Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Study seeks DNA clues on homosexuality

I think anything is possible. Hell, every aspect of our being is affected by genetics. How many gene codes are there something like 3 billion?

Invalid Link Removed
 
I think it is BS, but what do I know?

If it is true then it is a flawed gene, maybe a gene saying you should no pro-create???? Kind of goes hand in hand with Survival of the Fittest.

There is nothing wrong with someone being gay, but it goes against Natural Law.
 
xjsynx said:
I think it is BS, but what do I know?

If it is true then it is a flawed gene, maybe a gene saying you should no pro-create???? Kind of goes hand in hand with Survival of the Fittest.

There is nothing wrong with someone being gay, but it goes against Natural Law.
Click to expand...

Gay rights very much rely on the assumption that homosexuality is genetic. That is, you, society, and the individual have no (or at least not much) control over it.

From an evolutionary point of view, homosexuality is very useful when the size of the population becomes large. It basically limits how fast the population grows.

In any case, homosexuality is great because:
1) Girl on girl
2) Girl on girl
3) Girl on girl
 
bioman said:
"..but it goes against Natural Law."



And what, pray tell, would that be?
Click to expand...

Natural law states that only genes with a survival advantage get conveyed to the next generation of a species. Clearly a homosexual gene, if it exists in such simplistic form, would not be a dominant trait. There is no survival advantage, just the opposite. By virtue of it's character, there is no reproduction at all that takes place with homosexuals so the gene would limit it's own existence.

I do agree however that two hot chicks on each other is reasonable natural :) We all come from breast feeding, boys and girls alike start at momma breast, so it stands to reason. Women are entitled to have a healthy lesbian curiosity. ;)

I tell you what is really doing it these days, all the estrogens in the environment and a latent social agenda to encourage it. Homosexuality has always been at the bottom of the curve to some self-limited degree, but genes will not explain the recent surge of this behavior.
 
DR.D said:
Natural law states that only genes with a survival advantage get conveyed to the next generation of a species. Clearly a homosexual gene, if it exists in such simplistic form, would not be a dominant trait. There is no survival advantage, just the opposite. By virtue of it's character, there is no reproduction at all that takes place with homosexuals so the gene would limit it's own existence.

I do agree however that two hot chicks on each other is reasonable natural :) We all come from breast feeding, boys and girls alike start at momma breast, so it stands to reason. Women are entitled to have a healthy lesbian curiosity. ;)

I tell you what is really doing it these days, all the estrogens in the environment and a latent social agenda to encourage it. Homosexuality has always been at the bottom of the curve to some self-limited degree, but genes will not explain the recent surge of this behavior.
Click to expand...

You indict homosexual as if it is some negative pathology developed through a lack of moral regulation; you're like the homophobic Durkheim.

Homosexuality, despite what a conservative imperative may wish you to perceive, has been around since humans stopped engaging in sexual activity strictly on a procreation precedent. "Natural Law", as it were, has little to do with the contemporary interplay of the complex set of social relations we have so deemed 'society'. Viewing a set of relations so nuanced and intricate as developed society in terms of 'natural laws' is, aptly put, I suppose, primitive and archaic.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
You indict homosexual as if it is some negative pathology developed through a lack of moral regulation; you're like the homophobic Durkheim.

Homosexuality, despite what a conservative imperative may wish you to perceive, has been around since humans stopped engaging in sexual activity strictly on a procreation precedent. "Natural Law", as it were, has little to do with the contemporary interplay of the complex set of social relations we have so deemed 'society'. Viewing a set of relations so nuanced and intricate as developed society in terms of 'natural laws' is, aptly put, I suppose, primitive and archaic.
Click to expand...

My friend you do have a point.

Whether those of you out there like it or not, both males and females of every species (yes including humans) have some degree of "homosexual" tendancies. This does not mean that everyone is homosexual, or would kiss another of the opposite sex etc... but this does mean that to some degree every one of us has the ability to rank another of the same sex on attractivenes.

If we did not have any of this homosexual gene or whatnot, we would be unable to determine whether another of the same sex is attractive or not. I.e you couldnt tell whether G. Bush was more or less attractive than some CK model ...

