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.

 

Study concludes no gay gene

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
www.onenewsnow.com...

Above is one of many links which indicate that the gay gene is a myth. The study is from 2009 and involves the APA (american psychological association). Great news for homosexuals and those who cannot decide which sex they want to be.

What's there to say?

Discuss.


edit on 6-2-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by starless and bible black
 


The APA doesn't dismiss the possibility of genetic factors, it seems they've just changed their stance from:



"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."


to:



"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."


That just means that they scientifically haven't definitively proved the causal factors behind sexual orientation, which is where we've been all along. I wouldn't say this was a 180 degree on their behalf, simply an acknowledgement of where the scientific community is with their research at this point in time.

I would say the rather hopeful interpretation of the APA change (to mean no gay gene) reflects more about the source than its intended meaning. OneNewsNow is a religious site that appears to have its own agenda. The article goes on to quote various people and organisations who wave the "homosexuals can choose/change" banner. In my own opinion they're just using a rather innocuous change in their own way, for their own ends. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Also, I don't see why the gay gene being a myth would be:



Great news for homosexuals and those who cannot decide which sex they want to be.


Unless you're being ironic

edit on 6/2/11 by lizziejayne because: typo



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by starless and bible black
 


I have always believed this to be true! Like I also believe despite what many here believe "being gay is a choice". Having said that it is a choice that someone should be legally able to do if they want as we live in democracy. To be gay is a choice & it is nobody's business but theirs!

I know the gay supporters here will yell & scream about the validity of the study but I have believed this for a long time ..... No gay gene!



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
There has to be a gay gene. They can't all be named Biff, or Brad, somewhere there must be a Gene. O.k. sarcasm off, this will be of no consequence to those that complain the most, they'll say it's flawed, biased, you pick the adjective and only respond with their own biased evidence............never ending debate on here and always will be.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Also, this extract isn't from a scientific/psychological study.

Your source states that it:



...appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,"



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Well,
I doubt that there is a "Crazy about smart redhead women with a sarcastic sense of humor" gene but that doesn't make me any less attracted to them.

Remember that whole "bumblebees can't fly" study.
edit on 6-2-2011 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I have been saying this same thing for years. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic, behavioral, social or hormonal it still begs the obvious question: is homosexuality abnormal?

If it is a hormonal imbalance, then obviously any "imbalance" biologically is a physical abnormality.

Any genetic flaw that affects the primary characteristics of the creature is an inhibitory trait that most likely leads to biological dysfunction. Thus if the primary attribute, say the ability to propagate, is affected detrimentally; the subsequent affect is in fact considered a biological malfunction.

Some argue "Animals do it, aren't we animals?" some argue "What about infertile people?"

We may be animals, yet radical animalistic characteristics cannot be applied to societal standards. Animals rape, murder, and kill their young. All things looked down upon by Universal laws that make us sophisticated in the first place.

Besides, even if the animals did practice homosexuality, it does not exclude them from having a biological dysfunction and thus the logic loops.

Infertile individuals may be undergoing a biological malfunction, however there are many different treatments to reverse infertility. Would the same logic be applied to those who have hormonal imbalances causing feelings of homosexuality? I propose so.

Now although my final point is nothing more than: "homosexuality is abnormal" The absolute ridiculous nature of governments altering laws, and effecting my life and my beliefs to suit a small minority of malfunctioning individuals, is an atrocity to human kind.

What the government should be doing, is furthering research like this bit of info, and providing those affected with resources to change the status of their homosexuality, and help those individual be normalized.

Unfortunately, it seems to be an agenda. Out to taboo the subject so no person should argue it, and create methods to inhibit the populous from propagating. Shame on the US government.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by starless and bible blackWhat's there to say?


It's hard to say based on one study. There should be more studies to replicate the findings. If there is no gay gene, then there are other theories such as demonic possession and lack a soul matrix and even spiritual reincarnation into a different gender.

Seriously, I find this study rather lacking. Because any "mutations" could occur on this bio-diverse planet.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Just in case anybody wants to read what the American Psychological Association actually has to say:

www.apa.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I keep on saying your sexuality is spiritual thing, and i do not think its genes or social conditions.

I do not think it can be cured, like some religions think.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by lizziejayne
 

I guess I'd rather have the choice rather than 'blame biology' like some zit cream/healtcare subsidy pitch. You may recall the subtle advertising trend that tells kids that you have zits not because of your diet, but because of 'biology'. As such, the medication for pimples falls under healthcare funding. The ad clearly has kids using the mantra 'blame biology'. So this news would indicate that people have free will, why wouldn't this be good news?

Now, someone else first threaded this topic, but before I could reply, the administrators pulled the plug on it. I didn't catch the poster's name, but his faux pas was fairly obvious. Very un pc. Freedom of speech, unless it's gays, or the holocaust™.

