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: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HulaAnglers
 


Like I said good parenting is a fairly new thing


Nooo it's not. Good parents are becoming rarer and rarer as time goes by, as a result the typical family unit falls apart and this is not seen as unusual any more.


But anyway, are you saying that they [my mates] are not gay because of abuse like the gays you know?

And what about me? I'm bisexual. Was I abused?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Welfhard]




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I truly believe we are all "gay" when young, our first explorations...ourselves and others like ourselves...when this exploration is raped(many ways and tools to do this) by someone who should not go there, the sexual development is interrupted and corrupted and the base nature does not evolve it just becomes a bigger and hungrier beast or becomes a victim of that beast.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


I guess you are just not reading my posts don't you know what androgyny is? - and you are looking to find fault in me when it is the rotten deal you were dealt that we should look at - my heart goes out to you this is a twisted world for such a young lad, but you should have some hidden guidance for the lack of good parenting you had, some special gifts and talents.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HulaAnglers
I guess you are just not reading my posts don't you know what androgyny is?

Of course, but it's irrelevant.


- and you are looking to find fault in me when it is the rotten deal you were dealt that we should look at

1st, there is a reason people get pissed off when other people prematurely assert that homosexuality is caused by abuse or molestation. After all you get straits who were abused and gays who weren't - 0% correlation.

2nd, I didn't cop a rotten deal.


- my heart goes out to you this is a twisted world for such a young lad, but you should have some hidden guidance for the lack of good parenting you had, some special gifts and talents.

What could possibly make you think I had bad parenting? - Or is that another one of those baseless assumptions?



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Everything you say is contradictory to everything you say so good luck to you and your good parents and make sure to use some contraceptives!!!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HulaAnglers
Everything you say is contradictory to everything you say


Illustrate.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cauch1
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



Don't worry, you have not said anything in the least bit prejudiced and if anyone thinks you have then that says more about how their mind-set works, not yours.


There is one thing out of all of this that I never have and never will accept, and that is that people can 'choose' their true sexuality. I believe the gay 'instruction' is in the gene, and that gayness is not a gene error, it's simply just nature being diverse.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:00 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.


I'm afraid this is not backed by science for this reason.

Imagine for a second it requires two parents with the same copy of the gene to produce gay children. Many diseases have this requirment (note i'm not calling homosexuality a disease). If the other parent didn't have the gene then the kids wouldn't be gay and would pass that gene on until their family met someone with the gene. So lets skip forward several generations

The original parents, of whom only one has the gene produce 2 heterosexual children. These two children also produce 2 kids each, their children also produce two kids each. One of the last set meets a partner with the gene and their kids are gay the other meets someone without the gene. Now firstly it could be that the parents who both have the gene have one straight kid and one homosexual kid but lets say both are gay.

So the gay ones don't have kids but the kids of the other couple do, again passing on the gene, silently until they themselves meet gay partners. Basically it could conceivably go on forever. The other argument however could be that it isn't genetic, that it is caused by an increase or lack of a hormone during pregnancy. This could be a completely random thing, not controlled by genes.

This of course is all speculation but it's a possibility and would allow a gay gene to not only exist but thrive. In fact maybe it is a built in population control mechanism, placed there by nature.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


This of course is all speculation but it's a possibility and would allow a gay gene to not only exist but thrive. In fact maybe it is a built in population control mechanism, placed there by nature.


It's not doing a very good job then, it it? Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
It's not doing a very good job then, it it? Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you.


Erm sorry not sure what you mean.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
There are a number of factors which can make someone gay, but not genetics. One of those factors is some unresolved issue with same-sex role models and authorities. It could be animosity, disillusionment or something else.

Another factor is the relative open-mindedness of most homosexuals. It can be to the point that they have a strong aversion to other people "judging" them or telling them what to do.

The gays use the "gay gene" argument to explain that they feel out of control of their visceral responses. I see it as little more than allegory that should not be considered a scientifically-sound hypothesis.

To be honest, I don't think that I was "born straight." I can remember being accultured to liking females as a kid.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

To be honest, I don't think that I was "born straight." I can remember being accultured to liking females as a kid.


Firstly anonymous polls tend to show women are more open to homosexual experiences than men, however straight women don't have long term relationships with women. If they did they are either gay or bisexual. However confusion about your orientation as a kid is extremely common and is very likely down to hormonal change.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Welfhard
It's not doing a very good job then, it it? Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you.


Erm sorry not sure what you mean.


If you consider human population curves over the last 100 years, I say that nature needs to kick it's population control up a notch.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
If you consider human population curves over the last 100 years, I say that nature needs to kick it's population control up a notch.


Nature always balances itself out and it usually does it with a multi pronged attack. This may be one way, the other may be a virus or even ecological collapse. In the end though i think homosexuality is perfectly natural and that seems to be backed up by science.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Welfhard
If you consider human population curves over the last 100 years, I say that nature needs to kick it's population control up a notch.


Nature always balances itself out and it usually does it with a multi pronged attack. This may be one way, the other may be a virus or even ecological collapse.


I think you give it too much credit or are over anthropomorphising it. Nature is inanimate and so can't strategise. Although, with 6 and a half billion people here, nature had 6.5 billion petre dishes to come up with something dangerous.


In the end though i think homosexuality is perfectly natural and that seems to be backed up by science.


Well it is. It's produced by nature, in nature. You don't get much more natural.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Welfhard]

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
interesting idea there

however i believe that all of the data regarding personal habits traits and develeopmental mind are encoded in the regions of DNA known in genetics as Junk DNA.

We only call it that since we dont know to do with it yet.

given time all behavioral patterns such as addiction, depression, or compassion can be found targeted and chosen for elimination hopefully.

People may scoff at the idea but all the good and bad is there its simply a matter of removiing the bad to leave the good.

but overall yes I am sure 100% that the trait of being attracted to a member of the same sex is encoded in the DNA. All behavior is encoded in the DNA we just havent unlocked the language to understand how to read it and or eliminate it once we do!



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by tigpoppa
 


but overall yes I am sure 100% that the trait of being attracted to a member of the same sex is encoded in the DNA. All behavior is encoded in the DNA we just havent unlocked the language to understand how to read it and or eliminate it once we do!


Actually most behavioural traits are conditioned into organisms as a purely psychological thing, not DNA. Sure some instincts that are present at birth are likely to be present at birth, but things like addictions and habits are not.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   


Drug addiction is a common brain disorder that is extremely costly to the individual and to society. Genetics contributes significantly to vulnerability to this disorder,


Title New insights into the genetics of addiction

Author Li, Ming D; Burmeister, Margit

Affiliation Ming D. Li is at the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioural Sciences, University of Virginia, 1670 Discovery Drive, Suite 110, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911, USA., Ming_Li@virginia.edu

Source Nature Reviews: Genetics [Nat. Rev. Genet.]. Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 225-231. Apr 2009.

ISSN 1471-0056

Electronic ISSN 1471-0064



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by tamusan
 


Well that shut me up!

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Personally, I think it is dangerous if we do isolate a "homosexual" gene or series of contributing genes. There are going to be people who then take it upon themselves to cull that trait from the population.
I am not gay, but I respect the rights of those who are. And it looks more and more likely that SOME people cannot choose their sexual orientation.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join