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: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 




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


Do amoeba screw?


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




posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 

One generation does not a homosexual lineage make.


In Rome and Greece, it's a lineage if they were in the military.


And actually, I thought stats more recently showed that those who were raised by homosexuals were more likely to turn out that way?

*sigh*
Quick Google:
Disclaimer, I do not like the TONE of this crud at all, but it does make the point I wanted:

When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures.


So, while I'd like to look at that study before stating it's iron-clad-conclusive, doesn't miraculously prove that there's no group out there without a lineage of gays in it, either.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Will probably miss the reply since these threads tend to get quick posts.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 




Disclaimer, I do not like the TONE of this crud at all, but it does make the point I wanted:

No. It doesn't.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by Bedlam
 




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


Do amoeba screw?


Only if they're spirochetes. (geek humor)

Themselves, I suppose. Do amebae conjugate?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLotLizard
 


Who do you think will last longer?

As has been pointed out over and over. Vast majority of gay people were birthed from a heterosexual mother. So… if the heterosexual population is alive and kicking so will be the gay population. It's really a simple point.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Bedlam

Phage
reply to post by Bedlam
 




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


Do amoeba screw?


Only if they're spirochetes. (geek humor)

Themselves, I suppose. Do amebae conjugate?


Only if they're verbivorous.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
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.


Follow the comment chain back to the head waters, where the question was - is a gene which prevents reproduction defective? What goal does it serve in terms of evolutionary biology? Or is it just an adverse side effect of a process that improves the fertility of females?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 




if the heterosexual population is alive and kicking so will be the gay population


They just don't get it.... the more gay they are... the more people who are unable to procreate... the more... you get the point..


THE MORE THEY WILL SURVIVE!

It's about balance.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   

snarky412
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??


If only 1.7% of Americans are gay, then maybe someone should pass that info along to our television and movie producers. I'd totally support an all gay tv network if it meant I could watch an episode of Game of Thrones without the remote in my hand.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 




is a gene which prevents reproduction defective?

A gene which does anything would seem to be working.
Isn't the function of a gene to build proteins? Has the science left me behind?

To your point...do all evolutionary advantages necessarily manifest as the proclivity for an individual to procreate?
edit on 2/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


Links please?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




Isn't the function of a gene to build proteins? Has the science left me behind?


You made me laugh.

Didn't know you were a funny guy. I thought you were all serious science guy.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Bone75

snarky412
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??


If only 1.7% of Americans are gay, then maybe someone should pass that info along to our television and movie producers. I'd totally support an all gay tv network if it meant I could watch an episode of Game of Thrones without the remote in my hand.


as a perfectly straight man, I quite enjoy watching the gay scenes. watching a woman ..entertain another woman does something to draw me in and watch. I am gonna assume that plenty of women whom watch the show whom are straight may enjoy the odd scene of a man entertaining another man.
Its not about fair representation, its 100% about ratings. if you get weirded out by anything considered 100% normal by societys standards, then cable tv may not be the best bet in general.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Xcalibur254

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?


That's actually a very good point. Those who argue that homosexuality is nature's way of keeping the population in check are going to have a hard time getting around that one.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


Bone75

snarky412
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??


If only 1.7% of Americans are gay, then maybe someone should pass that info along to our television and movie producers. I'd totally support an all gay tv network if it meant I could watch an episode of Game of Thrones without the remote in my hand.

reply to post by Bone75
 


In GOT, are you referring to the gay men scenes?

Because I get to rib my male friends when they cringe at the thought of 2 guys kissing but boy when it shows 2 chicks getting it on, well that's a whole different story. LOL

In Spartacus, it had both as well, of course that series was border line soft porn in a way, but it had good ratings so that's all that matters I guess



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

KeliOnyx
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Unless it also serves as a form of population control. Something I find rather frightening is that people on these forums will object tooth and nail to genetically modified foods (and for good reason). But seem to have no qualms at all about the idea of going and "fixing" another humans genes so they conform to their idea of healthy and normal.


Agree with you.....people that have no problem trying to "fix" gay by messing with genes might be the broken ones that need fixing . These are the people that don't like others telling them how to live, or what's right for them because they think that if they aren't bothering anyone that they should just be left alone but they can't do the same and leave other people alone that aren't bothering anyone by being gay .



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

snarky412
In GOT, are you referring to the gay men scenes?

Because I get to rib my male friends when they cringe at the thought of 2 guys kissing but boy when it shows 2 chicks getting it on, well that's a whole different story. LOL

In Spartacus, it had both as well, of course that series was border line soft porn in a way, but it had good ratings so that's all that matters I guess


Well, it doesn't count when its woman on woman, because...it just doesn't!!!


Good shows, GoT's, and Spartacus. Not sure why they stopped Spartacus mind you...coulda used a few more seasons.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Bone75

Xcalibur254

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?


That's actually a very good point. Those who argue that homosexuality is nature's way of keeping the population in check are going to have a hard time getting around that one.


What do you mean? You defeated your own argument



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   
What if they found a specific gene that made a person enjoy other forms of intercourse that didn't involve breeding (oral, etc)....
Would the people discussing "fixing" also be agreeable to these fixes of behavior?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 

Do you really think the ratings of any of those shows would suffer without the gay scenes?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join