NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally I think it isnt. I sure as shit know I wouldnt have chosen to be homosexual. Just happened across this article and found it interesting....

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/012705dna.htm

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

I'm gay and I'm sick of this. Like it makes any difference at all, other than asking straight people when they chose to be straight...

Personally I think it isnt. I sure as shit know I wouldnt have chosen to be homosexual. Just happened across this article and found it interesting....

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/012705dna.htm
Maybe it is genes. But you would think homosexuality would die out if it was controlled by genes since you would think normally homosexuals would not have kids. But eh, some people still have third nipples and such. Anyway I know nothing of DNA.

I really don't think it's a choice either - but to say it's genetic is also ridiculous; I personally think it's one of those 'Nature v Nurture' things

Maybe it is genes. But you would think homosexuality would die out if it was controlled by genes since you would think normally homosexuals would not have kids. But eh, some people still have third nipples and such. Anyway I know nothing of DNA.

as you demonstrated with your second sentence.

Anyway I know nothing of DNA.

That was pretty apparent.

as you demonstrated with your second sentence.
Well isn't that the basic premise of evolution, that traits which are genetically inherited which don't help perpetuate the species, aren't passed on and die out. I am not saying there is anything wrong with homosexuality, just you would think that if it was controlled by genes it would eventually die out.

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

I'm gay and I'm sick of this. Like it makes any difference at all, other than asking straight people when they chose to be straight...

Than dont comment? :rolleyes:

Well isn't that the basic premise of evolution, that traits which are genetically inherited which don't help perpetuate the species, aren't passed on and die out. I am not saying there is anything wrong with homosexuality, just you would think that if it was controlled by genes it would eventually die out.
go read into dominant and recessive genes.

I failed GCSE biology, i had 10 pages of notes covering 2 years, and a shit teacher. i barely understand genetics, but even i know about dominant and recessive genes.

Well isn't that the basic premise of evolution, that traits which are genetically inherited which don't help perpetuate the species, aren't passed on and die out. I am not saying there is anything wrong with homosexuality, just you would think that if it was controlled by genes it would eventually die out.

It will. But it'll take longer than the time the human race has been on this Earth.

The idea that it is a choice is crazy. Considering all homosexuals go through these days, why would they choose homosexuality? Few people would willingly subject themselves to that.

I once heard a theory that homosexuality is a natural population control method, which if true, would definitely destroy the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument.

Personally I think it isnt. I sure as shit know I wouldnt have chosen to be homosexual. Just happened across this article and found it interesting....

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/012705dna.htm

please define sexual orientation... there is a difference between attraction and sexsual activity.. even if one leads to another you ALWAYS have the choice of which sex you'll be engaging in fornication with

go read into dominant and recessive genes.

I failed GCSE biology, i had 10 pages of notes covering 2 years, and a shit teacher. i barely understand genetics, but even i know about dominant and recessive genes.

Also, it is a flawed premise that "gay genes" would be detrimental to the fertility of straight people. There are studies that indicate the opposite, i.e. that mothers of gay males tend to be more fertile. It's much, much, much more complex than simple mendelian heredity and an assumed 100% penetrance.

go read into dominant and recessive genes.

I failed GCSE biology, i had 10 pages of notes covering 2 years, and a shit teacher. i barely understand genetics, but even i know about dominant and recessive genes.
Yeah, I still don't buy it. Lets say it is controlled by genes, and it is a recessive trait. Then if a gay man and a lesbian and a homosexual male had a child then there would be a 100 percent chance that all the children would be gay right? Then this would be rather easy to test.

please define sexual orientation... there is a difference between attraction and sexsual activity.. even if one leads to another you ALWAYS have the choice of which sex you'll be engaging in fornication with

Same way one could choose not to date a black person if they are white Or same way a heterosexual could chose to have sex with a gay guy? I could choose to do a lot of things. Id rather choose whats natural for me.

I sure as shit know I wouldnt have chosen to be homosexual.

Yes, I wouldn't like to be homosexual, because then I wouldn't like girls.

And I wouldn't want to be a vegetarian because then I wouldn't like meat.

And I wouldn't want to prefer brunettes, because then I wouldn't prefer blondes.

