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.

 

homosexuality not genetic

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
This post is not an opinion thread or a thread to start a flame war. Acording to evolution and survival of the fittest the weakest are the least likely to propigate the species. eventually leading to a populace that no longer carries the weaker gene form.

According to this principle shouldnt a genetic homosexuality be comletely ruled out?

over the course of human history homosexualtiy has exsisted and there have been alot of generations between the beggining and now. Shouldn't this mean that according to natural selection and the homosexuals inability to create new members of the speciespretty much guarentee that the "gay" jean would have been bred out long before the present?

just a thought

wahts your opinion

CW




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
You make a good point. I always wondered that myself.. If it were caused by genetics, the genetics would be gone pretty quick.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
It should be considered de-evolution if it were genetic. A glich in the DNA code that can only lead to extinction, inevitably. Typically, a species does not evolve a new gene that doesnt promote the procreation and furthering of genes of that species. To do so would be harmful to the species, and such a gene would quickly be rooted out via natural selection.

That being said, it is impossible for one to be "born gay." It is either a sexual preferance, or disorder. Period! To say otherwise is lying to yourself.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by mostlyspoons]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
The homosexuals female as well as male that I know, were all "initiated" at a very young age by kind and deceitful adults. Pedophiles.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
It's been awhile since I was in biology but if the supposed gay gene was recessive that could pass the gene on without necessarily requiring the survival or reproduction of the gays specifically but still generate them occasionally. If you remember in biology you could match up different genes of both parents to see what gene combinations the offspring might have. So for instance say one parent was Sg and the other parent was SS. (S being straight and g being gay) the offspring would be either SS or Sg. (gg would be required in order to be gay). Still no gay offspring. But say two Sg got together, their children would have a 1/4th chance of being gg and thus gay. Of course I am sure it involves a lot more than that but is that simple enough to understand? Gays do not have to reproduce to have the gay gene passed down as long as they have siblings and most people do.

As far as survival of the fittest; that refers more to the group rather than the individual. Sure gays won't reproduce but really biologically the amount of men required to impregnate all possible females doesn't have to be proportionate. And lesbians might not want to reproduce but that doesn't keep males of their species from raping them, more so in the animal kingdom but sometimes with humans.

Overall I think your argument is weak and is probably homophobic in its intentions.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by HulaAnglers
 


lol are you serious?? If that isn't a really terrible joke, then, you definetely have something not fully screwed in properly in that head of yours.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mostlyspoons
 


Just a little food for thought, as I really don't have a dog in this race.

Can you tell me the point in your early development where you weighed the pros and cons of heterosexuality vs. homosexuality? Did you ponder the benefits or disatvantages of both, or did you just KNOW -- from an early age -- what you were, what gender you were attracted to?

Do you still think it is a choice, or were you born that way? You don't have to answer me........ I think it's more important that you really seek out this answer for yourself.

Cheers



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Well, genetics is a very hard thing to understand, and this is probably the wrong place to look for answers. You'd be better off asking a geneticist.

Both my mother and father gave birth to my brother, who is gay. As far as I know, the "gay" gene was more than likely from a few generations before his time. So, to just say "it should of been ruled out by now", is ridiculous. Neither you nor me know how it works. So, it's really pointless to speculate.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HulaAnglers
 


whoa buddy, i don't know, but i don't think that the majority of gays/lesbians sexual preferences spawned from encounter's with pedophiles at an early age.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
To be perfectly honest, It doesn't matter whether it's genetic or a choice. They have a right to live the life they want to live.

It's guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If they decide to be gay, what business is that of yours?

They have a right to live their life the way they choose, regardless of the reason they have chosen to be as they are. (or were born that way.)

I think the world would be a better place if we spent more time trying to make ourselves a better person, and less time trying to tear everyone else down.

If someone is gay, they have a right to be gay.

It's not our place to pass judgement on them.
Just my thoughts,

wupy



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Yes, of course it is by choice, I mean look at Iran, they have absolutely no gay people in their country/ (Sarcasm)

I think it is genetic, i've known people who seemed to be gay only really to get attention, I mean just cause your gay doesn't mean you need to walk around with victoria secret wings on (for guys) when you go to a restaurant.