Finally I would like to say that I do belive that homosexuality is linked to genes, or has a basic genetic starting point (as menioned above). I mean look at how we develop, we all start off as females, then depending on certain factors (i wont go into here as this isnt biology class) we either remain female or develop into male characteristics. Now would it, or would it not be possible that at some point, some gene is not properly converted into the correct "sex" and so still functions as if one was female (i.e male attracted to female).

The same can be said for females, whereby the clitoris is infact....a small penis.

There are many articles and studies on this, and yes Dr.D is correct enviroment certainly plays a role, but it CANNOT make you turn "homosexual" or homosexual to "straight" as has been proved....obviously.
 
"Homosexuality has always been at the bottom of the curve to some self-limited degree, but genes will not explain the recent surge of this behavior."

By most estimates, homosexuals have always comprised about 10-13% of the population..the Greeks wrote of it, the Romans, the Shogunate, ancient India et cetera.

I highly doubt there is a surge in "this behavior", rather it's no longer an automatic death sentence for those who engage in it so you're more prone to see it.
 
bioman said:
"Homosexuality has always been at the bottom of the curve to some self-limited degree, but genes will not explain the recent surge of this behavior."

By most estimates, homosexuals have always comprised about 10-13% of the population..the Greeks wrote of it, the Romans, the Shogunate, ancient India et cetera.

I highly doubt there is a surge in "this behavior", rather it's no longer an automatic death sentence for those who engage in it so you're more prone to see it.
Click to expand...

Very True. Society is now more "allowing" of it. For example:

Homosexual lover to the Roman emperor

Hadrian Archeologists have discovered ruins of a temple near Rome that is dedicated to the youthful slave historians believe was a homosexual lover to the Roman emperor Hadrian.

The temple to Antinous, noted for his beauty, athleticism and hunting ability, dates to 134 A.D., four years after he died at the age of 21.

The temple was discovered during excavations on Hadrian's villa, about 20 miles east of Rome. Archeologists reportedly found planters and fountains for interior gardens and marble fragments with hieroglyphics.

Scholars are uncertain whether Antinous committed suicide by jumping into the Nile river or was pushed by the emperor's jealous aides. The discovery of this temple may provide the answer, according to lead archeologist Zaccaria Mari.

According to historians, Hadrian was so distraught over Antinous' death that he declared the former slave a god and named a city in Egypt -- Antinopolis -- after him.

Hadrian (76-138 A.D.) is considered one of the greatest Roman emperors.

:type:
 
bioman said:
"Homosexuality has always been at the bottom of the curve to some self-limited degree, but genes will not explain the recent surge of this behavior."

By most estimates, homosexuals have always comprised about 10-13% of the population..the Greeks wrote of it, the Romans, the Shogunate, ancient India et cetera.

I highly doubt there is a surge in "this behavior", rather it's no longer an automatic death sentence for those who engage in it so you're more prone to see it.
Click to expand...

Let's also not forget that back in the day a lot of gay men probably did not express their homosexuality but rather lived in solitude. What else would you do if your only choice was to marry the sex that you weren't attracted to?
 
Exactly. As I said, from the very onset of our transition from strictly nomadic and fragmented tribes to agrarian and simple commodity producing 'societies' [in quotations, as the earliest civilizations lacked infrastructural necessities to be deemed a society], we have progressively divorced our conduct from 'Natural Law'.

Property ownership, inheritance, governmental structures, education, medicine, all by this 'Natural Law' definition, deviate from the inherent instinctual behaviour of humans. The point I am trying to illustrate, is our conduct is no longer dictated in a linear-causal relationship by 'Natural Law'. It has not been since the collective capacities of humanity was great enough to rise above naturally imposed barriers on a consistence basis; thereby rendering judging conduct based on 'natural' behaviour utterly de-nuanced, so to speak. Furthermore, collective moral regulations have influenced heterogeneous mate selection to a degree where 'naturality' exists only on the most basic of biological levels. This point is perfectly illustrated by consistently changing conceptualizations of beauty, and what constitutes a good mate. If I, and every other male in this thread, chose mates based on natural factors, we would not consider 'beauty' and 'consciousness' as determinant factors; quite simply, those females deemed to present the highest possibility of reproduction would be chosen.
 
