Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

page: 34
19
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by balanc3

Homosexuality is probably the result of the same: choice, behavior and environment-(environment may be the hardest factor to include)


WRONG. I've been following this subject for 20 years.

It is not a choice. It is not a behavior and environment has zero to do with it. (Except: that environment can affect the development of the fetus).

Every study leans to: "how the soup was stirred" in the development process.

For those who say it hasn't been proven - - neither has the reason for Left Handed - - which is also 10% of the population. In 2007 only 5 years ago - - a team of scientists revealed a gene called LRRTM1; the first to be discovered which has an effect on handedness. www.sciencedaily.com...

I support the "sliding scale" - - just as in heterosexual - - a man can be very "cave man macho" or "more toward the feminine". Those that fall right in the middle might have a tendency to be Bi-sexual with a leaning more one way or the other (heterosexual/homosexual). This group could make a choice and/or be affected by environment. But those further up the scale are going to be what they are born - - and no outside influence is going to change them.



Homosexuality is voluntary population control, and even worse it opens the door to Eugenicide....


Complete ignorant BS.
edit on 31-5-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by balanc3

And there's no such thing as a gay Christian.......period!!....


Jesus never said anything about it. Some Christians I know now say "I follow the teachings of Christ" - - they want nothing to do with negative bible dogma written by man.


Without the mating of male and female, our species would have died off.


There is nothing wrong with homosexual/lesbian reproductive systems. They've produced off spring just as heterosexuals have from the beginning of existence.

But just as heterosexuals have benefited from modern technology - - - why should homosexuals/lesbians ever have to force themselves to do what is unnatural to them.



edit on 31-5-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I wasn't doubting the function of the organs of gay people.....if the plumbing works, so to speak....But so far there has never been a (natural and technologically unassisted) sperm/sperm or ovary/ovary combination that resulted in pregnancy or offspring.

If a person was androgenous and expressed no sexuality at all and they were born gay what would they be? That's the point im trying to get at the emotions, gender, outward expression of self the identity a person has....

And just like pregnant people can do a gene screen to choose to abort a malformed baby or one who might come out with down's syndrome, the option may be offered to abort an XXX or XYY baby , that's what I was calling eugenicide.

And there Are people who choose to be gay, Im not saying everyone is aware of the choice, but there are some who choose to "switch teams"....those who make that choice of switching teams, know that without adoption or surrogacy programs, there will be no offspring, and the blood line of some families ends. they have in those cases voluntarily chosen not to have kids, just like heteros who choose not to have kids by using birth control.

and which parent passes on the gay gene? or do the genes come from the junk dna in our cells, only manifesting when certain in-utero conditions are met?

One's identity as a Christian, should take precidence over their other attributes because it is a choice unlike being born Jewish (of Jewish bloodline), after all its about your relationship to God and community that matters most, not just what companion you have or don't have. Like I said, to be a Christian is its own qualifier, not to be diluted like I'm a Black Christian, or I'm a California Christian, or I'm a Horny Christian, or I'm an Abstinent Christian....truth be told I never said Christ condems Homosexuality did I? Nor does he advocate any sexuality in general. he says if you cannot abstain from desires of the flesh, go and get married, but its hard to serve both God and one's spouse at the same time.

I really think that environmental conditions exist that affect women in such a way as to cause the expression of gay genes. "women are the vessels through which souls enter this world" is a quote I saw before that rings true to me. it seems factual that the condition of these vessels will affect what develops and manifests from within.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by balanc3
I wasn't doubting the function of the organs of gay people.....if the plumbing works, so to speak....But so far there has never been a (natural and technologically unassisted) sperm/sperm or ovary/ovary combination that resulted in pregnancy or offspring.


So just to be clear here... Have all those who are against homosexuality, every last one of them, had sex ONLY for the purpose of procreation and nothing else? No one night stands, no flings, no intercourse when they were already pregnant, no intercourse when their menstrual cycle clearly showed they were not ovulating, no intercourse with protection of any kind, no rhythm method, no sex in any way whatsoever that would't give a strong probabilty of the creation of a fetus? If not, they're nothing but hypocrits and their argument has been defeated by their own actions.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by balanc3
and which parent passes on the gay gene? or do the genes come from the junk dna in our cells, only manifesting when certain in-utero conditions are met?

