It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by SaturnFX

Just think Stephen Hawking and Einstein?

Fix them I say

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:01 AM
reply to post by SaturnFX

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

Ended to abruptly IMO

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

Double standard

However, it's only acceptable when it's hot chicks.......correct??? LOL

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:02 AM
reply to post by Deaf Alien

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).

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:06 AM
reply to post by Bone75

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).

You proving our point?

more children more gays?

think about this for a minute

more gays more children?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:09 AM
reply to post by Bone75

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

If you are referring to woman/woman, maybe...people like to see naked women, pretty women, regardless
The guy/guy not so much

In GOT, one of the gay guys was killed off last season, so you don't have to worry about him any more
And there are plenty of heterosexual scenes to make up for it any way, especially in Spartacus

I have a friend who doesn't like bi-racial sex scenes & will change the channel when it shows a black man with a white woman

Funny at the different things that sets people off

edit on 15-2-2014 by snarky412 because: fix quote

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:13 AM


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.

That's not entirely true.

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.

Link to PDF

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by Bone75

(not that I think we have a population problem).

This is hilarious. Why do some people think evolution have a purpose or a goal?

As far as the "purpose" or "goal" goes in evolution theory... the purpose is to survive... it has been doing a good job so far

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:22 AM

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.

It is true.
The Study did not find genes on X chromosome linked only to male homosexuality,( hetrosexuals too have the genes they identified).
There is no such thing as a homosexual gene.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by Bone75

You linked the DSM-2 from the 1970s...

You know they have since updated it, right?

Homosexuality was removed as a psychiatric disorder in DSM-3.

The current version is the fifth edition, DSM-5, published on May 18, 2013.
edit on 15-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:06 AM
There's something inherently wrong in this world.

Reading comments referring to homosexuality as a "disease."
Earlier in the week I read a comment from someone stating autism is a "disease."
I've also heard both homosexuality and autism being referred to as "psychological disorders."
They even went far as to saying in a nutshell that understanding how they are caused learning to prevent them would be positive for the survival of mankind.

Not that It's about me, and I'm only bring it up because It's pertinent to the subject, but I am autistic. It wasn't my choice, It's not a big deal,and I wouldn't take it back or have it any other way. I'm a person, so are homosexual people. They are people. It made me kind of sad that people would think that and say that. It makes me sad to hear people are hateful towards gays. They are people. Let them live.

I don't know anything about this x chromosome, I don't know if homosexual people are born with "homosexual" genes, I believe it's certain some are born this way, perhaps many, but hypothetically, even if some people chose to be later in life, why would you think of them badly? They're still people, they feel real pain like real people, they feel real love like real people, the bleed the same blood as real people, and they share the same struggles as a "real person."
These people you are calling diseased and threatening to mankind are "PEOPLE."

People will still procreate despite homosexuals being a part of the population. We always have. We're not going to be at risk of extinction nor in any genetic or otherwise danger because of the prevalence of gay people living amongst you/I/us.

Also, homosexuals can adopt children who don't have families (clearly). Which life is more important in the world, a life of one that's conceived from heterosexual procreation, or the life of one that is adopted?

Would you rather see "new" babies being born to populate the world than you would seeing other (adopted) babies lives be happier and potentially saved from a potential fatality. How could you put one life over another in terms of importance to human interests and which would you consider more important to be worth saving from fatality?

I'm not understanding why this is even a topic to be debated. Choice or not choice... What purpose does it serve to prove it either way?

If we were to prove or disprove that homosexuality is genetically inherited by mom or dad or whomever, then what is to be done with this information? Would you use the new found science/information for good or for bad deeds? I think I know the answer to that already but kinda wish I didn't

I just don't understand why people have to be so cold. Did you know that cold, like, creates more cold? It's like a domino effect. It's infectious to those around you.

Do you know how many people are homosexual that you interact with on a daily basis or walk by on the street every day? Do you realize that you are only aware of a small percentage of those who are because they admit to it? Would it make you feel sick if someone you've known for a long time told you they were? Why would you think of them differently if you had a picture formed already of who they were before you knew, and you already always liked them before you knew? Why does knowing change anything? I think if it were to change anything it would just be so you could nod and see this person better, because you know a little more about them now. And that could be a positive "change" This would be ideal but unfortunately not how all react when given such information

The hate and intolerance is very disheartening and I wish it could stop(?)

People that are different from you are not a threat.
They're not hindering the progression of mankind in any way, including the endangerment of procreation.
I don't know what else to say other than what the hell is wrong with people and I just don't understand.

Homosexuality, bisexuality and any other sexual preferences that you'd care to add to the list aside from heterosexuality have been prevalent since before any of you were born, or before your grandparents were born, or their parents.
This Isn't a new phenomenon.