If I remember rightly Socrates (roman philosopher) was homosexual.....

I think this thread is going to continue for many eons to come...

So who opened up this can of worms then?!!!!
 
DR.D said:
Natural law states that only genes with a survival advantage get conveyed to the next generation of a species. Clearly a homosexual gene, if it exists in such simplistic form, would not be a dominant trait. There is no survival advantage, just the opposite. By virtue of it's character, there is no reproduction at all that takes place with homosexuals so the gene would limit it's own existence.
Click to expand...

Which would make sense if it were a one or the other proposition. It isn't. And your natural law would then have to explain the continuing presence of homosexual behavior in a myriad of species, not just humans.
 
CDB said:
Which would make sense if it were a one or the other proposition. It isn't. And your natural law would then have to explain the continuing presence of homosexual behavior in a myriad of species, not just humans.
Click to expand...

Like I said, aberrant characteristics flare out at the baseline of all human curves, be it measuring sexual preference, intellect, height, weight, etc.. but the "normal" and optimal state is found past the asymptote. It's not a knock on homos of any species, it's seen in all natural sigmoids and that just is what it is.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
You indict homosexual as if it is some negative pathology developed through a lack of moral regulation; you're like the homophobic Durkheim.

Homosexuality, despite what a conservative imperative may wish you to perceive, has been around since humans stopped engaging in sexual activity strictly on a procreation precedent. "Natural Law", as it were, has little to do with the contemporary interplay of the complex set of social relations we have so deemed 'society'. Viewing a set of relations so nuanced and intricate as developed society in terms of 'natural laws' is, aptly put, I suppose, primitive and archaic.
Click to expand...

Hold on Mullet, where did I state anything homophobic in my comments? I have not indicted any man, nor did I make any moral argument for or against anything. I have stated a fact that expresses a mathematical phenomena, nothing more. If you find love in another man's hairy ass, that is none of my beez-wax. I would never deny you your sexuality, it's just your preference I don't understand. Obviously, there is some negative and erroneous pathology involved if you desire that, let's be honest! You were not designed to receive that. But that was not my point at all and I didn't even go into that, so put your claws up pussy cat. :)
 
DR.D said:
But that was not my point at all and I didn't even go into that, so put your claws up pussy cat. :)
Click to expand...

Talking of cats....i had to buy a new litter box today. Im fed up of sitting here talking to you guys when one of my cats comes along a dumps some toxic spill in the littler box.

Its like some military experiment for a new bilogical stink weapon.

So i bought one with a roof on it today and a flap for the door....and...of course they have NO IDEA where to go for a crap so they keep trying to go on the roof of the box... bah! Loose loose situation.

Sorry, had to rant about that.:rant: Carry on.
 
Last edited:
I'll go ahead and translate this for others.

DR.D said:
Like I said, aberrant characteristics flare out at the baseline of all human curves, be it measuring sexual preference, intellect, height, weight, etc..
Click to expand...

Translation: If you make a nice little bell curve showing height vs population of people at this height, the really tall and really short people will be at the ends of this bell curve. Genius.


Dr.D said:
but the "normal" and optimal state is found past the asymptote.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to explain where this asymptote is, because right now what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Do you perhaps mean "within 1 standard deviation"?

Dr.D said:
It's not a knock on homos of any species, it's seen in all natural sigmoids and that just is what it is.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that homosexuals aren't offended by your brilliant observation that they're in the minority of the population.

Also, "Natural Law" is a philosophical stance and what you really wanted to say originally is "Natural Selection."

Natural Law is what the Vatican uses to say that homosexuality is bad, mmkay? Natural Selection is what someone with a misunderstanding of evolution uses to say that homosexuality is bad.
 
Polynomial said:
... You're going to have to explain where this asymptote is, because right now what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Do you perhaps mean "within 1 standard deviation"?

... Also, "Natural Law" is a philosophical stance and what you really wanted to say originally is "Natural Selection."

Natural Law is what the Vatican uses to say that homosexuality is bad, mmkay? Natural Selection is what someone with a misunderstanding of evolution uses to say that homosexuality is bad.
Click to expand...

Yes, generally considered to comprise about 66% right?