Since it happens in both genders, it is clearly located on the X chromosome. For gay men, they had to recieve it from their mother, for gay women, they could have gotten it from either parent.
Basic genetics.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by balanc3
I wasn't doubting the function of the organs of gay people.....if the plumbing works, so to speak....But so far there has never been a (natural and technologically unassisted) sperm/sperm or ovary/ovary combination that resulted in pregnancy or offspring.


So?


If a person was androgenous and expressed no sexuality at all and they were born gay what would they be? That's the point im trying to get at the emotions, gender, outward expression of self the identity a person has....


Recently a scientist researcher in sexual genetics simply stated: "There is no Black and White - - there is only ALL Shades of Gray". That is the answer.

The "Soup gets Stirred" and that's what you get.

Over 20 years I've spoken to several people claiming to be BI. And each one - although they enjoyed sex with both genders did prefer one over the other. Their orientation (as born) was still straight or gay - - even though they were BI.


ASEXUALITY (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality), in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction to others or the lack of interest in sex. It may also be considered a lack of a sexual orientation. One commonly cited study published in 2004 placed the prevalence of asexuality at 1%.

Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal or religious beliefs; sexual orientation, unlike sexual behavior, is believed to be "enduring". Some asexual people do engage in sexual activity despite lacking a desire for sex or sexual attraction, due to a variety of reasons, such as a desire to please romantic partners or a desire to have children. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by balanc3

And there Are people who choose to be gay,


No - there isn't.

A person may choose to experience same gender sex - - - but that does not make them homosexual.

Homosexuality is not a "sex act" - - it is a birth orientation.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by balanc3

I really think that environmental conditions exist that affect women in such a way as to cause the expression of gay genes. "women are the vessels through which souls enter this world" is a quote I saw before that rings true to me. it seems factual that the condition of these vessels will affect what develops and manifests from within.


So environment doesn't affect the male sperm?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by balanc3
 


You should read this article.

I know it says humanity outwits mother nature, but technically we are part of mother nature. So if we were capable of figuring out how to do this then mother nature allowed us.


It Is a prospect worthy of a science fiction B-movie: male couples, women past the menopause, infertile couples and even celibate clergy producing their own children.



'You don't have to be infertile to have an interest in reproductive technology,' she told The Observer last week. 'This could mean anyone can become a parent; women after the menopause, gay couples, celibate men.'



The technique behind this revolutionary science has been developed over the past two years. 'We still have several years to go before we can use it on humans,' said Professor Harry Moore, of Sheffield University's Centre for Stem Cell Biology. 'Nevertheless I have been amazed at what has been achieved.



But what really disturbs some observers is the idea of using stem-cell sperm or eggs to make children for individuals other than those facing infertility problems. 'It is possible that we could use this technology to make eggs from stem cells created from a man's skin cells,' said Moore. 'Thus technology could help gay men have babies, though obviously a fertilised egg created this way would have to be carried to term by a woman. It would have the genetic make-up of its two male "parents".

emphasis mine

Crazy stuff huh? So technically one day gay men may actually be able to produce offspring with each other, although it will have to be carried by a woman obviously.

What would be more interesting would be if the child of the gay parents turned out to be straight. It would give credence to the idea that there is a sort of "recessive" gay gene and the idea of nature over nurture. But that remains to be seen.
edit on 6/1/2012 by dbloch7986 because: add more



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbloch7986

Crazy stuff huh? So technically one day gay men may actually be able to produce offspring with each other, although it will have to be carried by a woman obviously.

What would be more interesting would be if the child of the gay parents turned out to be straight. It would give credence to the idea that there is a sort of "recessive" gay gene and the idea of nature over nurture. But that remains to be seen.


Thanks dbloch7986

I knew about this. Thanks for including it.

There is also research on artificial wombs - - - so its possible in the future - - - gay men would not have to rely on a woman at all.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Thank you Annee, Dbloch, and Purple.

Annee I value your experience in making the points you do. But I'm struggling to find the source of attraction individuals have, like in a tragic scenario, where do feelings of attraction have a place. And If at one time someone feels attraction for someone and then no longer feels the same way later, can't then attraction be turned off or on? Aren't there external validations for attraction or orientation....

