burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
2-3% is fairly significant if you take out potential related births.....Onward, if it has no impact why is it unnatural? What you
If you think homosexuality is an unnatural condition...
- Thread starter VILEPLUME
- Start date
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
I believe that Heis pointed out that many homosexual men and women have both the desire and ability to reproduce, either through heterosexual sex, artificial insemination through surrogates, or many adopt children heterosexuals discard (the last probably not relative here). So, this argument doesn't fly, either...
P.S. Your space bar is still wonky in each post, words run together even with the text that isn't c&p. Why is that?
FilthyFletch
Mr I Can Do That For Half
Beefbisquick.. I assume your not much into science as what you replied to my comment is nothing more then opinion. It has been in fact shown that in the genetic mapping looking at those who are homosexuals their are RNA differences and Chromosome sub structure that are not the norm. Normal being the understood majority within a defined group ie in humans the norm is that gentic hetero women and general heterol men attract and reproduce to continue the species. Now the homosexual beings which are not the norm or normal sexuality for our species are the abnormally. So for you to deny so many scientific studies and genetic mutation Gnome mapping is laughable.
You then ask a question which in reality makes no sense as you ask about one definition while trying to insinuate the world has a single meaning.Everything more or less happens in nature as in if your using it to define environment which your asking but your impliment is in regards to a populous question as in human nature or ie tendencies which then is completely different. Yes in the "Environment of Nature which is Earth" homosexuality happens. Now has for it being a tendency of human nature its is not normal or the percentage of homosexuals would have to be much higher which it is not.
Now I could ask just as ridiculous question then such a " Well if it is natural and meant to be then why can't 2 males or 2 female humans reproduce to further their geneitc traits to the world?" That's also part of the natural selection process. Animals, mammals, and fish lineage will allow the most important traits dictate the species further existence. Since the homosexual life is no condusive to the speices survival it has not been given the option to work anyway but as it was originally intended to. If people are gay and that's how they are happy that's fine, but a few things just do not change basic scientific facts your chromosomes determine your sex so he's will always be he's and shes will always be she's. It gets pretty deep with the basics of defining the epi marks or "switches" that activate or deactivate traits which if your familiar with epigentics it makes quick sense.
A quick way to say it is kind of like if a mother has this trait and when she is pregnent the epimark traits that regulate the genetic production of say testosterone which she had blocked as a female fetus when she was born flip the epimarks in her new forming male fetus resulting in low levels which now are being ignored by this male child then basically the new embrayo is told to not worry about testosterone needs or production which all the estrogen to be dominant activating female trait tendencies. And then it is the opposite in homosexual women. So the idea that sexuality is not genetically influenced is just false and non proven while this branch of logic has data proven it.
You then ask a question which in reality makes no sense as you ask about one definition while trying to insinuate the world has a single meaning.Everything more or less happens in nature as in if your using it to define environment which your asking but your impliment is in regards to a populous question as in human nature or ie tendencies which then is completely different. Yes in the "Environment of Nature which is Earth" homosexuality happens. Now has for it being a tendency of human nature its is not normal or the percentage of homosexuals would have to be much higher which it is not.
Now I could ask just as ridiculous question then such a " Well if it is natural and meant to be then why can't 2 males or 2 female humans reproduce to further their geneitc traits to the world?" That's also part of the natural selection process. Animals, mammals, and fish lineage will allow the most important traits dictate the species further existence. Since the homosexual life is no condusive to the speices survival it has not been given the option to work anyway but as it was originally intended to. If people are gay and that's how they are happy that's fine, but a few things just do not change basic scientific facts your chromosomes determine your sex so he's will always be he's and shes will always be she's. It gets pretty deep with the basics of defining the epi marks or "switches" that activate or deactivate traits which if your familiar with epigentics it makes quick sense.
