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.

 

Simple question re: homosexuality

page: 30
41
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


If homosexuality is so wrong and is an abomination, then maybe straight people should stop having gay children.




posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
 


I don't mind teaching kids to be intolerant, IF it's something they should be intolerant of.

With respect,
Charles1952


Hi Charles,

Thanks for bringing your insightful and respectul thoughts into the debate once again.

That one little sentence, WOW. I think this summarizes the most fundamental point of the argument for gay marriage; Where should the line of tolerance be drawn?

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with you on this point. If we are talking say pedophilia for instance, then intolerance is the only way. I would find myself picketing in a protest alongside you with this one.

Where I disagree is because we on the pro side of the gay marriage is asking people to extend the boundary a little. I think it's been aptly argued that our relationships cause no harm, so we are asking that receive acceptance and legal recognition for them.

People oft argue that gay marriage leads to a break down in morality. I say no it does not, it leads to a change in it. As I have already said, pedophilia is one small example where I and pretty much everyone else everywhere do not and will not change our anti stance on.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faust100f
I guess what I do not understand is that if being gay is something you are born with, then it must be genetic. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce because of sex with their own gender, why is it that we continue to have more gays each year.



Some could be genetic. But, many are just choice. The right to choose, is what they are fighting for, that means even they accept it's a choice.




I mean as a farmer, I know that in cattle herds we can breed out bad characteristics like dwarfism. Since homosexuality is a genetic problem, we should have zero homosexuals in the world, since that bad gene would not and could not be passed down from generation to generation.



Normally, if homosexuality were genetic, then it should have been eliminated long ago. However, because the homosexual activity was suppressed in the past, it forced those with the gene to have heterosexual relations, and this is how the gene survived.

If homosexuality is genetic, then once it becomes fully accepted behavior, and no longer suppressed, it should wipe itself out within 2 or 3 generations.

As long as we're not forcing the homosexuals into heterosexual relationships, scientifically they are destined to become extinct.




Therefore, it is my position that homosexuality is a personal decision made my a hetrosexual and the person was not "born that way". With that assumption, then we really can call a spade a spade and stop accepting ways of life that are not in fact part of the gene pool, but a personal decision of those who claim that perverted way of life.


After 2 or 3 generations of complete acceptance of homosexuality, anyone remaining who practices the gay and lesbian lifestyle will then be making a "choice" to do so, since there can be no genetic cause for the behavior at that time.



How does it affect me? It does not, but it is contrary to the teachings of Western Civilization from which most of us sprang who reside in the U.S. today. The danger is that homosexuals prey upon others who have little if any defensive way to protect themselves.


Right. Like the young, who look to the adults, to learn what is right and wrong. We can teach them a wrong thing as being right. We could teach kids to steal, to lie, to cheat, to do whatever it takes to succeed, etc..It's up to us to decide what the youth of today will learn.




I think such a deviant behavior, should not be acknowledged by our judicial system or morays most of us live our lives by. Those who profess homesexuality seek acceptance and support for this deviant behavior, by professing they are "different" and were born that way. If what they profess is true, then the gene's containing that trait, would have gone extinct thousands of years ago. It is a life choice, not something someone is burdened with when born. Adios Amigos. John


If it's genetic, it's alien. I think myself, it's a choice. Nothing to do with the genes. But, I could be wrong. There's an interesting verse in the scriptures that I've puzzled over a lot, which might be related..



57) Jesus said, "The Kingdom of the Father is like a man who had [good] seed. His enemy came by night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds; he said to them, 'I am afraid that you will go intending to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.' For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be plainly visible, and they will be pulled up and burned."

The Gospel of Thomas # 57



www.sacred-texts.com...

Did someone "plant" a homosexual gene in God's heterosexual crop? And is this why the scriptures say "I am afraid that you will go intending to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them" ? Because the homosexual gene is so intertwined with the heterosexual gene that it's hard to easily separate them?

Only just before the end of days, when homosexuality is accepted by law, will it become obvious who is gay and who is straight, and then the "weeds" can be pulled up and burned.

So, it would seem, that part of the plan is to allow the gene to express itself openly, come out of the closet, so that we can easily identify them and separate the weeds from the wheat.

Then the scriptures begin to make perfect sense.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 

Dear Darth_Prime,

It seems we're drifting into the general discussion of "gay rights," and "discrimination," and even "Your big argument is religious." Now we've added the word "intolerance." Unfortunately, this quickly descends in many cases to bumper sticker slogans being tossed about and the cessation of any meaningful discussion.