And I wouldn't like to prefer Terminator 1, because then I wouldn't prefer Terminator 2.

Damn! What incredible luck that I just happen to have the preferences that I have! There must be a god after all!

Maybe it is genes. But you would think homosexuality would die out if it was controlled by genes since you would think normally homosexuals would not have kids. But eh, some people still have third nipples and such. Anyway I know nothing of DNA.

not if its a reoccuring genetic defect... then it would explain how it could have lasted this long...

Gay genes dont answer why the fact that the more older brothers you have the more likely it is for you to be gay. I think its a choice.

Yes, I wouldn't like to be homosexual, because then I wouldn't like girls.

And I wouldn't want to be a vegetarian because then I wouldn't like meat.

And I wouldn't want to prefer brunettes, because then I wouldn't prefer blondes.

And I wouldn't like to prefer Terminator 1, because then I wouldn't prefer Terminator 2.

Damn! What incredible luck that I just happen to have the preferences that I have! There must be a god after all!

¬_¬ what are you trying to say in this statement... he didn't say he didn't want to be homosexual because then he wouldn't prefer men.. he said he wouldn't have chosen homosexuality because of its obvious negative social effects....

please define sexual orientation... there is a difference between attraction and sexsual activity.. even if one leads to another you ALWAYS have the choice of which sex you'll be engaging in fornication with

Yes, but being gay and celibate or being gay and married to a woman with whom you have three children will not make you any less gay. Just like being straight and having sex with the same gender as you will not make you any less straight.

Behaviour and sexual orientation (i.e. which gender you fall in love with and want to have sex with) are two different things. Plus that there is no "black and white" when it comes to sexuality - it's a sliding scale.

Gay genes dont answer why the fact that the more older brothers you have the more likely it is for you to be gay. I think its a choice.

what crap is that ? where is the study to back that outlandish claim.... and thats like saying.. people choose to be poor.. where are the benifits again ?

Yes, I wouldn't like to be homosexual, because then I wouldn't like girls.

And I wouldn't want to be a vegetarian because then I wouldn't like meat.

And I wouldn't want to prefer brunettes, because then I wouldn't prefer blondes.

And I wouldn't like to prefer Terminator 1, because then I wouldn't prefer Terminator 2.

Damn! What incredible luck that I just happen to have the preferences that I have! There must be a god after all!

I am not sure you get it.

you ALWAYS have the choice of which sex you'll be engaging in fornication with

Oh good. So if I go to a gay bar and pick up a man, does that mean I can exchange it for a woman? Preferably a blonde with large bosums?

not if its a reoccuring genetic defect... then it would explain how it could have lasted this long...

Wow, you seem to know even less about genetics than the person you were answering to.

please define sexual orientation... there is a difference between attraction and sexsual activity.. even if one leads to another you ALWAYS have the choice of which sex you'll be engaging in fornication withEven if that's true, which is a rather remarkable leap, how's it relevant to the topic?

Without sounding completely disconnected (I hope,) may I ask WHY this issue is important? Whether biological or sociological, isn't the result the same? And isn't the "result" the matter which really concerns those interested in the issue of human sexuality?

My point is that is that the source of the orientation is irrelevant, folx. If you are concerned with what another person does in his or her bedroom, then the source of their sexuality would be irrelevant to you; it is their sexual conduct which you take issue with, correct?

Frankly, I don't see the point. People who are fortunate to find someone that they love and who, as fate would have it, loves them in return, should not care about the physiology of the persons they love. I am heterosexual, socially-mature, and have no concern over what other consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

I do have concern over apparently random logic used to define what is "behavior" and what is "biology."

Without sounding completely disconnected (I hope,) may I ask WHY this issue is important? Whether biological or sociological, isn't the result the same? And isn't the "result" the matter which really concerns those interested in the issue of human sexuality?

My point is that is that the source of the orientation is irrelevant, folx. If you are concerned with what another person does in his or her bedroom, then the source of their sexuality would be irrelevant to you; it is their sexual conduct which you take issue with, correct?

