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.

 

Differences Between The Brains of Homosexuals and Heterosexuals

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


that was awesome, lee. lol.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Here is what it boils down to.

If it is a natural predisposition to be gay, than it is a biological disorder and should be treated medically as a disorder.

If being gay is a CHOICE, than it should be considered a Freedom issue, and they should be left alone because they are simply choosing the life they want to live.

That is why it is hilarious that people want to deny it's a choice, and protect the illusion that it is a genetic disorder. Essentially you are giving the majority population a subtle reason to start labeling it a mental disorder.

If you are prudent and intelligent, it would clearly be wise to treat it as a choice, this way you can always claim you are fully in your senses and not being misled by your predisposition.

I am just saying it is in your favor to take it as a Choice, rather than a genetic disorder. Not only is the science in favor of the fact it's a choice, but so is strategic intelligence.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott

something likely to have been "forged" in the womb and not the result of later learning processes.


The key word here is likely, so we have more scientific guessing as a foundation for more assumptions, which develop into a very solid theory that everyone will assume is a fact.

Welcome to the evolution of false logic and false science.

Is it possible that his scientific study is funded by some pro-gay agenda?

[edit on 4/14/2010 by Jim Scott]


Yeah this is obviously bad science. What makes a nuerologist know anything about the brain? They just studied it for years. This entire thing is non sense because not only does it provide concrete evidence for the argument, but it also takes the other side into consideration.

What horrible science this crap is. I would much rather hear someone boast his opinions like it's the all mighty truth.

Why don't you provide evidence for your claim? Wait, cause it's just a conspiracy grounded on absolutely none.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Hullabaloo]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by crmanager
 


Some findings suggest that homosexuality is more common in males belonging to the maternal line of male homosexuals .
While females in the maternal line of male homosexuals were more fertile than average.

So you have a reproductive advantage being given to one sex over the other . The process is called `sexually antagonistic selection `

So yes there is an obvious disadvantage to homosexual males in the dissemination of their genes but within a broader evolutionary perspective the increased fecundity of females within the family (who share genes ) & within the population at large provides for a greater opportunity to spread genetic material overall.

So the amount of homosexual males within a population may correspond to the proportion of females with higher fertility rates and subsequently more offspring .

Its an interesting theory .
Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


It would not be considered a disorder as it does not impede normal functioning. A person who is gay is still able go to school, go to work, have healthy relationships, etc. People make claims like yours, but they fail to take into account the fact that every psychological disorder has this caveat attached. Furthermore, even if it were incorporated into the DSM again, it would still be up to the person whether or not they wish to receive treatment If a person is happy with their life being gay then they do not need any treatment.

Also, this would be a genetic mutation. You are making the assumption that because it is a mutation that it is also a disorder. However, many mutations are not harmful and some can even be beneficial. So, you make a large leap in judgment to go from something being a mutation to saying it is a disorder.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


It is more than likely. After birth the gross anatomy of the brain is set, the only thing that can change are the connections between neurons. You are not going to see a radical change in the structure of the amygdala based on environmental stimuli. The brain just doesn't function like that.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hullabaloo
reply to post by crmanager
 


First of all homosexuals are not another species. Secondly, just because someone can't reproduce doesn't mean they are worthless.


FIRST - - lets get this straight.

Homosexuals have nothing wrong with their reproductive organs and absolutely can reproduce.

The fact they are attracted to same sex - has nothing to do with their reproductive capabilities.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It's just your brain shooting chemicals around...

Ohh well, some will argue this isn't proof of anything without peer review and further study. I somewhat agree.

Let's not discredit sound science and replace it with moral objection or personal belief.


I would disagree that it stops at a physical brain. Even science can't even prove that the brain is the end-all to causes of thought, action, and reaction.

I do agree that the body has it's own set of attraction genetics that is separate from the thought, action, and reaction beyond the brain.

Simply, the nature of gender could end physically at the brain in all functions, yet sexual nature of the life force remains unresolved for physical sciences. It wouldn't be wise to expect that a individual life's natural sexual orientation always perfectly matches the gender grown on the body to as a vehicle for such life force. Yes, further study is undoubtedly needed.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Homosexuality is not natural. Animals that engage in homosexual behaviour are doing so out of instinct and lack of adequate numbers of the opposite sex. I still believe homosexuals should be treated with respect and not be discriminated against. But to say that homosexuality is natural is silly. It isn't natural. If a couple are deserted on desert island, which one (heterosexual or homosexual) do you think has a better chance of survival and starting their own civilisation?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


If homosexuality isn't "natural", then you've got quite a lot of work ahead of you informing all the thousands of other species out there that what some of them are doing is beyond the confines of nature.