I must say I admire seabag's patience. As far as I can tell, he's not punching the screen, shouting "That's not what I said!" I don't think I could respond as calmly.

Start with your comment on intolerance. We're being trained to believe that intolerance is a bad thing, even if we don't know what intolerance is. It serves as a handy swear word, like "racist." When someone says they can't tolerate Person X, what does that mean? I would argue that it almost always has no meaning whatever. Either it means "I don't like or approve of that person's behavior," Or it means "I don't want anything to do with that person." Both of those are perfectly acceptable, generally harmless reactions.

But gays are almost universally "tolerated." There is no mass drive to kill gays, even the often cited Matthew Sheppard case didn't have anything to do with sex, it was a robbery for meth money.

As far as not tolerating behavior, there must be many things we can agree on: crime, dishonesty, government corruption, naked multi-party sex in the middle of Main Street during rush hour. (Especially if you're not invited.
We can properly teach not tolerating lots of things.


i must hate him because he is *x*
I can't speak for others, obviously, but that's not the case for me. It's also not the teaching of my Church.

As far as sanctity of marriage, destruction of the Church, and other religious based claims, I don't think I've made any of those. The sociological and psychological arguments seem much stronger in persuading those who are undecided or who currently accept gay marriage.

If I'm missing some of your important points, forgive me. let me know what they are and I'll take another whack at them.

With respect,
Charles1952




Indeed, Indeed.

saying i don't agree with his behavior is one thing, saying i don't agree with 'HIM' because he is 'X' is another

and that is what happens with Gay marriage, we can't get married because we are gay, not because of 'lifestyle' or 'behavior'

if a church said 'our doctrine doesn't believe in homosexuality so we wont marry you' that is one thing, if as a country we can't get married because we are gay, that is another,

take this for example, you can disapprove of me doing Drag shows, that is not being intolerant, it's intolerant if it's because of a set reason , Race, Sexuality, Gender, Religion etc

i do hope i'm making sense,

not all gays are tolerated, many of us seem as a novelty to women who 'Like their gays', many of us (Me included) have been physically abused for being gay, many of us (me included) have been discriminated against, just as many race have, and as many other religions have been,


indeed, this may be going off the path of 'Marriage' though,



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Originally posted by Faust100f
I guess what I do not understand is that if being gay is something you are born with, then it must be genetic. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce because of sex with their own gender, why is it that we continue to have more gays each year.



Some could be genetic. But, many are just choice. The right to choose, is what they are fighting for, that means even they accept it's a choice.




I mean as a farmer, I know that in cattle herds we can breed out bad characteristics like dwarfism. Since homosexuality is a genetic problem, we should have zero homosexuals in the world, since that bad gene would not and could not be passed down from generation to generation.



Normally, if homosexuality were genetic, then it should have been eliminated long ago. However, because the homosexual activity was suppressed in the past, it forced those with the gene to have heterosexual relations, and this is how the gene survived.

If homosexuality is genetic, then once it becomes fully accepted behavior, and no longer suppressed, it should wipe itself out within 2 or 3 generations.

As long as we're not forcing the homosexuals into heterosexual relationships, scientifically they are destined to become extinct.




Therefore, it is my position that homosexuality is a personal decision made my a hetrosexual and the person was not "born that way". With that assumption, then we really can call a spade a spade and stop accepting ways of life that are not in fact part of the gene pool, but a personal decision of those who claim that perverted way of life.


After 2 or 3 generations of complete acceptance of homosexuality, anyone remaining who practices the gay and lesbian lifestyle will then be making a "choice" to do so, since there can be no genetic cause for the behavior at that time.



How does it affect me? It does not, but it is contrary to the teachings of Western Civilization from which most of us sprang who reside in the U.S. today. The danger is that homosexuals prey upon others who have little if any defensive way to protect themselves.


Right. Like the young, who look to the adults, to learn what is right and wrong. We can teach them a wrong thing as being right. We could teach kids to steal, to lie, to cheat, to do whatever it takes to succeed, etc..It's up to us to decide what the youth of today will learn.




I think such a deviant behavior, should not be acknowledged by our judicial system or morays most of us live our lives by. Those who profess homesexuality seek acceptance and support for this deviant behavior, by professing they are "different" and were born that way. If what they profess is true, then the gene's containing that trait, would have gone extinct thousands of years ago. It is a life choice, not something someone is burdened with when born. Adios Amigos. John


If it's genetic, it's alien. I think myself, it's a choice. Nothing to do with the genes. But, I could be wrong. There's an interesting verse in the scriptures that I've puzzled over a lot, which might be related..



