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.
Good shows, GoT's, and Spartacus. Not sure why they stopped Spartacus mind you...coulda used a few more seasons.
Well, it doesn't count when its woman on woman, because...it just doesn't!!!
Women who carry the gay genes produce more children than those who don't. So if you eliminate the gay genes, women will produce less children... population problem solved (not that I think we have a population problem).
Do you really think the ratings of any of those shows would suffer without the gay scenes?
tothetenthpower
Social problems?
For who?
Those who are opposed to it?
It seems to be that the problems associated with homosexuality do not stem from those who are homosexual, but from those who have a problem WITH homosexuals.
When all of the arguments are carefully examined, a few simple statements can be made with which hardly anyone
can disagree.
1. Homosexuality refers to an interest in sexual relations or contact with members of the same sex. Some experts
in our field believe that predominant or exclusive homosexuality is pathological; other experts believe it a
normal variant.
2. A significant proportion of homosexuals are apparently satisfied with their sexual orientation, show no
significant signs of manifest psychopathology (other than their homosexuality, if this is considered by itself
psychopathology), and are able to function quite effectively. These individuals may never come for treatment,
or they may be seen by a psychiatrist because of external pressure (e.g., court referral, family insistence) or
because of other problems requiring psychiatric help (e.g., depression, alcoholism).
3. A significant proportion of homosexuals are quite bothered by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual
orientation. There is debate within our profession as to why this is so. Some argue that it is an inevitable result
of the underlying conflicts that cause homosexual behavior in the first place, while others argue that it is derived
from a host of social and cultural pressures that have been internalized. Nonetheless, some of these individuals
come voluntarily for treatment, either to be able to accept their sexual feelings towards members of the same
sex, or to increase their capacity for sexual arousal by members of the opposite sex.
4. Modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals who wish to change their sexual
orientation to do so. At the same time, homosexuals who are bothered by or in conflict with their sexual
feelings but who are either uninterested in changing, or unable to change, their sexual orientation can be helped
to accept themselves as they are and to rid themselves of self-hatred.
(not that I think we have a population problem).
Phage
reply to post by BDBinc
You can't claim homosexuality is the result of genetic traits as no proof of this was in this little study it only proves they have not found a "Gay" gene= that no such thing exists.
Very likely true. You won't find a single gene which moderates any particular behavior, much less something as complex as sexuality.
But what this study does shows is that males with a certain gene sequence (one in particular which was studied) have a tendency to be homosexual. Someone said that means it involves "choice". No, it means that there could well be other sequences involved as well.
Bedlam
soficrow
When I was little, I thought they were hugging and playing. But what do kids know?
A lot of mammals use mounting behavior to set social dominance, but I'm not sure it's the same as sex. Is that what you mean?
Homosexuality is the result of naturally occurring genetic traits. I believe it's also partially environmental, but that's purely a personal perspective.
What do you think the odds are that further research will eventually find that exact genetic mechanism that determines sexual preference?
Males and females respond differently to cortisol, a hormone found in mothers’ milk but not in formula, said Katie Hinde, with Harvard University’s Department of Human Evolution.
“There is this prevailing myth that mother’s milk is standard,” Hinde told reporters at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago on Friday.
“There’s evidence that mothers are producing different biological recipes of milk for sons and daughters and the magnitude of this effect varies across their reproductive careers,” Hinde told Discovery News.
Breast milk calcium content, for example, is higher for females than males.
The handful of studies that have looked at variations in human breast milk based on the baby’s gender tend to focus on the constituents of the milk and their concentrations -- how much fat, protein, sugar, calcium, etc., but have not accounted for overall milk production, which affects concentrations.
Then that was eventually removed as well. I think that all had more to do with political pressure than actual medical opinion.
If not a choice then it's a disease.
They need to isolate the gene and finally remove it. It could be a breakthrough that could life changing for individuals, it could be on the level as the discovery of the polio vaccine.
soficrow
Bedlam
soficrow
When I was little, I thought they were hugging and playing. But what do kids know?
A lot of mammals use mounting behavior to set social dominance, but I'm not sure it's the same as sex. Is that what you mean?
I'm sure some of it was dominance behaviour but the activity in springtime was a bit more ...enthusiastic. As I recall.
Now, I'm not arguing for. I'm pro-life. I'm just pointing out that maybe you all ought to be careful what you're wishing for here.