Are homosexuals born with this disorder or acquired?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Mind Over Matter, Aug 7, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    hercules, if there is no such gene, and no such genetic cause confirmed, then what exactly would you like a link to?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    trust me, the minute the "gay gene" is found, it will be widely publicized and celebrated. everyone will be so relieved.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720
    What sort of non-sequitor response is that? I’m putting it to you that there is some genetic component to homosexuality. You made a definitive claim that there is no such component and that this is the view of the scientific community. I’m asking to you to substantiate your claim with some science.


    No, Lori, I don’t trust you. That’s the entire point. I don’t trust your scientific knowledge at all.

    I’m not asking you for more questions directed at me. Given that you made a claim on the basis of what the scientific community thinks, I’m asking you for some scientific evidence to support your claim that there is no genetic component to homosexuality. Otherwise retract the claim.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,097
    I bet you haven't.
    You haven't challenged any science. You have to have evidence and argument to do that. You have to have a basic comprehension of the science you intend to challenge.

    What you have posted so far is a series of symptoms of homophobia, not just personal assessment of a situation but emotionally loaded judgments of homosexual behavior.
    Personal experience is what tells you the earth is flat. Try to induce lefthandedness, or perfect pitch, in a person over the age of about 9.

    My father was forced to behave as a righthanded person, in his childhood orphanage. He did learn to write righthanded, etc - but he became ambidextrous, not righthanded.

    Meanwhile, there have been a couple of homosexual male pair bonds among the geese nesting in the Minneapolis city lakes, over the years. They don't lay eggs, but they do build nests and adopt (or steal, hard to say which) goslings from hetero pairs. At least one researcher thinks they boost overall gosling survival in the goose community as a whole - orphaned, stray, runt, late hatched, neglected, and other vulnerable goslings tend to end up in their family group, where they are fiercely protected.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    At least one "gay gene" has been found, and identical twins are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. As others have mentioned, genetics is not the only factor involved, although it is a significant one.

    ===============================
    Chromosome linkage studies of sexual orientation have indicated the presence of multiple contributing genetic factors throughout the genome. In 1993, Dean Hamer and colleagues published findings from a linkage analysis of a sample of 76 gay brothers and their families. . . .thirty-three out of forty sibling pairs tested were found to have similar alleles in the distal region of Xq28, which was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers. This was popularly dubbed as the 'gay gene' in the media, causing significant controversy.

    A later analysis by Hu et al. replicated and refined the earlier findings. This study revealed that 67% of gay brothers in a new saturated sample shared a marker on the X chromosome at Xq28.
    =================================
     
  8. Mutawintji Registered Member

    Messages:
    20

    On a personal note, while I was not an orphan I began schooling in a catholic convent (I iz 57yrs old) and as a left-hander was forced to write with my right hand ... and received the cane on my left knuckles. I was 6-7 years old.

    Eventually when any success proved impossible I was allowed to write left handed .... but as my confidence had gone at this treatment, and my left hand covered the page as I wrote, my left handed writing was now as appalling as my right handed writing.

    Flowing writing is something I never achieved ... The final compromise was that I was to print in Capitals .... and to this day that is all I ever do.

    If I was God and could resurrect those Nuns .. I would do so ... purely for the sadistic joy of killing them with both hands ..... :mufc::mufc:

    (Mothers of Mercy ... Jesuuu phu**c**ing wept)

    Mutawintji
     
  9. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    @ Mutawintji...speaking of religion-induced cultural insanity...
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I understand the difference between pure and applied science, since I have done both. Applied science has a goal (conclusion) already in mind, befre you begin, such as making a better mouse trap or finding a way to cure erectile dysfunction. Once the goal is set, you will need to make use of existing pure and practical science to achieve the goal. Once the goal is met, you market the applied science. Pure science speaks for itself and doesn't need politics and Madison Ave to prop it up with spin.

    Pure science is about truth, and not about pre-set goals. Sometimes truth may not be politically correct, since truth is based on intellect and not emotion. Truth can be cold, but that is how you remove the marekting illusions of subjectivity. Applied science, on the other hand, will often make use of emotion since it is about a bigger goal, such as making money or extending power and influence. Young scientists may not know the difference, so I hope I explained it better.

    The golden age of science was about pure science and not free market. This was possible in a masculine society free from the emotions of PC. The 1960's made men more sensitve or added emotion even to science. The feminized male, who never knew anything else, lost a useful learning experience which would allow them to know the difference.

    The truth in pure science is not about politics, emotions, making people feel good or even about making money. These are better served via applied science and marketing. What we called man-made global warming was an example of applied science being called or spun as being pure. The marketing approach had to change its commercials and jiggles, so now it is called climate change. You can tell it is not pure, when political mudslinging, funding restrictions and other emotional tactics, such as fear, try to control information. Pure science welcome all suggestions and all POV, and will not try to enforce advantage in the free market by censoring parts of the truth. This is PC taboo, so applied is favored.

