Are aliens creating homosexuals and bisexuals?

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Honestly, any thing is possible although this is highly unlikely. Homosexual people and behavior have been around , as another poster put it, since the dawn of man. As soon as it was possible to be or do something homosexual, rest assured someone or something was doing it. Have you ever looked into ancient Rome, wow.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, unless it becomes the standard, since there would be no natural way for our species to propigate. Sure you could make test tube babies, and clones but that would pretty much spell our end if this became the case.

That guy with Icke was just looking for a reason to be bisexual, or really a reason to be ok with something he probably knew all along.

If there are extra terestrials, then I sincerly hope that they have something better to do than turn people gay.

I would say that a large share of males have some homosexual tendancies, usually the gay bashers trying to overcompensate for something they hate about themselves. The kind of guy afraid to hug his guy friend in public cause they are afraid someone might see. A lot them will simply never reveal that they have these feelings and will go on to live a "normal" life with a wife 2 kids and a dog. Either that, or they will get abducted so that they have an excuse.




posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
OP: In a word... NO.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by timelikeNow, it may be that a natural evolutionary path builds homosexuality and asexuality into these protiens to stop the accelerated growth (i.e. if this was modelled by a differential equation we should have a damping factor which allows the population to increase, but at a slower rate not an accelerated one).


I found this very interesting. Although complex, such a case could be a plausible outcome if our population reached a limit where the planet could not physically sustain it. Of course, before that even happens we would have developed the technology to expand our means of sustainability, i.e. interstellar space flight. And if, let's just say for the sake of deduction, colonization of any planet other than our own were a practical impossibility, we would probably just die off. With the above circumstances in absolute, we would see a change in human physiology, assuming we gain some genetic mutation as to allow us to remain the dominant life form on a planet that isn't physically capable of sustaining us.... while at the same time assuring that we maintaining a population level just below the threshold critical mass. The most likely scenario would be extinction. This would be a plausible step for any unintelligent specie, however any potentiality for sufficient physiological adaptation in humans would be counterpoised by a geometrical growth in technological means to avoid the limitations of overpopulation, and any other physical barrier. I could only see this happening in a small, purely reproductive oriented organism, something on the lines of bacteria.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
What a coincidence you posted a thread like this! I've found that yes, they have been creating this

here's the proof


www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
A Very different theory. Excellent!

But my thought is that sexuality is used to create confusion. Granted I do believe there are people that are born gay, but on the other hand I think that in order to keep us in the 3rd dimension and confused our 5 physical senses has to be exaggerated. The NWO wants us to think of everyone as an object. Men, women, and children.

As for the evolution part that's pretty deep. But the human brain and mind is pretty intense. It is better than the best computer. So we don't need asexuallity to save us, we only need our genius mental capacity to create a way to clone superior copies that are different from the original.



[edit on 4-11-2008 by Teeky]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Teeky
 


I agree. Technology will be the likely course of action regarding reproduction in the future. Sex itself (I don't know if people would be sterilized in this future or not) would become merely a vestigial function of human social behavior, as reproduction would be relegated to the vats. And sexuality will simply be viewed as a mode of self exploration. Personally, however, I don't believe we'd pursue cloning in the conventional sense as a method of reproduction, simply because the differences in an individual produced in heterosexual reproduction are vastly superior. I think we'll find a way to synthesize human chromosomes from inconspicuous matter, using a combo of techs, including nano-miniaturization of robotics, genetic modification, and molecular rearrangement, and then subject them to fertilization. The science of cloning would be an integral component of this, but not in the sense that a clone would yield a perfectly identical individual at every generation.

Clones in the way we know them from popular culture might be used in some instances, such as war, if such a power decided to neglect the whole ethical component.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Not sure if it is an alien trait lol. In my family though I have found through time that a high amount of men are gay/bisexual on my mother's side of the family. I came out to my brother and he confided in me that although married with kids that he felt an overwhelming attraction to males more than females. Over the years this is what I learned about my family.

1 Brother
2 straight up gay uncles
2 bisexual uncles (married to women before and had children)
3 gay cousins
2 bisexual cousins (married with children, see men on the side)

I renounce the theory that is about abuse. I didn't even know any of these people except for my brother until I was an adult. I was raised in a Conservative Christian home. At 35yo I have only met one gay man that has claimed to have been molested/abused.

Emotional Reactions: Sees the problems men and women face with each other as trivial. Have kinda been a go between husbands and wives with advice (friends) I kinda know how women and men feel and what reactions they undertake to situations whereas straight men and women don't usually understand each other at all.

With my nieces and nephews the parental style I view them in is from both dad and mom positions. Patience and loving but, know how to be strict and lay down the law when the time is appropriate.