Would it be fair of me to say to someone who is intolerant and judgmental of those who are different should not be allowed to procreate? That just the idea of that is a danger to mankind and any possible children you would be around or give birth to? Maybe you should not allowed be who you are either, because we don't approve of it and you're threatening to our well being and the well being of mankind's future...
edit on 2/15/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:38 AM
Personally I think/hope this discovery will go a long way towards undermining current scientific bias that is being utilized as a weapon and justification for the abuse of people who are gay. Maybe one day, in a trickle down way, it will also lend itself to a wider social awareness that sh*t happens, change is inevitable and life often curiously random. I think it will take a lot more than this discovery for people to overcome their fear and accept that differences aren't just healthy, they are useful and can be celebrated too.

I remain of the political position that this whole issue has been engineered and is an intentional distraction tool to play us plebs off against each other ( a house/population divided cant stand against them) and socially, I dont think it matters much to me, as I dont care what others think one iota. I will bed down with whomever I choose when I choose regardless of anyone's opinion or any threat..and there have been few.

I do feel even if being gay were 'only' a persons sexual intimacy choice, then it is still a choice people are entitled to make for themselves as choosing your sexual partners is a human right and so, inviolate. So I stand on, 'outside of criminal abuse, who I or anyone else chooses to sleep with, is none of anyone's business, period' is kind of irrelevant to that and only serves to feed the circular debate. So to me, it's a 'good' find but I think it will only have the power people choose to give it.


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

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 05:56 AM
reply to post by unb3k44n7

Starred I wish I could have given you more. IMO probably the best post on the


posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 08:16 AM
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Duh the quote was taken from the official request to remove homosexuality from the dsm. Homosexuality was replaced with "sexual orientation disturbance". Then that was eventually removed as well. I think that all had more to do with political pressure than actual medical opinion.
The same thing is happening in the morning after pill debate. In 2007 a study strongly indicated that the drug altered the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg can't implant. Then came obamacare and the ensuing lawsuits. Now all of a sudden, new studies are saying that it doesn't affect the uterus at all. Seems a little too convenient don't ya think?
edit on 15-2-2014 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 08:54 AM
I remember reading an article about pregnant women with high levels of testosterone giving birth to more homosexual children. Both of my Dad's brothers are gay (actually one has passed). My grandmother definitely expresses some of the traits of higher testosterone levels. I think I inherited this from both my Mom's side and my father's side. Really dominant women in our family, a little more hirsute than normal, etc. I have been tested, so I know it is true about myself.

This relates to the subject at hand because I am wondering if testosterone levels in the womb actually affects the expression of these particular genes. Maybe it turns that sequence of genes on in the womb, if that is even possible.

The article I read about the pregnant women also linked testosterone levels with handedness (left), and that is supposed to be an inherited condition as well, so why not homosexuality?

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:05 AM


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.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:09 AM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

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?

There is a growing list of things that turn out to be the result of both genetics and environment

Here's something I think is just so interesting - filed under: Stuff We Didn't Know About The World Yesterday

Breast Milk Varies for Males, Females

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.

So, not that this has anything to do with your OP, but on the other hand - how much of what we really are and how we work is as of yet undiscovered?

The endocrine system is a complex and fascinating thing. I have to wonder how much a little more or less of this or that - whether earlier or later - goes in to making us who and what we are
edit on 2/15/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:17 AM
reply to post by Bone75

Then that was eventually removed as well. I think that all had more to do with political pressure than actual medical opinion.

Oh I see. Actual medical knowledge has ceased since they removed it as a psychiatric disorder. It was legitimate when it supported your position but now that it doesn't it's all political pressure.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by TheLotLizard

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.

I appears that there are all sorts of genetic defects - if it actually boils down to society having a say in what's considered a defect or not

I'd just as soon have them 'fix' the gene that makes people intolerant, ignorant and bigoted and let the live and let live genes carry on into future generations...

I'm not a geneticist, so, sadly - I suspect my particular vision of utopia probably isn't possible. Not by tweaking genes anyhow

However - through the miracle of both nature and nurture, I can envision a time when certain elements are weeded out...

Here's to the future

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:31 AM



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.

a female wrasse will turn actually male and take over the harem if the real male dies
seaguls turn gay when over populated...
a blind dog will hump yer leg....

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 09:50 AM
reply to post by ketsuko

I think nature rules. If it exists, there's a reason why it does - nature isn't dizzy. Society can decide to agree or disagree with that of course, but science is all about understanding nature - not justifying the choices and preferences of society

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.

This is just science doing what science does

I think what we should be wishing for (if wishing is what this is all about) is for people to accept other people the way they are regardless of why they are the way they are. If it turns out that science can't prove it's not a choice - what's the difference?

That seems unlikely now in any case - but I think that's the more important question. If it is a choice? So what?

It then only becomes an issue if it's a sin :-)

You suggest the gay community might find itself in a tough spot with all this research- but I think that's a rather telling statement. I guess what I'm getting at is, when you say careful what you wish for, what are you actually saying?

There are ramifications?

I guess you could just as easily say other parts of society are in a tough spot if it turns out science can prove we are born the way we're born - but only if you think that that's important to a cause instead of just being the way things are

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

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in