As for the terminology as it applies to religion and philosophy, sorry to get it twisted. God forbid I misquote to the delight of the Vatican! I really don't think they have much room to point figures or cast judgment, but that's a whooooole other can of worms there. :)
:wave:
 
bombBoogie said:
Invalid Link Removed

Does anyone believe that genetics plays a role on sexuality of straight,bi,lez,gey?
Click to expand...

Don't know for sure if there is a genetic impact on sexuality, but I do know that children who have older siblings who are male are more likely to be homosexual due to increased androgen exposure in the womb.
 
DR.D said:
Hold on Mullet, where did I state anything homophobic in my comments? I have not indicted any man, nor did I make any moral argument for or against anything. I have stated a fact that expresses a mathematical phenomena, nothing more. If you find love in another man's hairy ass, that is none of my beez-wax. I would never deny you your sexuality, it's just your preference I don't understand. Obviously, there is some negative and erroneous pathology involved if you desire that, let's be honest! You were not designed to receive that. But that was not my point at all and I didn't even go into that, so put your claws up pussy cat. :)
Click to expand...

You stated this:

and a latent social agenda to encourage it. Homosexuality has always been at the bottom of the curve to some self-limited degree, but genes will not explain the recent surge of this behavior.
Click to expand...

and then proceed to claim your comments weren't condescending toward homosexuals. Then, in your response you explicitly express derogatory opinions toward homosexuals. Strange logic.

What you stated, was a misrepresented statistical trait of dominant normative values-not fact. Dominant and less dominant normative values do not suggest moral imperatives, nor 'rightness' or 'wrongness' as you are doing. Simply a strong or weak representation within a sample population.
 
bombBoogie said:
Invalid Link Removed

Does anyone believe that genetics plays a role on sexuality of straight,bi,lez,gey?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty convinced genetics play a role in every aspect of our lives.

In regards to homosexuality being something other than a "behavioral preference" there is homosexuality in all of the animal world. Recently a hormonal treatment was performed on sheep that made homosexual male sheep start mounting females. This suggest that there is definitely a biological aspect in sheep, and most likely in all other animals, exhibiting homosexual behavior.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
I'm pretty convinced genetics play a role in every aspect of our lives.

In regards to homosexuality being something other than a "behavioral preference" there is homosexuality in all of the animal world. Recently a hormonal treatment was performed on sheep that made homosexual male sheep start mounting females. This suggest that there is definitely a biological aspect in sheep, and most likely in all other animals, exhibiting homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...

Not sure if your study was more recent but:

Finding the gene, at the genome level, seems to most often involve simply poking around until an interesting bit of genetic code appears, attempting to figure out what it codes for, and then testing men and women of varying sexual orientations for differences in sequencing. One such failed experiment, done by Macke et al. (1993), demonstrates this. They hypothesized that the gene coding for androgen receptors could cause some variation in sexual orientation. When samples of about 200 gay and presumed heterosexual subjects were tested for sequence variation of the gene, no significant variation was found. Although the gene that Hamer et al. (1993) were testing did show difference in homosexual and heterosexual men (only men were tested), both show the same approach, in which a gene may simply be found by chance.

And finally to summarize...

A large body of evidence is growing that points to sexual orientation being genetically determined, but not necessarily a completely conclusive one. Replication is severly lacking in many areas of research into sexual orientation, the exception being the famiality studies. Consistently returning the same result of 50% of identical twins being concordant for sexual orientation, these are some of the strongest evidence in support of a genetic theory of sexual orientation. These studies also tend to be the easiest type to carry out, as they do not involve any medical technique any more invasive than the standard questionnaire. All do have the same problem of how their sample was gathered, but with such a similarity of results and such a large total sample, that factor becomes less important.
 
Mulletsoldier said:
... What you stated, was a misrepresented statistical trait of dominant normative values-not fact. Dominant and less dominant normative values do not suggest moral imperatives, nor 'rightness' or 'wrongness' as you are doing. Simply a strong or weak representation within a sample population.
Click to expand...