But there are those who go there whole lives hating themselves for it, it may just be as simple as a personality disorder.

You would think back in the day with all the gay haters, there wouldn't be anymore.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwupy
 


I'm all for they should get rights, I don't even think that should be a topic if they should or shouldn't!
How ridiculous to think they shouldn't be considered real people!

I like I think many others wonder why this anomalie takes place. What causes someone to is it genetic, or a personality disorder.


I need an answer for everything.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 




Shouldn't this mean that according to natural selection and the homosexuals inability to create new members of the speciespretty much guarentee that the "gay" jean would have been bred out long before the present?


Darrwww, but oppression against homosexuals by certain political/religious/or ideological have forced gay men to marry women and reproduce to hide their orientation - thus passing it on! :p

NO, it wouldn't. There is no "Gay Gene" in the same fashion there is no "God Spot" in the brain. The factors which determine sexuality (and to an extent, sexual fetishes) are extremely varied and include both genetic, developmental, and environmental.

Please do NOT take this out of context, or erroneous interpretation. Homosexuality is not something that selection could remove, in the same way that Down Syndrome or Cancer would be removed. This means that the genes which contribute to sexuality also code for other environmentally beneficial traits which everyone shares and would be selected for. However, when activated or deactivated in certain configurations can cause the organism to develop with certain predispositions. This itself doesn't necessarily mean that a baby born with a homosexual tendency will grow up to be gay, but may lean towards bisexuality - or may only find women sexually attractive, yet highly appreciate the male form.

That is my best understanding of the matter, and the issue of causes a person to attracted to a member of the same sex as well as to (or to the exclusion of) the opposite is still under investigation.

And to clear up some confusion some people may have, a gene is not like a light switch that you can turn on and off. DonExodus2 on YouTube had an excellent video and source links which mentioned the subject of genes which are linked or multi-coding. I'll post it here if anyone is interested, but I cannot remember the title now so I'll have dig.



Acording to evolution and survival of the fittest


Survival of the Fittest is not an Evolutionary term. "Fittest" may be interrupted as how well an organism is adapted to it's environment, but it's far too easily misconstrued as heightened strength, size, agility, speed, etc. It's like saying "Humans evolved from monkeys". While that is true, there is a much, much, more to it than that, which if you happen to miss the context or don't know much about the subject will only lead to confusion.



According to this principle shouldnt a genetic homosexuality be comletely ruled out?


No, as mentioned above. Keep in mind also that homosexual behavior would only be a detriment to the replication of an organism if it causes the organism to mate with males exclusively. It is often manifest in social animals as a behavior trait with social impact such as bonding between members and dominance. Even within us, many cultures (especially warrior cultures) promoted and practiced homosexuality within their units to strengthen the bond between each other. The Spartans of Greece and Samurai of Japan being prime examples.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Well another factor to include; some people who are homosexual actually have children. Some people don't realize or accept the fact that their gay untill that late in their lives. Indeed being gay may be genetic, but that doesn't mean that a gay person can't have sex with the oposite sex.

As far as being gay or not, my long lasting personal opinion is that some people are just gayer than others, and the actual charactertic of being gay is derived from your dominant thoughts about yourself and your relation to your world. This is more related to the idea of ying and yang, and how the left mind is penetrative and the right mind is passive.

just my opinion...



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alesanjin
reply to post by HulaAnglers
 


lol are you serious?? If that isn't a really terrible joke, then, you definetely have something not fully screwed in properly in that head of yours.


I don't think it is funny, I'm pretty angry at always being the one they unload their secrets to, too much information. I don't judge people for what they become and I don't joke about life.

Last week, my best gay girlfriend admitted to me her own mother was gay and she made her daughter sleep in the same bed(and started calling her a whore when she was nine), from the age of 11(when her dad died) on to late teens. Without her testimony I could not have posted the previous statement. Now all of my gay friends have an adult link to their sexual orientation.

