Gays, medically born Gay? Gays superior to Strieghts?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Ghost147
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Im not accusing there to be a "gay gene". However, that doesnt rule out being born gay, as we've already found the research towards that fact.

It's NOT a "fact", it's theory until a GENE is found.

There isn't one, the entire human genome has been mapped.

In order to be born this or that, there needs to be a GENE.

Does this make sense to you?

What makes you think its only "one" gene? Hardly anything is determined by one gene. A grouping a genes promoting variance on a scale is more like it. A lot of gays "look" gay among a host of other gay attributes, probably not one gene.

reply to post by Veritas Lux Mea


I find it interesting that you assume nature works in ways that completely fit with your theories, where do you get these notions about nature anyway? That’s a lot of “ifs” in your post, way too many for your population fears to be founded on anything but you trying to come up with a half-cocked argument against homosexuality.

With more gays than straights, the population would dramatically decrease until we eventually died out.

Why? Gay people can have sex with the opposite sex, most just don’t wish to. If they had to to reproduce for the sake of humanity they could.

Nature WOULD NOT design itself to produce gays. It does NOT create people to become gay. It has never happened and never will.

And you get this notion from where exactly?

Lucid Lunacy:

The exact same methods used today when homosexual couples want to make kids

It's called technology. We have it now, we will have it then.

Great idea honey, but as I said in my first post --

Originally posted by Veritas Lux Mea
There is no technology which would enable gays to have children OTHER than by having sex with an opposite sex person, so we must revert back to NATURAL pro-creation.

Technology is not a factor in nature..

- Mea

I also know hormones have nothing to do with it because males are also being exposed to xenoestrogens in the environment (which is a hormone that mimicks female estrogen) that causes them to have man boobs and these men dont seem to be gay just have boobs.

reply to post by Veritas Lux Mea


Maybe you've heard of this; In Vitro Fertilization.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Why? Gay people can have sex with the opposite sex, most just don’t wish to. If they had to to reproduce for the sake of humanity they could.

Procreation has a lot to do with will, desire and intent.

Sex is not just a physical act (since I had to break the news to you..it actually has very little to do with the physical), and simply because a man does his 'deed' in a woman DOES NOT mean she'll become pregnant. If she doesn't want it to begin with (in ANY way -- be it conscious or unconscious), chances are -- it won't happen.

If you were utterly repulsed by sleeping with a man, do you think you'd be relaxed enough to direct your will and desire to procreate with him while in the act? Unlikely..

Or are you another that assumes science and technology are 'gods'?

- Mea

But nature would provide the way, because it is not static and has many resources at her finger tips. I really believe that nature has more wisdom in her little pinky than all our mad scientists combine.

reply to post by Veritas Lux Mea


If you were utterly repulsed by sleeping with a man, do you think you'd be relaxed enough to direct your will and desire to procreate with him while in the act? Unlikely..

I've met plenty of gay people who have had children naturally. They got drunk and slept with a friend of the opposite sex or they repressed their sexuality until later in life and now they already have children from a marriage. You speak of it like it is virtually impossible when it has happened many, many times. I think if the earth needed to be repopulated gays could easily do as is needed. Also you ignored the rest of my post, still curious about all those things you assume about nature.


[edit on 6-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

About the genetic vs. non genetic, as far as my research, I've read so many things that say genetics do play a role. Just on statistics, its something like if you have an identical twin that is gay, you have a 30% chance of being gay also. And this is with twins who have been seperated at birth as well. The whole idea that genetics doesnt play some role is a complete joke in my scientific view.

Brings an interesting conundrum for you orthodox Christians, why would God create a person who before he/she was even born, was destined to go to hell. Hmm, maybe because its full of crap.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by ghaleon12]

Originally posted by Dock6
.
95% of all men are gay anyway

Some are born that way, some choose to be, some dally with it, some are coerced, some are forced

Why bother with Divide and Conquer tactics such as pretending to ask if 'gays are superior'.

As 95% of men are potentially gay in any case, it's a non-question

any back up to support your theory? and by superior i meen that because of my new understanding of the brain, they would have both female and male structures in the brain.