Maybe evolution isn't just physical changes (although many gay men appear feminine). Maybe it starts with internal emotion/thoughts? A combination if you will between male and female.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
[edit on 5-11-2008 by kissy princess]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Oh man can you dig all the un-wanted preagnancies from guys Jacking off very day...lololol

I like a roll in the hay with the opposite sex.

Somehow doing it yourself seems very lonely...



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kratos1220
This didn't happen to me, but it seems like you were saying that if something "is", then it must be natural? The altered plants/animals was a better example though. Things have gotten off topic though for sure.


I think you are equating natural with good; sometimes the things that happen in nature are cruel and unpleasent, but that is still natural, so yes unusual and unpleasent behaviour in human beings and the results on their victims is still natural. It is natural because the brains of these people have naturally developed. It is natural but it is also wrong, and we as thinking concious creatures know our actions to be wrong and can hopefully change it or stop it.

Nature alters plants and animals, why shouldn't mankind do it? If mankind is but another manifestation of nature then that is still natural; for a spieces to develop tools that can eventually alter the essence of life itself.

I note you are religous, and I do not intend to disrespect your beliefs and way of life, but you ought perhaps to extend beyond the religous texts of what the natural world really. Surely if your God has fashioned such a marvellous, complex entity as man, then God's actions are reflected in the actions of Man.

I don't propose to continue any further with this thread, I think it has run it's course, but suffice it to say at this time I see no place for the hand of ETs (or God) in the creation and development of Mankind at this time.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by toochaos4u
Not sure if it is an alien trait lol. In my family though I have found through time that a high amount of men are gay/bisexual on my mother's side of the family.


That's interesting, because it's exactly what you would expect in terms of genetics. There is likely no such thing as a single 'gay gene' - the effect would be subtle and chemical, expressed in complex combination with other genes, and so on - but imagine for simplicity there was. Imagine there was a gene that made both men and women 'more feminine'. A brother and sister might inherit it on the x chromosone from their mother. The brother would be homosexual and unlikely to pass it on. But in the sister, the gene might express itself differently. She could then pass it on to her children.

So you'd expect to see a genetic link passing down on the mother's side. The answer to the question 'how is it possible it's genetic when gay men don't pass on their genes?' is actually fairly simple. It's possible because gay men have sisters.

And if the gene in question was enormously beneficial to women when it found itself in them, it would thrive regardless of its effect on men.

Is your brother older than you, incidentally? Statistically, men with older brothers are more likely to be homosexual.

There's all sorts of fascinating data and theory behind all this, and it's almost saddening that people are talking about aliens causing it, rather than looking into the rather fantastic science behind it all.


Originally posted by toochaos4u
I renounce the theory that is about abuse.


I'd say I agree. However it feels like, on an educated, intelligent discussion board, it shouldn't even need to be said.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by timelike

I think you are equating natural with good; sometimes the things that happen in nature are cruel and unpleasent, but that is still natural, so yes unusual and unpleasent behaviour in human beings and the results on their victims is still natural. It is natural because the brains of these people have naturally developed. It is natural but it is also wrong, and we as thinking concious creatures know our actions to be wrong and can hopefully change it or stop it.


I'm not saying cruel or unpleasant things that happen are not natural because they are cruel and unpleasant as there are plenty of such things that are natural and occur without a human being so much as lifting a finger, but when the actions of a human cause something cruel and unpleasant to be bestowed upon someone for their entire life, it's hard for me to then say it is natural. Without those actions, whatever was caused by it would not exist because it's existance was dependant on those actions. To me, something that is natural, whether it's in animals, plants, humans or whathaveyou is something that occurs without any kind of intervention from anything outside of nature itself which does not include humans. Is it natural for the ozone layer to have huge holes in it? Of course not, that's our doing and because of our doing, we get sunburns and skin cancer because we are no longer protected from UV light.


Nature alters plants and animals, why shouldn't mankind do it? If mankind is but another manifestation of nature then that is still natural; for a spieces to develop tools that can eventually alter the essence of life itself.


I do see your point, but it's hard for me to say that a group of scientists sitting around manipulating genes for months on end trying to create something that doesn't already exist naturally is creating something that is now "natural." Nature never needed any of this assistance in one's theory of evolution, so why would it now? That just isn't "natural" to me. Something that is natural would occur without any special intervention or "help" from us, would it not?


I note you are religous, and I do not intend to disrespect your beliefs and way of life, but you ought perhaps to extend beyond the religous texts of what the natural world really. Surely if your God has fashioned such a marvellous, complex entity as man, then God's actions are reflected in the actions of Man.


Well, I was someone who loved thinking outside the box as someone who was a very curious soul long before I decided to acknowledge my faith, so if anything, faith has some work to do to tear me away from that yet. My opinions as far as this goes has very little if anything to do with my religion or my God, this is just my opinion which was formed separate from religion.

