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 finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


When the day comes that it will be again defined as a psychological disease due to a gene malfunction, I will be here.

Until then your opinion is as good as mine. I would rather our species to procreate, rather than be dead weight in the gene pool.

But that's my opinion




posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLotLizard
 




I would rather our species to procreate, rather than be dead weight in the gene pool.

So kill the gays!
Kill the infertile women!
Kill the sterile men!
Who needs 'em.

2, 4, 6, 8
Let's all procreate!
edit on 2/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLotLizard
 


Maybe some gays do not want to be gay. Are you saying that we should keep them trapped, forcing them to like the wrong sex?

So stop trapping them. Stop trying to force them to like a different sex. Stop contributing towards that belief. Maybe then those gay people that wish they were not gay will stop thinking that way. Crazy notion but it's painful when others think you're a disease.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Phage
reply to post by TheLotLizard
 




I love it when people post extremely long things that lose my interest in the first sentence.

Four paragraphs is extremely long?


That's called 'Selfish Attention Deficit Disorder' [SADD]...another disease

It seems that they only have interests when it coincides with their views
How convenient



edit on 15-2-2014 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I like how you put words in my mouth.

I never said kill anybody. But if you want to go ahead I'm sure the world will praise you as a hero...
In long term views as a species. Who do you think will last longer?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLotLizard
 




Until then your opinion is as good as mine. I would rather our species to procreate, rather than be dead weight in the gene pool.


Imagine you and many others got stuck in a biodome somehow with limited resources with no way out of it.

The best way to survive is to control birth rate to survive over time. Wouldn't you be happy when some people are born gay or unable to procreate?
edit on 2/14/2014 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLotLizard
 

It's the logical extension of your statement. "Dead weight in the gene pool."
Who needs dead weight?
The implication that those who don't, or can't, procreate should be fixed...or something. There's no point in having them around.


But if you want to go ahead I'm sure the world will praise you as a hero...
In long term views as a species. Who do you think will last longer?
You think homosexuals are a species now? Not just diseased? Us and them.

You know that the human species has fared quite well in spite of the "dead weight" that's been around for a very, very, long time. Population keeps on growin'.

edit on 2/14/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


problem is its the real dead weight thats doing most of the breeding.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLotLizard
 


Once again research shows that women who have at least one homosexual child produce statistically significantly more offspring. So if you want to get rid of a gene that produces homosexuality do you also get rid of a gene that increases fertility in women?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by abe froman
 




problem is its the real dead weight thats doing most of the breeding.


heh sad but true

Watch the movie Idiocracy. Scary


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


There you go again implying that I mean something I didn't.

I never said we are two separate species. Said what lineage will last longer. I'm done talking about this subject as all that's happening is getting my words changed around.

This is why I've never respected your posts. Nor ever will.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I would just like to say that with the world population being over 7 billion people --7 BILLION-- I don't think that we have to worry about our species not being able to procreate

Let the gay community live as they want and stop isolating them & treating/calling them a disease

There are plenty of homeless kids in shelters world wide, so I don't think our species is going to disappear anytime soon due to gays

What a silly argument
*shakes head*




ETA: In a population of over 315 million in the US, only about 1.7% are gay... so what's the big deal again about our species & procreating ???



edit on 15-2-2014 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLotLizard
 


Let's see. We have accounts of homosexuality going back to at least the origins of written history. If nothing else their numbers have increased over the years. So I'd say they're doing pretty good.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I been thinking lately.... I'm a computer programmer myself.

Just wondering if there is a simulation where you get to control the percentages of people born straight/gay/unable to procreate and the resources.

I would love to create that program.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLotLizard
 


I never said we are two separate species. Said what lineage will last longer. I'm done talking about this subject as all that's happening is getting my words changed around.
Maybe if you tried a little harder to get your thoughts across it would be different. Sometimes it takes more than a line or two. Sometimes it takes a paragraph or four.

You almost might want to consider more carefully what you say. There really isn't much in the way of a homosexual lineage. Think about that idea for a moment.


This is why I've never respected your posts. Nor ever will.
Oh. Dang.

edit on 2/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It's like Bill Nye the Science Guy vs. Ken Ham debate (Bill Nye isn't even a scientist)

It is just pointless.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Phage
You almost might want to consider more carefully what you say. There really isn't much in the way of a homosexual lineage. Think about that idea for a moment.
Actually, it's a rather recent development in man's written history to not do your duty by your lineage and procreate. (Anything older than that, is, of course, literally guesswork.) I mean, heck, even the Greeks and Romans still took wives when homosexual.

Well, that and most the homosexuals I know have had kids through heterosexual sex. I mean blatant homosexuals whom you couldn't get drunk enough to touch the opposite gender had at one time in their history was with the opposite sex. Even more funny is when they think "Bisexuality" is utter crap that sex-addicts hide behind. *snort*
edit on 15-2-2014 by CynicalDrivel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 

One generation does not a homosexual lineage make. But yes, homosexuals have been known to procreate.
edit on 2/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Tell it to a shrew, rabbit or cow. I don't think they have a high sense of art or the meaning of their lives. Other than "look, grass!"

eta: the biological definition of life is basically "that which eats, craps and screws".

I was of course including humans with mammals which seemed pertinent to the thread. Last time I checked we were mammals. Excuse me for approaching 'purpose' outside the constrictions of that biological definition. Although I might adopt it when I feel I'm in existential crisis. I'm sure it will help.

Why would we reduce the 'purpose of mammals' to "that which eats, craps, and screws" in a thread about homosexuals unless one was attempting to put homosexuality on the same level as your shrew, rabbit, and cow?

Stripping the additional meaning away from them and reducing their purpose to "that which eats, craps and screws" paves the way for viewing them as mere defects and diseases.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


You keep assigning purpose to it? I have no idea why people assign purpose to it?

As we have stated many many many times....

THERE IS NO PURPOSE TO EVOLTUION

It is doing what it is doing.... nothing more to it.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join