomal DNA "markers," or genetic signatures, at a region near the end of the long arm of the X chromosome designated Xq28.[11] The possibility that this observation could have occurred by chance was only 1 in 10,000....




What research into human sexuality, then, lies ahead? Dean Hamer has repeated his initial work among male homosexuals in an entirely new group of families and has included a much-needed analysis of women. He has also compared the frequency of the Xq28 marker among pairs of gay siblings and their heterosexual brothers, important control data that he did not acquire the first time around. This work has been submitted to the journal Nature Genetics. Two other teams--one recently formed at the National Institutes of Health and a Canadian group that has reached some preliminary results--are attempting to replicate Hamer's initial findings. All Hamer will say about his latest data is that they have not discouraged him from continuing with his project.

To track down and sequence the DNA from one or more relevant genes at Xq28, from a total of about two hundred candidates, seems an almost insuperable task. To read the molecular script of DNA involves deciphering millions of constituent elements. Moreover, each gene will have to be studied individually and many more pairs of gay brothers will be needed to achieve this goal.



With such partisan pressures dominating the future of the research agenda, the circulation of uninformed opinions couched in scholarly prose is a cause for anxiety. In an otherwise superb and iconoclastic critique of the history of heterosexuality, Jonathan Katz ends with a sweeping and badly informed declaration:

Biological determinism is misconceived intellectually, as well as politically loathsome...Contrary to today's bio-belief, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable....


It is true that the research of Hamer and LeVay presents technical and conceptual difficulties and that their preliminary findings obviously need replication or refutation. Yet their work represents a genuine epistemological break away from the past's rigid and withered conceptions of sexual preference. The pursuit of understanding about the origins of human sexuality --the quest to find an answer to the question, What does it mean to be gay and/or straight?--offers the possibility of eliminating what can be the most oppressive of cultural forces, the prejudiced social norm.



To suddenly have the entire gerome mapped out by this:



memes.org...


The Human Genome Project was created in a Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, on the Private Estate belonging to John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles. The Dulles Boys had a claim to fame in that they were primary corporate attorney and earth-movers and shakers for John D Rockefellers..Standard Oil Cartel.




John Dulles was also the attorney for IG Farben in the US. IG Farben did mfgr the gas that killed the Jews in the camps. It's also possible that the "Beetle-shaped" gas Pellet used in the death camps..was actually manufactured in Niagara, New York..by a company called "Degrauss"...but I'm sure no one believes zorro. The "Gas" pellet was never made for Human Consumption. It was made, on the banks of Niagara Falls for use in the "Gold Mining" industry. How ironic..so many "Goldsmiths murdered by Golden Chemistry"!



Sorry Rockefellers shady lawyers don't lead me to think the research trails they chose to follow through illuminate us as opposed to control directions they should have taken. They haven't convinced me.


[edit on 6-10-2008 by mystiq]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
IMHO, everybody born as natural Bissexual ones( all have the habilitie to love or have sex with bouth sexs)! It's just depends on cultural and education factors (as in some cases hormonal also)to be "tied" to Homo, hetero, or whatever.
Normaly almoust in every ocidental societies, people are Hetero because it is what they learn from babies. But for other ones, the hormonal impulses are too strong tending just in one way, and they must assume as homos/or Heteros. Rarely people will assume they'r bissexuality!
If we all was born, as a exemple, in ancient greece, we will be raised as natural bissexuals, and that will be perfectly normal!
It's just sociocultural & religious "laws" that try to force every one as Heteros (streight).
Several studies about this was made already on several animals, and it is clear that many diferent animals have Bissexual behaviours. (Exemples, wolfs,dogs, monkeys, lizards, elefants, etc).

Animal homossexuality



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I mean I was skimming through the eugenics stuff by the Rockefeller guys and reading that somehow environment could be blamed for brain differences, I mean common on! Next they'll be promoting, through their nwo agenda that certain perverse behaviors are mutating the good stock of the human race and therefore must be stamped out by public executions to preserve the slowly shrinking and being depopulated, small acceptable group they wish to remain, with a few ethnic differences to be utilized as slaves making toys and stuff for the privileged few. Not only do wolves not police themselves properly but they're not going to be following the same clues in research that open scientists do either. Because going down different trails might get results, the ones they want to suppress.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Choosing what to study, what trail to go down is the oldest trick in the book. And look at the Rockefeller families gain in the past by ignoring the work of Tesla and others and suppressing a fork in the road which would have led to a much cleaner sustainable and freed up world without slaves, versus the fossil fuel slavery and globalization. Choosing which things are pursued is paramount to control.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercuryae
 


Celebrate your wonderful unique attitude. You sound like a pretty cool guy. I'm really enjoying your input.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercuryae
 


I probably am bi-romantic

Heh, it isn’t very romantic, at least not for me, it is pretty much the same as heterosexuality. Be happy with who you are, embrace it, and experiment a little if you like. Being bisexual I was very, very confused for many years. For a while I thought I was a lesbian, then I thought maybe I was going through a phrase, but neither was correct, it took me a long time to realize I could connect emotionally and sexually with both sexes and that is just the way I am. I don’t think it is any more superior or romantic or sexually appealing than being gay or straight.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Does it really matter if someone is straight, bi, or gay? I don't think it does! As a gay man it makes me so mad when people say that my orientation is a choice. I don't know the reason I am the way I am, but I can tell you for a fact that I didn't have a choice in the matter! If I could be straight, life would be less complicated. As for it being environmental, I've personally never seen that being correct. My brother grew up the same way I did, and he's a straight dude. I have more in common with him than my sister. In fact, feminine guys do nothing for me.