    Back to pure science and turning over all stones;

    An interesting statistic about gay behavior is the young gay male still defines the highest rate of new cases of AIDS, compared all sexually active demographics. From the beginning of AIDS to the present the young gay male is supreme. Even with all we know about AIDS cause and effect (behavior and effect), this is still true.This seems to indicate an early life gay pathology. This is only part of the data needed to find the truth, with pure science still looking under many others stone. It will not try to limit this to this applied science and use emotion to create higher market share in the competitive science industry.

    Another interesting stone, I don't mind turning, in the quest for truth data, is the one of the first written human records of gay behavior is in the Old Testament; Sodom and Gomorrah. I am not making a value judgement. In this account, the gays were portrayed as acting similar to bands of modern gangs raping men and women.

    The modern gay is not like this violent old testament picture, but is more gentle. This difference could might mean that ancient image of fear is sort of misplaced (some forms of homophobia) This image could be a learned source of homophobia. But the question that came to me was, is it possible that the ancient gays were closer to these wild gangs, than they are to the modern gentle gay? Just one stone and not the whole truth. There is no need to protect market share.

    If we continue this line of thought, if this gang picture was the case, the original homophobe would have been an semi-instinct act of self defense based on survival. In the bible, they called upon God, because the people were at the mercy of these gangs. I am not saying God appeared, but deparate times often call for desparate actions, with such desparate hope indicative of a desparate situation. The story ends with the bands sort of laid to rest.

    One possible scenario is the homophobic behavior would grow bolder and organize until the violent gangs were broken up. Maybe the gangs were maintaining the traditions of ancient gay ape from which they evolved. While the needs of humans were changing away from the way of the ape; something higher than ape rape would decide the modern human heirarchy. The pendulum swings the other way, with gay changing with the times. Later the picture is compulsive but not as violent.

    This is just another stone to turn. I am not going to market this any further since applied science is not what we need here, even if the current science free market can use another mousetraps.
     
  11. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Depends on what country you're talking about.

    From: http://www.avert.org/aids-russia.htm
    In Africa, it is spread heterosexually for the most part:
    http://www.avert.org/aids-africa-questions.htm (click on question 8 to display)

    So, you decided to go with the old "Gay disease"stereotype, eh?

    Since lesbian sex, even unprotected, is the least likely to result in HIV transmission, perhaps lesbians are God's chosen???

    And next, winged monkeys are going to fly out of my a$$! Really! And they will put on a puppet show for you!
    ...Hey I can get into the spirit of making crazy crap up too, right?
     
  12. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    well then you would lose that bet.

    you've never developed or acquired a taste for something? it's very common for the rest of us humans.

    you've never seen someone for the first time and thought they were extremely attractive, but then after getting to know them found them to be ugly as sin, just because of their personalities or behavior or some other trait? i've experienced the reverse as well...thinking someone was very unattractive at first, but upon getting to know them, they become extremely attractive. this is also a very common phenomenon.
     
  13. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    well i stand corrected then. thank you.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    Stereotyping "modern gays" based on your examples of bad behavior is no different than stereotyping "modern blacks" based on examples of crime or "modern christians" based on christian extremist terrorism.

    Uh, OK. If your "scientific theory" is true, I guess we should treat homophobes as dangerous criminals, lest they exhibit this sociopathic instinct in modern society. Perhaps a list of homophobes could be set up, akin to lists of pedophiles, so children of gay parents know how to protect their children from these instinctive predators.
     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    "The truth needs many angles, while free market science needs only one good angle and clever marketing."

    Here is another angle for pure science. Say we assume that homosexual behavior is natural among the apes. Let us also assume the average distribution of homosexuals in human populations is about 10%. Next, say we also assume humans evolved from the apes. If we combine all these premises, the homosexual distribution, going from apes to humans, has been on a evolutionary decline (100% to 10%). I just used general numbers, so feel free to add the solid numbers.

    What is interesting about this evolutionary shift into modern numbers, is that human instincts gradually evolved away from the apes. Since there is a premise that humans played a role via the suppression of behaviot, implies that changing social norms were been able to alter the ape instinct, helping to create new human instinct.

    The Old Testament story sort of describes the gay gangs, as those in power and control, sort of suggesting a percent higher than 10% homosexual, at that time in ancient history. The ape instinct was still active, but starting to decline. New instinct was emerging.
     
  16. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Incorrect as usual. Humans at the time of the Old Testament were identical to modern humans in terms of evolution. Also, apes engage in homosexual behavior, but that does not make them gay. Also, the percentage of humans that engage in homosexual behavior is far greater than the percent that are actually gay.
     