A quick way to say it is kind of like if a mother has this trait and when she is pregnent the epimark traits that regulate the genetic production of say testosterone which she had blocked as a female fetus when she was born flip the epimarks in her new forming male fetus resulting in low levels which now are being ignored by this male child then basically the new embrayo is told to not worry about testosterone needs or production which all the estrogen to be dominant activating female trait tendencies. And then it is the opposite in homosexual women. So the idea that sexuality is not genetically influenced is just false and non proven while this branch of logic has data proven it.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
First of all, most of that didn't make sense to me, but I'll respond to the parts that did.
I never made the claim that DNA didn't affect homosexuality. I rejected the statement that G.I.A. made that it's only caused by a genetic defect. You are arguing against something I never said, and in fact if you read this thread in it's entirety I posted links to several scientific studies, that indeed mention epi-marks as one of the causes. If you actually read before commenting, you'd also see that many other factors also influence homosexuality. All of which have strong supporting evidence gathered from scientific studies.
I don't need a lesson in basic evolutionary principles either. I've already posted links to studies that show evolutionary benefits to homosexuality, so your statement about homosexuality not being conducive to mammalian and fish species survivability, is pretty short sighted. For example having a homosexual child can dramatically affect the sex of your next child. It could be argued that without homosexuality there would either be too many women or not enough, we don't know, but that doesn't sound very good for the sustainability of the species, does it?
INCOMING KNOWLEDGE BOMB!
A well-known theorist suggests that biology influences childrens temperaments and their preferences for sex-atypical activities and peers, leading them to feel different others of their sex. They later become attracted to what they are different from.
[Exotic becomes erotic theory] proposes that biological variables, such as genes, prenatal hormones, and brain neuroanatomy, do not code for sexual orientation per se but for childhood temperaments that influence a childs preferences for sex-typical or sex-atypical activities and peers. These preferences lead children to feel different from opposite- or same-sex peersto perceive them as dissimilar, unfamiliar, and exotic. This in turn produced heightened nonspecific autonomic arousal that subsequently gets eroticized to that same class of dissimilar peers: Exotic becomes erotic.
Bem, Daryl J., PhD. (1996) Exotic Becomes Erotic: A Developmental Theory of Sexual Orientation. Psychological Review. Vol. 103. No. 2, 320-335.
Commentary from scientific literature shows that evidence is lacking for a simple genetic or biological explanation of homosexuality. Evidence does not support the hypothesis of a gay gene.
Its important to stress what I didnt find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didnt show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.
LeVay, Simon, PhD. (March 1994). Sexual Brain. Discover.
There is no one gay gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so its not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression.
Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation.
Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual.
Mustanski, Brian S., PhD. (Jan. 27, 2005). University of Illinois news release on A Genomewide Scan of Male Sexual Orientation. Human Genetics, vol. 116.
While some authors have speculated about the existence of genes for homosexuality, genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behavior or cognitive schema. Instead, genes direct a particular pattern of RNA synthesis which in turn specifies the production of a particular protein.
There are necessarily many intervening pathways between a gene and a specific behavior and even more intervening variables between a gene and a pattern that involves both thinking and behaving.
The term homosexual gene is, therefore, without meaning, unless one proposes that a particular gene, perhaps through a hormonal mechanism, organizes the brain specifically to support a homosexual orientation.
Byne, William, MD, PhD. (1995). Science and Belief: Psychobiological Research on Sexual Orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 28.
It is possible that hormones could affect sexuality through their impact on gender-typical traits. Some recent findings suggest this could be true in women.
Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, for example, are exposed to high levels of adrenal androgens [hormones] prenatally. Some research indicates that postnatally they show greater aggression, enhanced (i.e. masculine) visuospatial abilities, more masculine occupational preferences, and an increased rate of bisexual or homosexual sexual orientation in fantasy and/or behavior.
Alexander, Gerianne M. (2003). An Evolutionary Perspective of Sex-Typed Toy Preferences: Pink, Blue, and the Brain. Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 32, No 1.
But it would be inaccurate to believe that hormones have any direct link to adult sexual interests or orientation.
Studies of men and women who experienced prenatal defects in hormone metabolism have not found a concurrent increase in homosexual behavior.
Overall, the data do not support a causal connection between hormones and human sexual orientation.