I think orientation is an artificial construct resulting from developments of society. Like if two gay people are running from a wolf, the flight response, a sympathetic nervous response takes priority. Only after the danger has subsided will feelings and emotions be relevant again. My point being that orientation is not a constant relevant factor and there are conditions that supercede the importance of ones orientation.
I think attraction is a biological mechanism that compels a species towards reproduction and cohabitation .
and Attraction without the biological imperative to reproduce is lust or pleasure

with so much emphasis placed on the condition of the reproductive cells as the sole factor in determining genetic expression that conditions leading to the formation of the reproductive cells may be overlooked. Like "dad played football" and the kid comes out athletically built. It's just a scientifically unconfirmed feeling that I have that "stirring the pot" has a LOT more to do with what develops as an organism than just the ingredients.

Understanding slavery to emotions or concepts of attraction and orientation is hard for me. I understand reactional emotions like when someone dies in front of you and you freak out but if your like that 10 years later still tripping out on an old experience, that's not so right. My experience so far has been that I can choose emotions as well as if I feel attraction or not. I no longer accept attraction as a defacto response to stimuli, it feels like I've been conditioned to feel certain ways and I really like to choose how I feel for my benefit and that of others around me.

thx purple for the pointer about basic genetics......my point was like I said above about stirring the pot. Not everything comes down to the male or female cell carrying the whatnot gene...it was poor rhetoric on my behalf.
and yeah heteros mostly DONT have sex for reproductive purposes.....which also has a strangeness to me. I can't really imagine a couple ignoring the pleasure going on and focusing on a pregnancy. I think a large part of sex comes down to the exchange of energies between two people.

thx as well Dbloch for the tidbit about what science can do.....but those in the lab who feel they know best, work from a limited data set, their fields have only existed for what 150ish years or so since mendel's work, vs however many years it took us to evolve naturally. I won't say just because nature hasn't done something doesn't mean it can't be done.

And to be clear Im not anti-gay......it's just an existence I can't comprehend. And I feel strongly that the genes associated with homosexual orientation are more significant than what we're led to believe. These genes can lead to developments in male brains where empathy centers(hypothalamus??i think) are more developed. and I think empathy in men is a tendency that has been so far unexpressed leading to things like war and agression. My gripe is that I don't believe the homosexuality gene is only an orientation thing.

Does a person lacking consciousness have orientation? Like someone who had brain trauma? Orientation ends up being a non issue to a comatose person right?, but they could still have skin color, blood type, body fat, food allergies, and other visible manifestations of genetic conditions. Where in the physiology of humans does orientation manifest. Does orientation as a genetic thing directly determine hormone production?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by balanc3
Thank you Annee, Dbloch, and Purple.

Annee I value your experience in making the points you do. But I'm struggling to find the source of attraction individuals have, like in a tragic scenario, where do feelings of attraction have a place.


We are just another life form on this planet. Really no different then a virus. BASIC function of anything living is to reproduce itself (remember gays can reproduce - so don't go there). All life has built in "attractors". Lust is a chemical attraction:


A new study finds drugs or genetic manipulation can turn the homosexual behavior of fruit flies on and off within a matter of hours. While the genetic finding supports the thinking that homosexuality is hard-wired, the drug finding surprisingly suggests it's not that simple.

In fact, homosexuality in the fruit flies seems to be regulated by how they interpret the scent of another. www.livescience.com...




I think orientation is an artificial construct resulting from developments of society.


No its not. Its part of the born-in body make up.



I think attraction is a biological mechanism that compels a species towards reproduction and cohabitation
and Attraction without the biological imperative to reproduce is lust or pleasure



Attraction is attraction. It can be anything. You could be attracted to someone because you like their hair color. I happen to be attracted to Redhair.

Bill Gates first question to any girl he dated was: "What is your SAT score?"

I'm sure a gay guy could be attracted to and love a woman - - right up to the bedroom door. But no further.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Humans are no longer BASIC life. One thing we have is written language. We can learn and grow from past generations. It does make everyday life more complicated.

This is what I am going through with my 12 year old granddaughter. I am teaching her the difference between LUST and LOVE. Love to me is commitment and responsibility.

I got divorced right in the middle of the Sexual Revolution. Believe me I know about Lust and the difference between Lust and Love.

I flat out tell her - - your body is made to attract a mate for reproduction. There are chemicals in your body that will react to a mate (whether it be male or female) - - and you also give off chemicals that will attract a mate.