Mullet, we have been friends a long time, no? You know I have no ill will for you at all and my comments were by no means derogatory. There is absolute and universal true and false though, whether we can agree on moral right and wrong, and it's related to position. My position was this: A homosexual act can not result in offspring. Can we agree that is a universally true thesis, at least by "natural" means? Therefore, if homosexuality is a genetic trait (which seems unlikely) it is indeed self-limiting. More likely, it is a genetic predisposition that is triggered by various environmental prompts and conditions.

And as with anything human, let's not forget free will. More than anything, the bottom line is that it is a choice.
 
DR.D said:
Mullet, we have been friends a long time, no? You know I have no ill will for you at all and my comments were by no means derogatory. There is absolute and universal true and false though, whether we can agree on moral right and wrong, and it's related to position. My position was this: A homosexual act can not result in offspring. Can we agree that is a universally true thesis, at least by "natural" means? Therefore, if homosexuality is a genetic trait (which seems unlikely) it is indeed self-limiting. More likely, it is a genetic predisposition that is triggered by various environmental prompts and conditions.

And as with anything human, let's not forget free will. More than anything, the bottom line is that it is a choice.
Click to expand...

I have no ill-feelings toward you D, none at all. I have appreciated your input and concern since I've been on the board.

Just debating.

:)
 
MashedPotato said:
Not sure if your study was more recent but:
Click to expand...

A study of gay sheep appears to confirm the controversial suggestion that there is a biological basis for sexual preference.

The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes.

Kay Larkin and colleagues from Oregon Health and Science University found the difference was in a particular region of the hypothalamus - the preoptic nucleus. The region is generally almost twice as large in rams as in ewes. But in gay rams its size was almost identical to that in "straight" females.

The hypothalamus is known to control sex hormone release and many types of sexual behaviour. Several other parts of the hypothalamus showed consistent sex differences in size, but only this specific region showed differences that correlated with sexual preference.

Invalid Link Removed





Looks like the "hormonal treatments" were incorrect reporting that hit the web a while back from what I'm reading now, but this was the basis of those reports.
 
DR.D said:
And as with anything human, let's not forget free will. More than anything, the bottom line is that it is a choice.
Click to expand...

Sorry doc, just curious here,

do you mean its a choice to be gay (as in the feelings) or do you mean its a choice to engage in an act of homosexuality (i.e male to male relationship)?

And if either, Im curious as to your stand on what would happen if it were reveresed and it was infact that being homosexual was the norm and us being "straight" was the subject under scrutiny.

I.e someone told you that it was your choice to be straight, and to conform to society we could choose not to sleep with a woman but rather a man (as is normal) or be lonely forever (i.e no partner).

Would it then be freedom to choose and would you have a relationship with a male to be "normal"?


Not trying to start any arguments (total respect for airing your opinion doc), your point was very valid. Im just curious of your position on that statement.
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
A study of gay sheep appears to confirm the controversial suggestion that there is a biological basis for sexual preference.

The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes.

Kay Larkin and colleagues from Oregon Health and Science University found the difference was in a particular region of the hypothalamus - the preoptic nucleus. The region is generally almost twice as large in rams as in ewes. But in gay rams its size was almost identical to that in "straight" females.

The hypothalamus is known to control sex hormone release and many types of sexual behaviour. Several other parts of the hypothalamus showed consistent sex differences in size, but only this specific region showed differences that correlated with sexual preference.

Invalid Link Removed





Looks like the "hormonal treatments" were incorrect reporting that hit the web a while back from what I'm reading now, but this was the basis of those reports.
Click to expand...


Thats what I thought. This subject is very complex though and it cant simply be answered in a right or wrong answer, i.e either genetics or enviroment.

Both play a role (i belive) and i think the basis a deep lying cause if genetic.

I grew up with 2 sisters and a mom and yes...i played with barbies with my sisters and other girl games...but that didnt make me "homosexual". The same as I belive that same sex parents cannot make a child "homosexual" neither can a "homosexual" enviroment - one that actively encourages homosexuality.

to elaborate on the barbie thing, and being with females while growing up, that has not made me any less of a "man" that someone who grew up in a "testosterone" enviroment. Hell I love action movies, weightlifing, Im married to a female, I like cars...etc.. all the "man things", but growing up in that enviroment gave me the aspect to understand females better (or so i think haha), so to say its mostly enviroment is complete.....cat crap (god it smells round here)
 
I would agree insofar as both environment (socially and physically) and inherent genetics play a role in a very complex human psychology/physiology.
 