I'm glad you're trying to figure it out in a civilized way!
Just remember everyone is different in some way, we need to accept people for who they are.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


I suppose the jewelry is the give away and the perfect hair lol.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Mercuryae
 


I am no scientist, and I don't know the answer to those questions. I just looked up the research.

I have gay friends, male and female. Some of the women are as girly-girly as can be. Some of the men are more men's-men than my boyfriend.

People are people and we are what we are. And, I think the world would be a much better place if we just accepted that and quit trying to disect everything. It just gives me a headache......


I agree. Its much ado about nothing. If a person has a problem excepting another no matter what they are has the problem which they need to take care of. Ofcourse, religion has a part in this in that they condemn it. Therefore, blame religion. Use to be in the old days that if a child was lame or has a sickness you let it die a terrible death. Hopefully we have past that stage in our evolution.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
By the way, I keep reading in here that gay people do not have children!
That is insane; many gay couples do have children through surrogate mothers or surrogate fathers.
Many gay people get married to the opposite sex and have children this is a fact.
Therefore, to say gay people do not reproduce is a lie.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Correct. Anyone who wants to know more should go to the APA's website on gay parents. It is estimated that 44% of gay couples are raising children now, as many have in the past.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion52
 


I personaly dont thing homosexuality is a choice, otherwise so many people wouldnt be confused or questioning why they are the way they are because they would have already known that they made the choice to be the way they are, which they didnt. However, I dont believe that "everything would be better if we just accept whats going on and not ask questions about it", too similar to the point of view that many (or even most) religions/religious people have. Making statements like "The world would be a better place if we didnt question" is logically completely wrong. Why did so many people burn because they simply had blue eyes and were thought of as witches? because of ignorance. That doesnt go on today because we know why people have blue eyes.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


do not reproduce

That is one reason I’ve never believed the theory that gay people are created by nature for population control, why not make people sterile in general if nature wants to control the population? Some people claim being gay is also a defect because of this reproduction argument, gays can reproduce with the opposite sex just fine; they just aren’t attracted to them. They are in no way crippled by their orientation physically, only by society’s social biases.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
By the way, I keep reading in here that gay people do not have children!
That is insane; many gay couples do have children through surrogate mothers or surrogate fathers.
Many gay people get married to the opposite sex and have children this is a fact.
Therefore, to say gay people do not reproduce is a lie.


I completely agree that Gay families do actually have children in many cases. However, it is impossible for a gay man to impregnate another gay man, so it is not a lie that gay people cannot reproduce.

However, if a gay man were to donate to a sperm bank, then yes, they could technically reproduce, but really, thats not that gay if your a man impregnating a woman isnt it.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


so it is not a lie that gay people cannot reproduce.

Gay people can reproduce, just not with each other. Being gay does not cripple their ability to naturally have children just because they can not do so with a same-sex partner.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


i know... i stated that in that post. Let me refraise that for you then, Gays cannot reproduce with other gays of the same gender, which is why gay couples cannot reproduce.

I would be an idiot not to think that just because being gay meens that cannot have kids what so ever. as you stated, just because of their sexual orientation does not make them any different physically

[edit on 6/10/08 by Ghost147]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


I have recently had bit of a ding dong with my divorce lawyer/solicitor and basically got a non answer brush off when I was having a tantrum over family law, (in the UK)

As I was getting taken to the cleaners because the law favours the person with breasts in relation to divorce, and the one with the penis gets dumped in the street with a bag of clothes and a new male role model for his kids.

"So what happens with lesbians? " I complained "which one of them is the mother and gets the goody bag"?

Apparently, technically a lesbian cannot be a wife because technically she is not married but has a civil partnership which is not actually a marriage and certainly doesn't give her the same status as a wife.


Just thought I'd mention that folks, because I'm still pissed off about it all to this day, there is no equality in the UK just lip service to hush the complainers for 5 minutes.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Veritas Lux Mea
 


That was the most unintelligent attempt at a logical explanation. It's a proven fact, as noted in the Cased called "The John/Joan" from the 1960's, that the way you are raised CANNOT determine who you will be. The extreme of this case was when two TWIN BOYS were born, and during the circumcision, there was a terrible accident by the hospital. The damage was done, and ... long story short... the parents were told to raise the boy (whose penis was accidentally cut off) , to raise him as a GIRL, and his twin BROTHER... was raised as a normal boy. This worked for about 6 years, and this "GIRL"... could not be raised/convinced any further that she was really a girl. Regardless of the fact that her private-parts were surgically similar to a female, and she was raised entirely as a girl. In every single way, she was raised FEMALE... and it was naturally rejected as she grew up, and eventually became the BOY/MAN she was originally born as.

Thus proving, it does not matter how you are raised, you will be who you were designed to be.

I'm not stating this to be a jerk, or argue... but just to state a fact. The fact that "you are who you are made/predetermined to be", contrary to clouded belief.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


LOL No you didn’t the ding dong!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join