Frankly, I don't see the point. People who are fortunate to find someone that they love and who, as fate would have it, loves them in return, should not care about the physiology of the persons they love. I am heterosexual, socially-mature, and have no concern over what other consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

I do have concern over apparently random logic used to define what is "behavior" and what is "biology."

Well i for one, get tired of being called unnatural and a slave to my own unnatural desires 0_0

Yeah, I still don't buy it. Lets say it is controlled by genes, and it is a recessive trait. Then if a gay man and a lesbian and a homosexual male had a child then there would be a 100 percent chance that all the children would be gay right? Then this would be rather easy to test.
somebody who knows more about genetics than me will have to take you up on this, but as far as i know a child from that coupling wouldnt be 100% guaranteed to be gay.

assuming (probably wrongly) that it is 100% genetic, then whos to say that the gene for a homosexual female is the same as the gene for a homosexual male, anyway?

Originally Posted by Phylum Chordata
Yes, I wouldn't like to be homosexual, because then I wouldn't like girls.

And I wouldn't want to be a vegetarian because then I wouldn't like meat.

And I wouldn't want to prefer brunettes, because then I wouldn't prefer blondes.

And I wouldn't like to prefer Terminator 1, because then I wouldn't prefer Terminator 2.

Damn! What incredible luck that I just happen to have the preferences that I have! There must be a god after all!

My desire to make a point via humour led me to use my humour in a possibly inapropriate way here. I still think it's a good point, but yeah, not what was being discussed.

what crap is that ? where is the study to back that outlandish claim.... and thats like saying.. people choose to be poor.. where are the benifits again ?

An architect of this hypothesis, Canadian scientist Ray Blanchard, has calculated that each additional older brother increases the odds of homosexuality in the next male by some 33 percent.

This is the so-called Darwinian paradox: if homosexuality is conferred in part by genes, why haven't these genes been progressively eliminated over the millennia by natural selection - the process that prefers genes which are useful for reproduction and survival?


"Over 79 percent of the variance in male sexual orientation, in our sample, remains unaccounted for by the factors of excess of maternal homosexual kin and number of older brothers," they note.

Yes, but being gay and celibate or being gay and married to a woman with whom you have three children will not make you any less gay. Just like being straight and having sex with the same gender as you will not make you any less straight.

Behaviour and sexual orientation (i.e. which gender you fall in love with and want to have sex with) are two different things. Plus that there is no "black and white" when it comes to sexuality - it's a sliding scale.

its true.. u can't control who you are attacted too... but going in line with gay straight and bi I feel is foolish. These are too general classifications which fail to encompass I feel even the majority of people in every instance. Seeing how most people are sexually driven.. I would say the vast majority of people if pressed would be classified as BI and the vast minority being strickly gay and strictly straight. and this is only accounting for those people who are largely sexually driven... the activity or behavior is much more useful for observation and classification.... heterosexual activity or homosexual activity..t hen atleast you know what your dealing with.. instead of a straight guy doing homosexual things or vis versa

This is the fourth thread in a month about sexual orientation. This is also annoying the gays, I should know.
I bet $10 this will reach fifteen pages by nine o'clock EST.

Without sounding completely disconnected (I hope,) may I ask WHY this issue is important?It isn't, of course, to anyone capable of reasoned thought. It only becomes an issue when the religious attempt to label homosexuality as a perverse rebellion against society, or simply as 'unnatural' (the laughable assumption being that natural = good).

This is the so-called Darwinian paradox: if homosexuality is conferred in part by genes, why haven't these genes been progressively eliminated over the millennia by natural selection - the process that prefers genes which are useful for reproduction and survival?


"Over 79 percent of the variance in male sexual orientation, in our sample, remains unaccounted for by the factors of excess of maternal homosexual kin and number of older brothers," they note.

Why are there still hermaphrodites than?

Oh, and assuming its a single gene for either homosexual of heterosexual completely ignores the increasing thought of sexuality being a "sliding scale" that is then enforced either way (or bisexual, as well) by society

They deliberately choose to be hermaphrodites in a despicable attempt to corrupt the minds of our impressionable youth. I thought everyone knew that.

Why are there still hermaphrodites than?

A hermaphodite is something completly different due to genetic defects like trisomies.