57) Jesus said, "The Kingdom of the Father is like a man who had [good] seed. His enemy came by night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds; he said to them, 'I am afraid that you will go intending to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.' For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be plainly visible, and they will be pulled up and burned."

The Gospel of Thomas # 57



www.sacred-texts.com...

Did someone "plant" a homosexual gene in God's heterosexual crop? And is this why the scriptures say "I am afraid that you will go intending to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them" ? Because the homosexual gene is so intertwined with the heterosexual gene that it's hard to easily separate them?

Only just before the end of days, when homosexuality is accepted by law, will it become obvious who is gay and who is straight, and then the "weeds" can be pulled up and burned.

So, it would seem, that part of the plan is to allow the gene to express itself openly, come out of the closet, so that we can easily identify them and separate the weeds from the wheat.

Then the scriptures begin to make perfect sense.



this nonsense of 'Choice' is absurd, i did not make a choice to be this way, did you make a choice to be straight? if that is true and you did select that, you could easily select to be gay at whim, meaning you could if you wanted to be gay, so if you are both gay and straight by choice, what is the difference if you marry as a gay or as a straight?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Faust100f
 


really Faust, you're pulling out that chestnut "it's a choice", REALLY, so if it is a choice then why don't they find someone of the opposite sex? instead, they put up with being beaten, killed, sworn at, spit upon, denounced by their families, kill themselves.

yes there is a genetic proponent , the latest medical info on this is called epigenetics

healthland.time.com...

SEXUALITY
New Insight into the (Epi)Genetic Roots of Homosexuality
By Laura BlueDec. 13, 2012140 Comments

inShare
1
Read Later

GETTY IMAGES
RELATED

Why California’s Conversion Therapy Ban Is Only the First Step
Are elite athletes equipped with “sports genes”?
Genetic health risks for babies conceived through IVF?
Epigenetics May Be a Critical Factor Contributing to Homosexuality, Study Suggests Science Daily
Scientists think they've finally figured out homosexuality (again) msn now
Email Print Share Comment
Follow @TIMEHealthland

For an evolutionary biologist, homosexuality is something of a puzzle. It’s a common trait, found in up to 10% of the population. It appears to be run in families, suggesting that it is hereditary, at least in part. And yet it defies the very reason why traits are passed on from generation to generation. How could something that hinders childbearing be passed down so frequently from parents to children?

Researchers at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) think they may have an answer. It’s not in written in our DNA sequence itself, they suggest, which explains why scientists have failed so far to find “gay genes,” despite intensive investigations. Instead, it’s written in how our genes are expressed: that is, in certain modifications to how and when DNA is activated. These changes can have environmental roots, so are not normally permanent enough to be passed from parent to child. But occasionally, they are.

MORE: Of God and Gays and Humility

“It’s not genetics. It’s not DNA. It’s not pieces of DNA. It’s epigenetics,” says Sergey Gavrilets, a NIMBioS researcher and an author on the paper that outlines the new theory of homosexuality, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology. “The hypothesis we put forward is based on epigenetic marks,” he says.

To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by epigenetic marks, or “epi-marks,” related to sensitivity to hormones in the womb. These are compounds that sit on DNA and regulate how active, or inactive certain genes are, and also control when during development these genes are most prolific. Gavrilets and his colleagues believe that gene expression may regulate how a fetus responds to testosterone, the all-important male sex hormone. They further argue that epi-marks may help to buffer a female fetus from high levels of testosterone by suppressing receptors that respond to testosterone, for example, (thus ensuring normal fetal development even in the presence of a lot of testosterone) or to buffer a male fetus from low levels of testosterone by upregulating receptors that bind to the hormone (ensuring normal fetal development even in the absence of high levels of testosterone). Normally, these epi-marks are erased after they are activated, but if those marks are passed down to the next generation, the same epi-marks that protected a man in utero may cause oversensitivity to testosterone among his daughters, and the epi-marks that protected a woman in utero may lead to undersensitivity to testosterone among her sons.

MORE: New Volleys in the Gay Parenting Wars

Gavrilets says that some scientists have already expressed “strong interest” in new experiments that will test the hypothesis, attempting to estimate how often such epi-marks may arise among men and women, and how often they are saved from one generation to the next. The work might also explain the extent to which epi-marks can influence sexual behavior. While experimental evidence is lacking for now, Gavrilets says he is reasonably confident that the theory is sound.