I had stated that those who emphasize their sexual make up are essentially welcoming a roadblock to their own growth. To list oneself by this dichotomy is to limit one's potential. We must avoid many words here, or the mods will be on us like toilet paper at cheryl crowe's mansion. Personally, I don't care about one's orientation, unless I wish to know something about someone. It's too much information.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Cheers for this


It seems that the APA have maintained the "original" stance on their site and not done the 180 degrees so wished for by the OneNewsNow and supporters:



There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
So are you suggesting that being gay or straight is a choice?

Well, to anyone who is. Answer me this. Please go into detail of the time in your life where you sat yourself down and realized that you were ready to become a sexual being... Please explain the decision process you went through in order to decide whether you would be gay or straight.

What? You never did that? It just kind of happened? Hmm, same here... My sexual orientation ( Straight) wasn't a choice either...

Well, so much for the idea of it being a choice...

And for the record, that article does not rule out the possibility of it being a gene... I hold fast that your sexual orientation is something you are born with... Something only to be fully realized after you have reached puberty.

Either way, gay or straight. I love you all.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


I think if you really are gay, the only physical relationship you could have with the opposite sex, would be if you felt a connection with them maybe. Thats why i think its spiritual.

Pretending for males is obviously different than females, as i am sure females can pretend with any man really.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by starless and bible black
 


Thanks for your reply.



So this news would indicate that people have free will, why wouldn't this be good news?


So, am I correct in understanding that you believe that individuals are free to choose their sexuality? If so, you would believe that everyone has chosen their sexuality at some point in their lives - yourself included?



I had stated that those who emphasize their sexual make up are essentially welcoming a roadblock to their own growth. To list oneself by this dichotomy is to limit one's potential.


Am I correct in my understanding that you believe that anyone who identifies their sexuality is unable their growth and potential? And this applies to all sexual orientations?

Not being contrary with my questions, just wanting to find out more about what you believe


For the record - and I know you mentioned you are non plussed by sexuality - I am gay. I have no idea why I am, nor am I particularly bothered. It could be genetics, the local drinking water or the fact that my great-grandmother was a hippo, I'm not particularly concerned. What I do know though is that it was there for as long as I remember and was never a choice. I battled it for most of my life, but am now content and secure with who and what I am


Edited to add: What's your opinion on your source and how they've interpreted this apparent change of stance by APA?
edit on 6/2/11 by lizziejayne because: to add



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by lizziejayne
Also, this extract isn't from a scientific/psychological study.

Your source states that it:



...appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,"

Well show me a study that certifies that there IS a gay gene. I mean, how does one even set about performing the testing? In my mind the premise that there was a gay gene is nuts. All those switch hitters out there demanding to have their own gene, left out in the genetic cold. Therefore, what sort of testing can disprove a negative, and be considered valid?



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by starless and bible black
 




Well show me a study that certifies that there IS a gay gene.


I never said there was a study about a gay gene - I was just pointing out that all this referring to what a "study" has found is incorrect. It's not a study. That is all.



In my mind the premise that there was a gay gene is nuts.


That's your prerogative. Like I said in my earlier post, I'm not particularly even bothered about causality, so if there wasn't a gay gene it wouldn't be a problem for me.



All those switch hitters out there demanding to have their own gene, left out in the genetic cold.


This is obviously something you feel passionate about. However, in my opinion you've missed the true reason *why* some people are adamant that there IS a gay gene.
edit on 6/2/11 by lizziejayne because: add quote



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
So are you suggesting that being gay or straight is a choice?

It's a simple thing...anyone who professes homosexuality to be a choice must themselves be bisexual...because to gays and straights, choice is certainly something they could not envisage.
edit on 6-2-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: of context



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
there has been alot of animal research in this area. and most of those studies led to hormanal factors. at certain points of pregnancy, rodents were slammed with hormones. fetuses that were to be female kept the physical traits of females to a point, but the testosterone was still strong enough to make some think/behave like males. they showed a video of a females mouse trying to backdoor the males in the cage. thier was actual part of the brain that changed size and shape in them.

so it ain't a matter of genes but hormones. and considering the days we live in with massive amounts of estrogen and estrogen like products (soy) flooding everything, it's no surprise. our water supply is full of birth control residues, pharmaceuticals, lead, etc..... not to mention in our foods, toiletries, toys, you name it.

IMHO, I think china is behind all this. thier products have bred the world full gays and autistics. while theres nothing wrong with that, it certainly helps china in a military sense.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
So are you suggesting that being gay or straight is a choice?


I have a friend who was openly gay in his teens and lived a gay lifestyle through his twenties.
In his thirties he married a nice girl and they are a happy family with 3 kids.

I don't know if he "chose" one or the other but there it is.

I'd say that there are exceptions to every rule/assumption.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join