But - you are an evolved human and beyond BASIC mating for reproduction. I have her make a list of all the qualities she needs in a Love mate. Meaning someone who wants the same things in life as she does and will be responsible in the give and take that they both fulfill their needs.

So homosexuals have Lust chemicals in their bodies too - - - but they react to those of same sex/gender. And as humans are no longer BASIC LIFE who's only purpose it is to reproduce - - - it just plain flat out doesn't matter why they are attracted to each other. It is who they are born to be - - and it is their normal.







edit on 1-6-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by balanc3


Does a person lacking consciousness have orientation? Like someone who had brain trauma? Orientation ends up being a non issue to a comatose person right?, but they could still have skin color, blood type, body fat, food allergies, and other visible manifestations of genetic conditions. Where in the physiology of humans does orientation manifest. Does orientation as a genetic thing directly determine hormone production?


If someone is comatose, they aren't straight either, they aren't sexual at all and don't interact with other humans. If a gay person were comatose, he/she would still be gay, just non-functional.
For example, if you were allergic to peanuts, you would still be allergic to peanuts, but since you are comatose and not eating, it really woudn't be pertinent. You are concentrating only on physical characteristics with the skin color, blood type, body fat...they are predominant visually and measurable whereas other factors are internalized to the individual and not a visible, measurable quality. Perhaps in their comatose state, they still dream, their mind still functions, it's just their body that is non responsive. In those dreams, if they are of a sexual nature, then most likely they focus on the internal desires of that person. If he is straight, the thoughts are of women, if he is gay, the thoughts are of men.
Science doesn't have the answers at this time because, well, there haven't been the amount of studies on it as there have been on other things. It's not a subject that they have dedicated adequate time and resources to in order to find answers ....at least not to the extent that they have other subjects. It's not saying that they won't at some point, they just haven't yet. There are certainly studies out there, mostly inconclusive, but it doesn't mean they will never get to that answer, they just haven't yet.
If there was as much research devoted to discovering the source of orientation as there has been to studying baldness and erectile disfunction, there would be an answer by now, but, alas, the studies go where the interests and funding happen to be.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

If there was as much research devoted to discovering the source of orientation as there has been to studying baldness and erectile dis-function, there would be an answer by now, but, alas, the studies go where the interests and funding happen to be.


Correct.

Gays/Lesbians are fully functional human beings. They are normal as they are born. There is no real reason to spend tons of money on something that is not broken.

Geneticists will continue their studies - of course - but its not urgent.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

If there was as much research devoted to discovering the source of orientation as there has been to studying baldness and erectile dis-function, there would be an answer by now, but, alas, the studies go where the interests and funding happen to be.


Correct.

Gays/Lesbians are fully functional human beings. They are normal as they are born. There is no real reason to spend tons of money on something that is not broken.

Geneticists will continue their studies - of course - but its not urgent.



Yup, they're not "broke", so there's no reason to "fix" them. Hence, no major research



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
That's quite the interesting view on gay union. I say we just give them what they want. A legal piece of paper that says they're united by law.

By the way, woman with an a is singular, women with an e is plural.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
That's quite the interesting view on gay union. I say we just give them what they want. A legal piece of paper that says they're united by law.

By the way, woman with an a is singular, women with an e is plural.


Not sure who your response to.... but most likely a typo with the an/en regardless of who it is to



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
That's quite the interesting view on gay union. I say we just give them what they want. A legal piece of paper that says they're united by law.

By the way, woman with an a is singular, women with an e is plural.


Not sure who your response to.... but most likely a typo with the an/en regardless of who it is to


Or too much Scotch while typing.

Late evening posts are often quite hilarious



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
That's quite the interesting view on gay union. I say we just give them what they want. A legal piece of paper that says they're united by law.

By the way, woman with an a is singular, women with an e is plural.


Not sure who your response to.... but most likely a typo with the an/en regardless of who it is to


Or too much Scotch while typing.

Late evening posts are often quite hilarious


I guess they are!!! I can't use that excuse anymore... only because I don't like hangovers at my age though, nothing wrong with a little drink now and then



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by balanc3
"homosexuality is not a choice"

is a dogmatic and unprovable statement



Only to a heterosexual and only one who is overly concerned with other people's lives instead of their own.





top topics
 
19
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join