Banks, Amy, MD, and Gartrell, Nanette K., MD. (1995). Hormones and Sexual Orientation: A Questionable Link. Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 28 (3-4).
The dominant paradigm that generates support for biological theories of sexual orientation has profound conceptual flaws
The current consensus opinion is that no causal relationship exists between adult hormonal status and sexual orientation.
Currently, the major impetus for speculation and research concerning an endocrinological basis for sexual orientation derives from animal studies Such studies have established the prenatal hormonal hypothesis for sexual differentiation of the rodent brain
The problems inherent in using studies of mating behaviors in rodents to formulate a theory of sexual orientation in humans are immense
Thus, the prenatal hormonal hypothesis as derived from animal studies cannot account for exclusively homosexual behavior in men with normal male genitalia.
Byne, William, MD, PhD. (1995). Science and Belief: Psychobiological Research on Sexual Orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 28 (2).
Birth order has been investigated as a possible factor influencing homosexuality but without conclusive results.
The number of biological older brothers, including those not reared with the participant (but not the number of nonbiological older brothers), increases the probability of homosexuality in men. These results provide evidence that a prenatal mechanism, and not social and/or rearing factors, affects mens sexual orientation development
If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect, then the number of nonbiological older brothers should predict mens sexual orientation, but they do not If rearing or social factors underlie the fraternal birth-order effect, the number of biological older brothers with who they were not reared should not predict mens sexual orientation because they should have no impact on the sociosexual environment of their younger brothers. Yet, these brothers do predict mens sexual orientation just as the number of biological older brothers with whom they were reared.
These results support a prenatal [before birth] origin to sexual orientation development in men and indicate that the fraternal birth-order effect is probably the result of a maternal memory for male gestations or births.
Bogaert, Anthony, PhD. (July 11, 2006). Biological Versus Nonbiological Older Brothers and Mens Sexual Orientation. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103.
In diverse samples and independent replications, homosexual men are found to have a greater number of older brothers than heterosexual men [This] certainly does not provide a universal hypothesis for the origins of homosexuality since the majority of homosexual men do have this history and do not fit in this model.
The hypothesis advanced in the above studies is that the late birth order, with more male siblings born earlier, could lead to a progressive immune response of the mother to androgens and/or Y-linked [male specific] antigens which, by maternal transfer of these immune antibodies to the fetus, could impair brain masculinization of the fetus. However, why this mechanism would selectively impair only certain androgen-dependent processes, such as the brain programming, and not other, like formation of the genitalia, is not explained by this hypothesis, and not even addressed by the proponents. Nor does this theory explain why the majority of boys late in birth order do not become homosexual, even if the elder brother is homosexual
The biological explanation advanced for the fraternal birth order hypothesis lacks any experimental support.
Gooren, Louis, PhD, MD. (Nov. 2006). The Biology of Human Psychosexual Differentiation. Hormones and Behavior, 2006.
Research on brain structure suggests a possible link between homosexuality and less masculinized brains.
But the research does not demonstrate that the less masculine brain structure itself is the direct cause of the homosexual orientation. It is, however, conceivable that a male with a less masculinized brain might develop gender-atypical traits, leading to gender incongruity. This might be especially true if those around him accentuate his differences.
A growing body of empirical literature suggests that the brains of gay males are less masculinized than those of heterosexual males, reflected in visual-spatial task performance a measure of cerebral masculinization and one in which heterosexual males usually surpass females.
Several studies report that the cognitive performance of gay males is more typical of heterosexual females than heterosexual males.
Furthermore, the brain waves of gay males while performing verbal and spatial tasks are more similar to heterosexual females than males or significantly different from both.
Cohen, Kenneth M., PhD. (2002). Relationships Among Childhood Sex-Atypical Behavior, Spatial Ability, Handedness, and Sexual Orientation in Men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 31, No. 1.
From the APA:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
thecoolman
New Member
Yes gay adoption should be universally illegal.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Well, we are fortunate as a society to have law makers that seem much wiser and more informed than yourself. I know two gay couples that have children, and they are much better parents than most heterosexual couples I've seen...