DR.D said:
Therefore, if homosexuality is a genetic trait (which seems unlikely) it is indeed self-limiting. More likely, it is a genetic predisposition that is triggered by various environmental prompts and conditions.
Click to expand...

People with Down's don't mate often, yet there seems to be plenty of them going around. Uninherited genetic disorders and polygenetic diseases are examples of what you want to look into.

Also, you're misleading when you talk about genetic traits vs. genetic predispositions. Some genes (such as for eye color) can be expressed and visible immediately at birth. Others, possibly homosexuality, may need factors (say, puberty) to be expressed. So yes, homosexuality can be a genetic trait with either unavoidable factors that cause expression, or maybe you just have to see a lot of pink and play with Barbie dolls. Who knows. Either way, the individual cannot make the choice: you have to go through puberty, and it's hard to avoid pink.

And as with anything human, let's not forget free will. More than anything, the bottom line is that it is a choice.
Click to expand...

I think that a couple thousand psychologists would like to have a word with you. And by a "word with you" I mean "educate you with the clue-by-four."
 
MashedPotato said:
Sorry doc, just curious here,

do you mean its a choice to be gay (as in the feelings) or do you mean its a choice to engage in an act of homosexuality (i.e male to male relationship)?

And if either, Im curious as to your stand on what would happen if it were reveresed and it was infact that being homosexual was the norm and us being "straight" was the subject under scrutiny.

I.e someone told you that it was your choice to be straight, and to conform to society we could choose not to sleep with a woman but rather a man (as is normal) or be lonely forever (i.e no partner).

Would it then be freedom to choose and would you have a relationship with a male to be "normal"?


Not trying to start any arguments (total respect for airing your opinion doc), your point was very valid. Im just curious of your position on that statement.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is your choice based on a preference. Obviously, there is no true imperative that you must act on your sexual desires one way or another, so if you do you must choose to do so. As K points on, the "seat of feelings" is a major site of preference development and emotional formation. Lots and lots of chemicals are involved, peptides as well and hormones, GABA receptors, the works, so the issue is complex and probably very compounded in most cases. That's why I say this is not a 1 or 2 gene "trait" per say.

And yes, if homosexuality were at the peak of the curve, that would be "normal" by very definition once in met the mathematical criteria (1 std dev as was noted.) If everyone turns gay and we use test tubes to generate offspring, then natural sexual relations will no longer be essential for survival. If that happens, it will in fact be normal, but it will still not be natural. Do you see the difference? Circumcision is another good example of something that is quite prevalent and normal, yet not natural either.
 
Polynomial said:
People with Down's don't mate often, yet there seems to be plenty of them going around. Uninherited genetic disorders and polygenetic diseases are examples of what you want to look into.
Click to expand...

Do you have a clue what causes Down's? Are you honestly comparing the voluntary act of engaging in homosexual behavior, with a true genetic disorder involving an entire chromosome?! If that's true, it's the best kept secret on the planet. You know something you're not telling us Poly, or is somebody just a little touchy about their gayness? :rolleyes:
 
DR.D said:
Do you have a clue what causes Down's? Are you honestly comparing the voluntary act of engaging in homosexual behavior, with a true genetic disorder involving an entire chromosome?! If that's true, it's the best kept secret on the planet. You know something you're not telling us Poly, or is somebody just a little touchy about their gayness? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, I'm comparing the act of involuntary feelings for people of the same sex with the involuntary act of being retarded.

I'm not touchy about my gayness since I'm into people with vaginas and all, but I'm super touchy about people who say things that don't make sense, especially when it comes to math :)
 
Polynomial said:
No, I'm comparing the act of involuntary feelings for people of the same sex with the involuntary act of being retarded.

I'm not touchy about my gayness since I'm into people with vaginas and all, but I'm super touchy about people who say things that don't make sense, especially when it comes to math :)
Click to expand...

