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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I have used this point many times. Homosexuality cannot be a gene otherwise it would have just simply died out. The argument that homosexuality is a gene basically suggests that the gene keeps spawning itself randomly in order for there to be more people with the gene. If it really was a gene then it would have died out centuries ago. Man with man does not produce children so gene is not passed on it is as simple as that.

This is my view. I do not want people to call me prejudiced and a homophobe because I am using a scientifically correct argument. I get enough of that from the ignorants in the real world.
-Cauch1




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by happyc

But seriosly, if homosexuality is a choice in some way, how to explain homosexual behaviour in animals, or countries such as Iran, that are so fundementally religious and againt homosexuality (ie. why would anyone in Iran choose to be gay?)


Come on dude, I would turn gay for this gay.
You know you would too.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Blah, Blah, Blah......one more sad effort to belittle a segment of our population.

If you look at nature you see homosexual behavior in animals, it is normal for crying out loud, it is part of nature.

When will we as a people ever just accept the differences in us? When???



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder
According to this principle shouldnt a genetic homosexuality be comletely ruled out?


No, it shouldn't. There is a theory that in the distant past, homosexual/effeminate men would remain back at camp to help and protect the women while the other men went out hunting.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


But that wouldn't help the gene to be passed on.


Really there is a simple way to tell when you study the phenomenon. There are two main possibilities, genetic or environmental.

If it was just partly genetic, you would expect to see the number of homosexuals fluctuate greatly over time, likely in a negative way.

If it was exclusively environmental you would expect to see a constant rate of homosexuality in the populace.


The proportion of homosexuality in people has remained fairly constant if you ignore instances where homosexuality was severely prosecuted (making harder to detect accurately). This also holds true elsewhere in the animal kingdom.

One thing that doesn't make sense to me is if it were genetic, what's the deal with us bisexuals?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Personally I think people are just born this way.
Be it genetic or not, preference or not.
They just are the way they are.

I hate seafood. Both my parents love seafood.
I was just born that way.

Some people like to fly. Others are scared of heights.
Some people love peanuts. Others die if they eat them.

Don't try to analyze it. Just accept it and move along.
Talking about it isn't going to change anything. And you don't really need to understand it.
Move along.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
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.

wupy


Yeah I agree mrwupy!

Whatever floats someones boat is fine by me. Choice should be the only qualifier IMHO... genetics... meh... who cares... so long as people are happy!

I'm not sure why some people are so hung up on the whole sexuality thing. It's just one aspect from 1000's of things that makes us all human. Some people like Ford, others GM... some like blue, others green... some people like their pizza with extra topping.

Why get hung up on one thing?

IRM



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Don't try to analyze it. Just accept it and move along.


Can't we do both? The inquisitive nature of science is something to pursue and when it comes to human sexuality, we are at the beginning of our understanding. Why give up now?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by grey580
 


Don't try to analyze it. Just accept it and move along.


Can't we do both? The inquisitive nature of science is something to pursue and when it comes to human sexuality, we are at the beginning of our understanding. Why give up now?


I'll leave to the scientists to figure out.
As far as I'm concerned gay people are people too and deserve our respect just like anyone else.
Trying to figure this issue out on a website isn't going to solve anything.
I guess that's what I'm trying to say.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
While I understand your premise, you have to take into account that "homosexuality" has been prevelent throughout human history, and also shows up in in the animal kingdom, which kind of throws this out the window.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


I'll leave to the scientists to figure out.
As far as I'm concerned gay people are people too and deserve our respect just like anyone else.


Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand them. Trying to understand someone doesn't make them any less of a person. The question "Whence commest homosexuality?" is a good one, and should only lead to an intellectual discussion of biology.


Trying to figure this issue out on a website isn't going to solve anything.


Just because we may not reach an answer now doesn't mean we are wasting time and this discussion isn't useful to someone. There are a lot of questions that have no answers, but it's still good to ponder.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
check out my jesus quote! I think it's pretty straightforward what he thinks of all this.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
check out my jesus quote! I think it's pretty straightforward what he thinks of all this.


"How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a planck in your own eye? You hypocite, first take the planck out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly.." -Jesus


--- How does that pertain to this? You misspelt 'plank' btw. And 'hypocrite'.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


That's how planck was spelled in my bible, and spelling is irrelevent in this situation...man i'm glad i don't care for semantics.

The verse states that we should all just worry about our own problems and worrying about others' problems when you yourself have your own is hypocritical. I'm basically echoing previous starred responses that i agree with.
.....the verse is actuallyone i like because it's so straightforward...or wwere expectinga crazed religious nut proving his bible with a one-liner?
lol. I guess it doesn't really matter.

edit: And i just double checked the planck thing WAS a mistake on my part!


[edit on 6-5-2009 by heyo]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Def not genetic. I think sexuality is fluid as our bodies are just vessels in a way



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cauch1
I have used this point many times. Homosexuality cannot be a gene otherwise it would have just simply died out. The argument that homosexuality is a gene basically suggests that the gene keeps spawning itself randomly in order for there to be more people with the gene. If it really was a gene then it would have died out centuries ago. Man with man does not produce children so gene is not passed on it is as simple as that.

This is my view. I do not want people to call me prejudiced and a homophobe because I am using a scientifically correct argument. I get enough of that from the ignorants in the real world.
-Cauch1


It also see ms to me that if it is genetic then in history the further back you go, homosexuality would be more and more popular. I'm no scientist but it makes sense.

OR

Is it possible that homosexuality is the result of the gene that expresses need of reassurance? this might explain why men go for men, but not really for women looking for women...unless you've seen the generic "butch" lesbian stereotype in a high percentage of your travels.

My ex used to rent from these gay guys, and upstairs moved these prostitutes. They were all transexual. Drank with'em many times. They seemed like proper women, except they'd fight all the time, which is an expression of their buried masculinity???....maybe, maybe not. I wish i could've known them before they were taking estrogen.

:I guess my question is could homosexuality be an INEVITABLE product when varying genetic factors in the right combination are combined?

[edit on 6-5-2009 by heyo]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted 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?

just a thought

wahts your opinion

CW


Well maybe if there was a "gay gene", but what if it is more along the lines of a genetic abnormality? So instead of being something that is passed down through the genes it is just something that didn’t go 100% correct in the initial growth process in the womb. I also feel it can be psychological too, so you have a mix of both, but for the homosexuals that at an early age found that they were homosexual without even understanding what it is I would say it could easily be caused by a biological event.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Here is the going hypothesis over at live science. They are saying that the female relatives of gay men have more children. If gay is a gene, then I would imagine it can be passed on and either repressed or active. I didn't post the answer below. I posted the OP question as it is worded in the article.

If this scenario turns out to be true, it could help explain the seeming paradox of hereditary homosexuality. Since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, many experts have wondered why, if homosexuality is caused by genetic factors, it wouldn't have been eliminated from the gene pool already.

I have a related question. If homosexuality is genetic, couldn't homophobia also be genetic?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tamusan
 



Do you think it could also be true that the gene that is responsible for sexual appetite could explain it?
It's kind of related, but i've often wondered how if horny people are doing it all the time we could help but be a more horny populace because of the sexual appetite gene that was passed down.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 


That's cool. Planck is the physicist who came up with Planck's constant.

O and don't for get about hypocrite.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join