Edit to ad that you are quite disrespectful and seem chaotic to me.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by HulaAnglers]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by constantwonder
 



Darrwww, but oppression against homosexuals by certain political/religious/or ideological have forced gay men to marry women and reproduce to hide their orientation - thus passing it on! :p

NO, it wouldn't. There is no "Gay Gene" in the same fashion there is no "God Spot" in the brain. The factors which determine sexuality (and to an extent, sexual fetishes) are extremely varied and include both genetic, developmental, and environmental.

Please do NOT take this out of context, or erroneous interpretation. Homosexuality is not something that selection could remove, in the same way that Down Syndrome or Cancer would be removed. This means that the genes which contribute to sexuality also code for other environmentally beneficial traits which everyone shares and would be selected for. However, when activated or deactivated in certain configurations can cause the organism to develop with certain predispositions. This itself doesn't necessarily mean that a baby born with a homosexual tendency will grow up to be gay, but may lean towards bisexuality - or may only find women sexually attractive, yet highly appreciate the male form.

That is my best understanding of the matter, and the issue of causes a person to attracted to a member of the same sex as well as to (or to the exclusion of) the opposite is still under investigation.

And to clear up some confusion some people may have, a gene is not like a light switch that you can turn on and off. DonExodus2 on YouTube had an excellent video and source links which mentioned the subject of genes which are linked or multi-coding. I'll post it here if anyone is interested, but I cannot remember the title now so I'll have dig.




Survival of the Fittest is not an Evolutionary term. "Fittest" may be interrupted as how well an organism is adapted to it's environment, but it's far too easily misconstrued as heightened strength, size, agility, speed, etc. It's like saying "Humans evolved from monkeys". While that is true, there is a much, much, more to it than that, which if you happen to miss the context or don't know much about the subject will only lead to confusion.


of course survival of the fittest is an evolutionary term. . . . i white moth in a green tree stands out a green moth doesnt. The genes of the less suited to the enviroment will die off. . . . the best abd fittest of the species haveing the best dna will be the one procreating

which is exactly what servival of the fittest means and its most definately an evolutionary perameter



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
*sigh* when will people figure this out.

If you have an identical twin, separated at birth, and one is gay, the other is gay 30% of the time. That is only one scientific fact, but I'll leave it at that and save my time. How is that not genetic?

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or if its genetic doesn't matter in the slightest, only to stupid people.

Is liking pizza a choice? Is liking your favorite color a choice? Are the hobbies you have a choice? but honestly, who cares, you don't care where those things you like come from. Yet some want gay people to prove that it isn't a choice that they like guys who cares!



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
You make a good point. I always wondered that myself.. If it were caused by genetics, the genetics would be gone pretty quick.


Does not cancer have a genetic component for some poeple? Of course it does. Does that help a person pass on their genes? Of course not. Has cancer died out? Nope. Same with many other genetic diseases.

www.youtube.com... learn

[edit on 5-5-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 




I'm all for they should get rights, I don't even think that should be a topic if they should or shouldn't!


You're absolutely right about that point. The very term "Human" Rights speaks to the very core of what we all are - regardless of comes in addition to that. Sex, Age, Religion, Race, Political Affiliation, whatever. We're all human, and the same basic human rights apply to all of us.

Also... on a side note to the OP, it is actually possible for exclusively homosexual couples to produce offspring. The maturation of the technology is only a few years off thanks to our great conservative president George W. Bush Jr. His moratorium on embryonic stem cell research put the pressure on researchers to look for other sources - which lead to the ability to turn skin cells into stem cells. Stem Cells then, into Gamete Cells.

If it hadn't have been coming anyhow, I would almost say his actions did the most for gay rights than anyone in history. As his actions, though indirect, have given them the ability to have biological children of their own.

God made Bush hate embryonic stem cells. He truly works in mysterious ways doesn't he. Perhaps this is his apology for Sodom and Gomorrah.


Now, of course - there are some issues. Males have XY chromosome set, while females have XX. Meaning that until we can modify an X chromosome into a Y - Lesbians won't be able to have male children. And of course, Male couples wouldn't have a womb between them for the fetus to gestate. They'd have to rely on other means such as Rent-A-Womb moms or some such.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join