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Sick and immoral according to who? You? So what? Why should they, or the rest of us, care what you think? Everyone deserves a chance to pursue happiness, that's in our Declaration of Independence. They are teaching their children to be effective, happy moral individuals. There's nothing immoral about two people in a committed relationship showing affection for one another, regardless of the icky feelings it may give you. It's not about you, it's about them. Ignorance and bigotry has a long history in this country, luckily that zeitgeist is evolving toward enlightenment and away from the fear-based, neanderthal thinking of the dark/bronze ages. Come, please join the rest of us in the 21st century...
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
There's nothing immoral about two consenting adults, who cherish and love one another.
There's no utilitarian argument against it (having responsible, gay parents/guardians far outweighs having no parents), and the deontological argument is so weak and religious based, it's basically non-existent.
[video=youtube_share;eb-JZSyhWSc]http://youtu.be/eb-JZSyhWSc[/video]
Greatest I am
Active Member
It is not statisticallysignificant as the numbers have remained in those lower realms forever.
Who said it was unnatural?
DNA being damaged is a common and naturalphenomenon. The fact that it produces gayness does not change the naturalnessof gayness nor the process.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Active Member
The space bar thing cannot befixed. Ignore it.
It is the age of the system here.
As to your other comments. Withoutmodern techniques and attitudes, none of that would be possible so I ignore itout of hand.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Active Member
+ 1 Regards DL
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
How is the DNA damaged? How have you figured out what scientists haven't?
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
how is adoption, or having hetero sex to have a child in any way modern . . .only two ways are modern and that's artificial and implanted eggs/surrogate eggs
i find your reasoning contrived and self serving . . . .but to be honest most of what you say makes little to no logical sense based on what is currently known and accepted theories on genetics and genetics expression, as well as genetic traits and their implications on society
thecoolman
New Member
No its not just me its millions and millions of Americans who think it. Secondly I never said gays cant be in a relationship so don't twist it. They can do what ever they want except adopt kids in many states because like me millions of Americans don't believe they should be raising kids do to there sick and twisted behavior. Having a opinion on someones immoral behavior or protecting kids is not bigotry. Your ignorance and denial is pathetic .
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Millions of Americans believe all sorts of erroneous things, that's the bigotry and ignorance I was referring to in my last post. Millions of Americans also thought owning slaves was okay, that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, that blacks should be segregated, etc.. Most don't this century, that's why I referred to the peoples' thought as becoming more enlightened. You don't believe they should be raising kids, that is based on your erroneous thought process, bigotry or fear of what you don't understand, it is certainly not based in science -
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/05/gay-couples-children-happier_n_3388498.html
http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html
If you, and the millions of other Americans, want to remain ignorant of the facts, that's too bad, but it doesn't make you correct. If you have empirical evidence that homosexuals make bad parents, or shouldn't raise children, from a credible source (not from outdated or religious reasons, but scientific ones) please present your links. Otherwise, please educate yourself and perhaps free yourself from your ignorance and/or bigotry...
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
You sound repressed there's alot of projection in your post..
thecoolman
New Member
Actually its your erroneous thought process that's flawed. We hear the same line of bs from the queers and
transvestites in San Fransisco who are allowed to parade naked through the streets in front of school kids. Its
disturbing that someones upbringing so distorted there mind that they can claim morality is bigotry.
When you grow up maybe you will realize people can disagree with you and not be a bigot. Perhaps you
should recognize that you have a low level of morality and seek some counseling as it likely may stem from early childhood.
transvestites in San Fransisco who are allowed to parade naked through the streets in front of school kids. Its
disturbing that someones upbringing so distorted there mind that they can claim morality is bigotry.
When you grow up maybe you will realize people can disagree with you and not be a bigot. Perhaps you
should recognize that you have a low level of morality and seek some counseling as it likely may stem from early childhood.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Naked transvestites? How does that work?
You do seem to have a lot of repressed anger there.
Can't be healthy for you
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
And there's the projection again