Haha, very well. But please give humanity some credit. We are not simply mathematical equations with complex yet predictable outcomes. The whole is much greater than the sum of it's parts. If you know quantum math, you know that nothing is real until a choice is made and it is observed to be real. Humans have the power to control their behavior. It's about the only thing in this whole world that you do honestly control. You can feel whatever you like involuntarily, but you choose your voluntary responses.
 
DR.D said:
"DR.D" is a fictitious character. Posts are strictly role playing intended for entertainment purposes only
Click to expand...

Doc...ur sig sounds like something from a 70s porno....?!

Role Playing, Entertainment, Characters....its all there...



Anyway I have nothing more to add to this thread. Until otherwise notified (by some higher being from outerspace) I treat all humans regardless or race, sex, sexuality or religion with the same respect and friendship.
:wave:
 
MashedPotato said:
Thats what I thought. This subject is very complex though and it cant simply be answered in a right or wrong answer, i.e either genetics or enviroment.
Click to expand...
No, I believe homosexuality is as genetic as heterosexuality. Think back to your first "crush". At that point in time did anyone ever tell you it had to be a girl? No, it just was. I guess one could argue that this happens because kids do what their parents do, but then a huge kink gets thrown back into the equation with young kids with homosexual crushes and straight parents.

Dressing up like a fairy in tight leather with makeup and high heels is a behavioral issue that some homosexuals have, and that has nothing to do with their sexual preference.

I grew up with 2 sisters and a mom and yes...i played with barbies with my sisters and other girl games...but that didnt make me "homosexual". The same as I belive that same sex parents cannot make a child "homosexual" neither can a "homosexual" enviroment - one that actively encourages homosexuality.

to elaborate on the barbie thing, and being with females while growing up, that has not made me any less of a "man" that someone who grew up in a "testosterone" enviroment. Hell I love action movies, weightlifing, Im married to a female, I like cars...etc.. all the "man things", but growing up in that enviroment gave me the aspect to understand females better (or so i think haha), so to say its mostly enviroment is complete.....cat crap (god it smells round here)
Click to expand...
I played with barbies, too. But once I found out they didn't have nipples or vaginas I broke their heads off and stopped playing with them :lol:
 
kwyckemynd00 said:
No, I believe homosexuality is as genetic as heterosexuality. Think back to your first "crush". At that point in time did anyone ever tell you it had to be a girl? No, it just was. I guess one could argue that this happens because kids do what their parents do, but then a huge kink gets thrown back into the equation with young kids with homosexual crushes and straight parents.
Click to expand...

Nobody told you, but as function of your development in Western society you had been imparted with the opinion that it is normal. Had you been developed in a society which openly embraced and supported heterosexuality [as some historically have] I have no doubts the sexual orientation of your first crush may be different.

From the moment we begin executing our capacity to understand and relate coherent grammar, people are 'telling us what to do' as it pertains to normative values. Much of our personality is subversively attained; which is to say, we derive it from peer support, role reinforcement, the ossification of social undercurrents and situational identities within the 'self'.

In this same breath, an acceptance of normalcy in one's sexual preference does not necessitate a direct reinforcement or dictation; the manifestation of heterosexuality as 'proper' and 'the norm' is one of, if not the, dominant cultural reinforcement of Western Society. Now, as you read that you prepared to ask, "then why are children raised in a homosexual home not homosexual as well?". Obviously, the issue of sexual preference is an inherently complex one, involving an intricate interplay of both genetic and socializing factors [I believe, in the very least]. As well, the parents have been ostensibly replaced as the dominant peer group in child development, friends and television have now taken that spot; far, far, far more societal influences exert an effect on a child's personality [including what normative sexual values he/she holds to be 'normal'] than simply the parent.

Dressing up like a fairy in tight leather with makeup and high heels is a behavioral issue that some homosexuals have, and that has nothing to do with their sexual preference.
Click to expand...

Your powers of tolerance never fail to impress me bud. ;)

Though I would agree, 'niche deviance' has little to do with sexual preference and more to do with subscribing to the arbitrary aesthetic qualities a particular sub-culture ascribes to itself as a means of differentiation.

I played with barbies, too. But once I found out they didn't have nipples or vaginas I broke their heads off and stopped playing with them :lol:
Click to expand...

Nipples and vaginas are cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top