  17. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Spidey . Does sucking one cock make you gay if you are a human male ? What about the brotherly love parties ? Have you heard of those ( Whose naive ) ?
    Are the participants gay even though they have a wife . Is that the same as monkey behavior ? yeah so what is gay then ? I find my self with feelings of gayness at times , yet I have never had sex with the same sex , Mikey don't go that way ( sorry gay friends that want Me) . My musicality gives Me feeling of gayness . Yeah what I perceive as feelings of a woman come out from the emotional connection with the songs. Yet I really don't know the definition of Gay now that you bring up sexual acts and gayness can be separate . Maybe there are more gay people than we think . Now are we getting into what Woman is verses Man Emotionally speaking ? If it is not the sexual act that defines gayness then what does ? I think it is Taboo and all the Hetros are imposing there will on others cause of no other reason than cultural taboos. Any one not like them is an out cast . Closed non excepting circles of influence that exclude. My main bitch in life . Cronies
     
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    This is sort of like global warming changing into climate change. We start as something definitive and shift so anything appears to apply. It is a good sign that people are looking for truth even when politically incorrect.
     
  19. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    If homosexuality is a genetic mutation, it's unlikely that it'd become so prominent. Isn't it?
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,723
    OK.

    OK.

    OK.

    No. No one has claimed that the "homosexual distribution" in other ape species is 100%. As in humans, it is relatively rare most of the time:

    ===========================================
    Homosexual behavior in primates: A review of evidence and theory
    International Journal of Primatology
    Volume 16, Number 3, 173-204, DOI: 10.1007/BF02735477

    Abstract
    Homosexual behavior is defined as genital contact, genital manipulation or both between same-sex individuals. Available data indicate that this behavior is phylogenetically widespread among the anthropoid primates, but totally absent among prosimians. The majority of the 33 species that demonstrate homosexual behavior do so rarely, but for a substantial number (N =12) it appears to be a more common pattern under free-ranging conditions. I summarize data on homosexual behavior as it relates to form, living condition, age, sex, social organization, and ecological context, and discuss hormonal, demographic, and sociosexual theories for primate homosexual behavior.
    ==============================================

    I fear you are taking your preconceptions and trying to make up science to support them. There is no scientific evidence that the incidence of homosexuality has declined as we've evolved.

    The Old Testament also describes a flat earth, a flood that covered the Earth to a height of 30,000 feet and a woman made out of a man's rib. It is a very, very poor source of scientific information.
     
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Relative to sexuality, the primary directive is procreation. The idea of male and female, bits and pieces, sets a potential for procreation.

    Because procreation is so important to life and evolution, other compelling factors come to play, via the brain/mind, to make this primary end more likely. These compelling factors are like carrots on the string to lead the horse to water. If sex was not pleasurable, there would be fewer children. But once you add a large pleasure carrot on the string to help reach the goal, the number of children will go up.

    Another stone to turn over is, since homosexuality does not end in the primary purpose of sexualty (procreation), is homosexuality looped at the level of the carrot on the string?

    As an analogy, I need my horse to walk over there. But he does not seem to know what I want. He is unconscious of me, wanting to snack on green grass. So I hang a carrot in front of him, dangling on a string. He sees the tasty carrot and starts to walk after the carrot, with me moving the carrot left and right, until he reaches the goal.

    When I reach the final location, I get out of the wagon to fetch wood. In the mean time, the carrot is still attached. The horse still does not understand that this particular place was the final goal. Rather continues to try to get the carrot, since this is his goal (food), which I used as a tool to help me reach my goal. To get the carrot, he starts to shift his angle and walking forward and then sideways, but not with any geographic goal in mind, other than to get the carrot.

    He is detached from the bigger picture, of fetching the wood, but he is connected to the carrot on the string that was used to lead him to bigger picture. But to him, the carrot is the goal, with any other goal relative and random to this primary objective.

    This scenario could be explained with brain firmware being crossed so the carrot separates from the driver.

    As another example, to show crossed firmware has many scenarios, natural eating will trigger feedback to the body that can tell one when they are full. That assume the pleasure of eating carrot on the string is not the final goal. But say, instead of eating for the needs of the body, I program myself to eat for the needs of my soul (heart and emotions) because of depression, with this food like a comfortable backrub. The goal of the body, being full, may not consciously register, because the eating is really being led by a crossed depression carrot. The horse does not stop for the body, but keeps chasing the carrot.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2011
  22. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    But we are human beings and we know that procreation is no longer a top priority. We don't eat just to survive, we eat for the pleasure of eating. It's the same with sex.
     
  23. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    It is a pleasure but it is also a necessity.
    Eating is very much a priority.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page