However, God's actions are not always reflected in the actions of man nor would he need us to assist him in altering anything. Were they reflected in people like Hitler, Saddam or even George Bush? Will they be reflected in Obama? Are they reflected in murderers and criminals? Of course not, there are many more people on this earth that choose to ignore the word of God than there are who follow and believe in the way God intended them to. This is Satan's world right now, after all.

I had seen someone else renounce the abuse thing, but no one will ever convince me otherwise. I hear horror stories every single night about the effects of child abuse and 100% of the time, there is some kind of abuse that is responsible for the "problems" people are experiencing and it causes predictable traits based on the type of abuse. Do you think everyone who is abused tells people about it? 80% of abuse cases aren't even reported in this country! That's why I get so passionate because I hear it every single night, this is a very real problem in this country and has been for a very long time.

God Bless



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
this topic is so messed up,
@malignant: gay people get gay from the moment they're in the whomb, so no gay men don't get abducted otherwise they'd have a hell of a job changing millions of men
. being gay is not a disease, it is an error in the development of the brain, but nothing serious, it just gives them the same trait that makes them love the same gender. Also, estrogen isn't altering the sexual preference, it would just make men less fertile (quality of sperm decreases when men drink it).Also keep in mind it's not real estrogen, it's chemicals that react as estrogen.
@hankmcoy: there is no "gay" gene, nor can it be turned on or off, sexuality is a basic instinct of all creatures, so it is located in the brain, altering the genes would not affect the current status of the brain. In fact right now your body is making millions and millions of errors in your DNA code while copying itself for skin renewal, healing wounds, etc. but still ppl do not get new traits like homosexuality or other stuff So homosexuality is nothing genetic.
@baseball101:you honestly believe god created humans? Do you know why marriage between brother and sister isn't allowed? Because the child would probably receive all bad chromosomes that run in the family twice, which would give the child recessive genetic diseases. And because the children of adam and eve reproduced with eachother, i highly doubt their bloodline would have reached the 3rd generation if adam and eve really existed.
@kratos: again, homosexuality isn't something that develops after the person is born. It is prenatal. You don't honestly think all gay people get abused? If that were true why are so many abused people still hetero?
@liberty: gay people do not choose to be gay, it is not something psychological. Why would role patterns be involved? If a gay couple lives together there can also be one who brings home the bacon. You are implying that being gay is a choice, which it isn't, gay people never got to decide about that. So they don't go like "well i'm not needed as a a hetero man since women work now so i'll turn gay".
@rubyeyes:
heteros have the same chance as gay people on having stds like hiv.

ps: however some of my statements may sound harsh to the gay community, homosexuality is still a biological abnormality, it's not a disease, but it is an error. And to fully prove that i don't have anything against gays is the fact that i'm gay myself.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Here's what's happening:

Extraterrestrial abductors generally use a probe that's inserted into the anus because that's the easiest hole to put something in. I mean, it's not easy, but given that and the other options, it's a clear winner. It's tight and surrounded with miles of muscles and flesh that will just contract around it, providing a biological sample of the entire body's movement. Contract those muscles: you feel it right up to your gut.

They choose the anal passage as a way to best understand our biology. The only reason it "creates homosexuals" if such may in some way be the case is because modern society is so scared of anal intercourse everyone's forgotten it can feel really good if you do it right.

Of course probing isn't the right way, but it's going to stimulate that prostate one way or another, and that's an experience utterly new to a lot of people born in more recent history.

If, in fact, alien abductions are turning men gay, that's probably why. And that's a big if, let me clarify.

Don't drop the soap (on Mars).



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by joecamel
 


Soap on Mars.....lol

Here's a possibility I've seen in many gay friends of both genders growing up: that child abuse often is a response to gay traits at any early age. My buddy William knew he was gay by 4 and used to flirt with other boys so his Mom beat the hell out of him. By teen years he was in and out of institutions to turn hin "strait" and he's never been able to function normally. Same story with several other guys I grew up with. My own mom wouldn't lt me wear pink because it made me look "lesbian." The laughs on her, eveyrthing I own is hot pink now and I'm straight!



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

Here's a possibility I've seen in many gay friends of both genders growing up: that child abuse often is a response to gay traits at any early age.


Hang on, that's a really big unfounded assumption!!! It may suprise you to know that there are many people who are gay who have not suffered any child abuse, or any harships or problems at all, things just turned out that way, probably for genetic reasons.

I'm one of them.

[edit on 9-11-2008 by timelike]



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
This thread seems to have gone so far off course of from what I was originally trying to propose, I don't know how to participate in my own thread anymore. I suppose I could have thought it out a little more before I posted but I just felt like I wanted to type it out as I was thinking so I wouldn't forget.



posted on Nov, 12 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by timelike
 


That's not what she said. What she said was that child abuse was the RESPONSE to homosexuality in children. Not the other way around.





top topics
 
6
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join