Damn you, Gay Agenda! Can't you see that your sexual perversion is seeping into the mainstream culture of wildlife?! When will you learn that your crazy liberal ideals of "self governance" only end up hurting everyone and everything within your natural environment? Clearly, we need to start up some sort of natural tea party to reign in all of those gay sheep out there:

www.time.com...

It's time we sent a clear message to nature! You either clean up your act, or we're going after the "unnatural" one's first!



You all saw that! That male lion clearly tried to come onto that man! It's time we nip this problem in the bud!



Noooooooooooooooooooo!

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Torgo]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Torgo
 


If homosexuality isn't "natural", then you've got quite a lot of work ahead of you informing all the thousands of other species out there that what some of them are doing is beyond the confines of nature.

Damn you, Gay Agenda! Can't you see that your sexual perversion is seeping into the mainstream culture of wildlife?! When will you learn that your crazy liberal ideals of "self governance" only end up hurting everyone and everything within your natural environment? Clearly, we need to start up some sort of natural tea party to reign in all of those gay sheep out there:

www.time.com...

It's time we sent a clear message to nature! You either clean up your act, or we're going after the "unnatural" one's first!


All I stated is that it is not natural.

Look at the assumptions you are making about those who simply state homosexuality is not natural. Sometimes common sense is needed when dealing with emotive topics. Homosexuality is not natural. This doesn't mean that it is wrong or worthy of discrimination, just that it is not natural and should NOT be glamorised the way it is in the Western media.

[edit on 15/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


So I take it "natural" to you does not mean "occurs in nature."

Right?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
If a couple are deserted on desert island, which one (heterosexual or homosexual) do you think has a better chance of survival...


I highly doubt a heterosexual has any more of an advantage at survival on a desert island than a homosexual does. Further study might be required to test this hypothesis, but if we were to subject the majority of gay men I've come across in my lifetime against the majority of straight Joe Schmoes out there to a test of strength and endurance, something tells me that the homosexuals just might have the advantage.


and starting their own civilisation


Homosexuality != infertility. Granted that just two individuals of any species wouldn't be able to successfully restart a steady population of their own kind alone because of the eventual genetic mutations, I'm still positive that, in an existence where such a thing were feasible, someone who is homosexual would be able to set their natural feelings aside and do what's best for the continued existence of mankind. Besides, how else would they be able to continue their gay agenda?


[edit on 15-4-2010 by Torgo]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I know they can reproduce, I was just saying that even if someone was steril, that wouldn't make them worthless.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So I take it "natural" to you does not mean "occurs in nature."

Right?


There are many definitions of nature/natural. When I use the word "natural" in the context of sexual orientation, I am referring to the biological, physiological and chemical constructs of humans and the evolutionary process.

Two humans of the same sex cannot procreate life without the assistance of a third party (in some form). That is fact. So in terms of nature and rules of nature, homosexuality is not natural, whereas heterosexuality is natural.

It is "natural" for baboons to run around naked and masturbate out in the open. Would you call this behaviour natural for humans? No. There are characteristics that separate us from animals.

[edit on 15/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by bsbray11
So I take it "natural" to you does not mean "occurs in nature."

Right?


There are many definitions of nature/natural.


Right, of course there are.

So for you it does not mean "occurs in nature." Got it.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Right, of course there are.


Glad you agree. Don't you hate it when somebody reads the first line of your post and replies without reading the rest?


[edit on 15/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Glad you agree. Don't you hate it when somebody reads the first line of your post and replies without reading the rest?


The word "natural" to me, means "occurs in nature." If someone says something is "natural," I naturally think, "nature," because "nature" is what the word "natural" is based on.

What you just reeled off to me was perfectly equivalent to a politician double-talking his way into a bunch of total nonsense right in line with some perverse agenda or sentiment. I wish I only read the first line of it.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


So what you're saying is that it is quite natural for animals in the wild to exhibit homosexual behavior, but it is unnatural for homo sapiens to do so because we exist outside of the confines of nature?




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   

This doesn't mean that it is wrong or worthy of discrimination, just that it is not natural and should NOT be glamorised the way it is in the Western media.


How exactly is homosexuality glamorized in the western media? I don't know about you, but the last time I turned on my TV the only representation I saw of homosexuality was that of the stereotypical effeminate variety. The day I wake up and see a gay man without a lisp smoking Marlboros and gunning down terrorists all the while spouting witty non innuendo one liners, is the day I concede that homosexuality is being romanticized.

When the words "gay" and "fag" are no longer used as slurs against people and things that people deem as weak or "lame", is the day when we can all agree that homosexuals are trying to take over.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Torgo]



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join