“It’s compatible with the [existing] data. Plus it’s supported by mathematical modeling,” he says.

The new theory is important because it synthesizes well-tested and well-developed evolutionary principles with cutting-edge research in molecular biology and biological computation. Epigenetics is not a new concept exactly, but the field has exploded within the past decade. Where once it seemed that genes and environment were distinct, or that nature and nurture were distinct, now it seems clear that environment itself may change the ways in which our genes function – even though the genes themselves are essentially fixed over time, barring occasional mutations, and conserved across generations.

MORE: Do Children of Same Sex Parents Really Fare Worse?

For now, the work is still controversial. Gavrilets says he and his colleagues have been criticized both by conservatives
edit on 29-5-2013 by research100 because: added the site to click on



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I think you are 100% correct. People fear homosexuality and they feel it is their duty to maintain the status quo (which also fears homosexuality).



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
There is no credible or verifiable proof that homosexuality is anything other than a behavioral phenomenon. Nothing more. Traumas, abuse, fetishes, nurturing and mistakes during upbringing all play a role. At this time, its politically incorrect to say so, but, that is reality. Take a whiff.

All the anecdotal findings in support of gays being "born that way" leave out the fact that the pituitary gland secrets hormones when outside stimuli is introduced. Varying levels of hormones in "gay brains" (as used in their arguments) means nothing, given that fact.

That said, since it is a behavioral defect, it should be eliminated and treated.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Homosexuality is not a choice... Why on Earth would people want to be the subject of ridicule? Especially at the hands of half witted people?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Idonttouchmethere
 


Read previous reply. Your question/argument really is weak. Why do serial killers kill? Why do nerds act nerdy? Why do socially awkward people behave awkwardly? Just because they aren't aware of the "why" does not mean it isn't behavioral or that they cannot consciously and proactively change it.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyrieEleison
reply to post by Propulsion
 


In all fairness, straight people are not the ones fighting for recognition as equals.

You oppress people enough things like that are bound to happen, maybe instead of casting aspersions one should think about why they are doing it.
…So running around in leather chaps at a parade making out and kissing is going to benefit the gay population how? I don’t care if you’re gay, straight, bisexual, into assorted mixed vegetables, or what not. There is a time and a place for everything. I would have just as much of a problem with straight people doing adult stuff in front of my children as gay people do.

I don't care what kind of statement you are trying to make. In my opinion, it doesn't help the cause. It only makes gay people look like childish !d!ots!



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WilliamOckham
There is no credible or verifiable proof that homosexuality is anything other than a behavioral phenomenon. Nothing more. Traumas, abuse, fetishes, nurturing and mistakes during upbringing all play a role. At this time, its politically incorrect to say so, but, that is reality. Take a whiff.

All the anecdotal findings in support of gays being "born that way" leave out the fact that the pituitary gland secrets hormones when outside stimuli is introduced. Varying levels of hormones in "gay brains" (as used in their arguments) means nothing, given that fact.

That said, since it is a behavioral defect, it should be eliminated and treated.


It is not a behavioral deficit, it is a biological manifestation of life.
Whiff



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by WilliamOckham
 


you do realize that when they look at the brain, in gay men one part is always bigger www.shaktitechnology.com...

There is one brain part, called the anterior commissure, that's bigger in gay men's brains than in those of heterosexual males. Most of my thoughts here are about looking at what that might mean, and how it might appear. (Reference)

So, what's it do?

It connects two structures together. The amygdala on each side of the brain.

So, what does the amygdala do?

Its a very, very emotional structure. And it's fast. If you suddenly notice a bus heading toward you, and you feel a 'burst' of fear, that's your amygdala; the one on the right. If you feel a burst of elation when someone looks at you with attraction in their eyes, that's your amygdala, too; the one on the left.

A gay man's brain has more connections between the opposite emotional centers than other brains.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion
So running around in leather chaps at a parade making out and kissing is going to benefit the gay population how? I don’t care if you’re gay, straight, bisexual, into assorted mixed vegetables, or what not. There is a time and a place for everything. I would have just as much of a problem with straight people doing adult stuff in front of my children as gay people do.


Guess what, most gay people aren't interested in public displays of affection either.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 


I don't know ... why do all the other groups do the things that they do to piss off the "squares"?