There are no male or female brain structures. The proportions can be different but that is it. Its basically common knowledge now, but males generally have bigger brains (bigger everything really) but the connection between the two spheres via the corpus callosum is smaller than in females. There might be a greater flexibility in thought for gay people, but who knows if that's due to brain structure or the self-examination one goes through growing up.

All right, let us say that the straight race of people were dieing out due to some catastrophe event and needed help by homosexuals to reproduce. All we need is “one” fertile gay male and “one” fertile female straight or gay it really doesn’t matter and they just need to have sex long enough for the woman to get pregnant, hopefully she will have a boy and a girl and “presto”! The straight population will be back in business of reproducing and we can get back to be gay again LOL
You see, if Adam and Eve did it, then only one male and one female is needed.

reply to post by ghaleon12


sorry, i didnt really mean structures, but differences none-the-less.

Originally posted by Ghost147
reply to post by ghaleon12

 

sorry, i didnt really mean structures, but differences none-the-less.

I got what you were saying Ghost147. Sometimes while trying to explain the way things work we use phrases that aren't scientifically accurate, however I think everyone understood what you really meant.

This thread has been a real hit, just wanted to say to you it was a great concept.

thanks! lol, i seem to have a nak for that (2 of the most replied topics all time in this catagory in 2 days each, mwahahahahaha.[oh wait i think this one still needs another 30 posts or something, give it 3 hours or so])

I tend to think about some random things quite deeply, when i ask a question, everyone seems to have an opinion on each one of the little bits ive posted in the original post.

there will be quite a few more like this, hopefully with the same attention, because i want answers!

Originally posted by cashlink
All right, let us say that the straight race of people were dieing out due to some catastrophe event and needed help by homosexuals to reproduce. All we need is “one” fertile gay male and “one” fertile female straight or gay it really doesn’t matter and they just need to have sex long enough for the woman to get pregnant, hopefully she will have a boy and a girl and “presto”! The straight population will be back in business of reproducing and we can get back to be gay again LOL
You see, if Adam and Eve did it, then only one male and one female is needed.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic! This would lead to serious birth defects. There's a genetic reason you're not allowed to mate with close family members, it produces severe genetic defects.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Lol Yes I was being sarcastic just to show how ridicules about how Adam & Eve populated the earth. Now let me get back on topic here, I also believe homosexuality has been in every major family across the globe, if people check their family tree they will find a member that was or is gay in the family. So what is your opinion on this information?

reply to post by cashlink


Hey, every family has it's pink sheep! LOL! Like I stated before, I think both nature and nurture have their place. Look at the variety of individuals we have in our community. Just seems that there would also be a variety in causes for it. You've got lesbians who look like men and 'lipstick' lesbians and some that are in between. You've got butch manly gay men and queens that are so effeminate (looking and/or acting) the only thing some of them are missing is a rack (I know more than a couple of drag queens who fit that bill!) You've got gay men who tried the straight life and gay men who haven't had (expletive that can refer to female genitalia or a cat) since (same expletive) had them. Diversity in the community and diversity in the cause. Some nature, some nurture, some both!

reply to post by Veritas Lux Mea


I have a hypothetical scenario for you:

A few super volcanoes have erupted causing a massive decline in the human population. Only 144,000 people manage to survive this utterly horrible calamity. Every person decides to live in the holy land, New Zealand. It's time to rebuild society.

15 thousand people are homosexual. The rest are heterosexual.

The volcanic eruptions caused a drastic change in the Earth's magnetic field, subsequently changing everyones reproductive organs in an x-men kind of way. As a result, women can only impregnate with same sex. The actual process, although hot, is inappropriate for the thread, so I will leave that to your imagination. Point is, almost every human has died. Mankind is rebuilding society, and they need to repopulate. They have to.

So... would you have sex with a women for this cause? Would other straight women?

Originally posted by Veritas Lux Mea
My original point WAS: If gays are actually born gay, then nature would have an automated 'system of percentage' that would determine WHO was born gay and WHO was not. It would also automatically be set as to HOW MANY gays would be born.


Its a very simple and logical concept..

Not too simple and logical to me. I am a pretty smart dude and I don't follow.

Can you give examples of this 'automated system of percentage' with other real world examples so I can understand what you are talking about?