Probably a reaction to the barbs that get slung at them and they are sick of it.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WilliamOckham
There is no credible or verifiable proof that homosexuality is anything other than a behavioral phenomenon. Nothing more. Traumas, abuse, fetishes, nurturing and mistakes during upbringing all play a role. At this time, its politically incorrect to say so, but, that is reality. Take a whiff.

All the anecdotal findings in support of gays being "born that way" leave out the fact that the pituitary gland secrets hormones when outside stimuli is introduced. Varying levels of hormones in "gay brains" (as used in their arguments) means nothing, given that fact.

That said, since it is a behavioral defect, it should be eliminated and treated.


lets get this correct first, i am not a defect, and i didn't select to be one at birth,

and being Straight is a behavior defect and should be eliminated and treated

who was the first one to say one is superior to the other? are you bringing god into this argument? god said Straight is the correct way and everything else is 'Behavior defects'?

i don't believe in god or Jesus so now what? why are you right and i'm wrong?

do you see this paradox, this could go on forever, the bible can't even offer proof because it wasn't written by god or Jesus, yet by younger adults much after Jesus allegedly died so it's basically hearsay


So the behavior of all straight people should be eliminated, shall we commence?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darth_Prime

this nonsense of 'Choice' is absurd, i did not make a choice to be this way, did you make a choice to be straight? if that is true and you did select that, you could easily select to be gay at whim, meaning you could if you wanted to be gay, so if you are both gay and straight by choice, what is the difference if you marry as a gay or as a straight?


Well that's the point, isn't it. How can we tell if gay is a choice, if we suppress the gay behavior?

The only way to tell, is to accept the gay behavior, and wait a few generations. If it is genetic, gays will vanish.

If it is a choice, there should still be gays around, even after the natural selection process has eliminated all the h=genes from the pool.

Right now, we just don't know. Everybody presents their "belief".



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WilliamOckham
reply to post by Idonttouchmethere
 


Read previous reply. Your question/argument really is weak. Why do serial killers kill? Why do nerds act nerdy? Why do socially awkward people behave awkwardly? Just because they aren't aware of the "why" does not mean it isn't behavioral or that they cannot consciously and proactively change it.


It's biological, sex is a biological function encoded in each person. A person can still be attracted to the same sex without any "behavior". Homosexual urges can exist for decades before any behavior is acted out. By your theory that would mean that a person cannot be a homosexual without behavior, while the truth is behavior is simply a facet of homosexuality, not the root. Your thinking is very one dimensional
edit on 29-5-2013 by Idonttouchmethere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 

Dear markosity1973,

I am really glad to see you again. I've been feeling guilty but didn't do anything about it. You were offering great conversation, what seems like 100 pages ago. When I got back to the thread it was getting nutty and I abandoned it, and you. I'm sorry for that and ask forgiveness. But now, it seems, I can start again and try to redeem myself.

If we are talking say pedophilia for instance, then intolerance is the only way. I would find myself picketing in a protest alongside you with this one.
Dear markosity (if I may call you that), can you imagine me with a picket sign? You know my posting style, I would need a billboard (with small type) to get a message written.


Few people would support pedophilia, but there are some. There are even more people who support polygamy, and a few who are looking for bestiality. I even remember one woman who married a tree she had become fond of, not legally of course.

What does all that have to do with anything? Well, my next question, which is even more fundamental for me, is not where the line should be drawn, but why should it be drawn there? And can we get rock solid assurance that it will stay there?

The debate at this point in our history is whether gays should be married. If the reason is only that the relationship does no harm, and the people involved want to do it, I run into a problem. Can't that argument be applied to every form of sexuality (except rape)? Other countries allow children to be married, the US believes 13 year olds are old enough to decide to have an abortion without any parental notification, why not allow pedophilia?

What's wrong with polygamy? Consenting adults, after all. It does occur in other countries, and who does it harm?

Beastiality? We don't have any problem turning sheep into lamb chops, isn't that worse? Certainly no harm in that relationship.

And I don't want to even think about those few tortured souls with necrophilia.

I'm willing to allow any form of sexuality if someone can come up with a reason for doing so that avoids my problems. Oh, and the reason for doing so should be greater than the reason not to do so.

For me it's a tough problem. I don't use the religious argument, but I'm still looking for reasons why it's better to change marriage than leave it the way it is. I'm hoping you, or some other poster can help me with that.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


How about, change marriage so millions of people can express love as they see fit?



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join