An architect of this hypothesis, Canadian scientist Ray Blanchard, has calculated that each additional older brother increases the odds of homosexuality in the next male by some 33 percent.

This is the so-called Darwinian paradox: if homosexuality is conferred in part by genes, why haven't these genes been progressively eliminated over the millennia by natural selection - the process that prefers genes which are useful for reproduction and survival?


"Over 79 percent of the variance in male sexual orientation, in our sample, remains unaccounted for by the factors of excess of maternal homosexual kin and number of older brothers," they note.

sooo where is the connection between having more male siblings to sexual orientation ? is this transferable to females as well then ? more female siblings means greater chance for homosexuality.. or is it solely males ? in which case what sense does that make.. men are then attaracted to more then while women are driven away from male attraction ?

My point was simple.. its not genetic inheritence of one gene.. but a more commen genetic mutation which occurs over the system. mutations act quite differently.. why havn't we seen color blindness struck out by natural selection ?

and i dont suppose you have a link to this study.. Im interseted to know what the size of his study pool was.... and more facts about it.. Sounds like a sham to me as homosexuality is larger then just gays in the male population. An explaination for one does not account for the other half of the population aflicted by occurance

Oh, and assuming its a single gene for either homosexual of heterosexual completely ignores the increasing thought of sexuality being a "sliding scale" that is then enforced either way (or bisexual, as well) by society
I think the way the scale should be measured is by the amount of shots you would have to drink before you would kiss a man (assuming you are a man yourself, or vice versa for girls)

For example if you were bi but leaned towards girls you might be a "2" meaning you would have to down 2 shots before making out with a dude. I am pretty much regular boring old straight type, so I would be more like a "7".

Meh, homosexuality is just a natural way of population control built into us!!

A hermaphodite is something completly different due to genetic defects like trisomies.

I belive his point was.. perhaps homosexuality is something very much like the occurance of a hermaphodite.. only far more subtle... why hasn't the genetic occurances leading to the creation of a hermaphodite been weeded out by natural selection ??

I think the way the scale should be measured is by the amount of shots you would have to drink before you would kiss a man (assuming you are a man yourself, or vice versa for girls)

For example if you were bi but leaned towards girls you might be a "2" meaning you would have to down 2 shots before making out with a dude. I am pretty much regular boring old straight type, so I would be more like a "7".
hmm...im female and attracted to females, but sober i would still kiss a guy for a laugh (and have done)

eh...your system has me confused :p

Meh, homosexuality is just a natural way of population control built into us!!

now there is an interseting way of looking at the topic >.> I rather like that

hmm...im female and attracted to females, but sober i would still kiss a guy for a laugh (and have done)

eh...your system has me confused :p
You are a zero!

Meh, homosexuality is just a natural way of population control built into us!!
that is entirely possible, and i remember reading about some reasearch in apes that when the population gets dangerously high the amount of homosexual activity recorded increases

just...dont ask me for a source.

I think the way the scale should be measured is by the amount of shots you would have to drink before you would kiss a man (assuming you are a man yourself, or vice versa for girls)

For example if you were bi but leaned towards girls you might be a "2" meaning you would have to down 2 shots before making out with a dude. I am pretty much regular boring old straight type, so I would be more like a "7".

so.. ur saying....
after 7 shots your making out with guys ?

sooo where is the connection between having more male siblings to sexual orientation ? is this transferable to females as well then ? more female siblings means greater chance for homosexuality.. or is it solely males ? in which case what sense does that make.. men are then attaracted to more then while women are driven away from male attraction ?

My point was simple.. its not genetic inheritence of one gene.. but a more commen genetic mutation which occurs over the system. mutations act quite differently.. why havn't we seen color blindness struck out by natural selection ?

and i dont suppose you have a link to this study.. Im interseted to know what the size of his study pool was.... and more facts about it.. Sounds like a sham to me as homosexuality is larger then just gays in the male population. An explaination for one does not account for the other half of the population aflicted by occurance

I am not too good with links on ns. The last couple kindof failed but i shalt try.
www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/13/content_381937.htm

Color blindness could have some benefits such as allowing people to see camoflauged things better.

so.. ur saying....
after 7 shots your making out with guys ?
After seven shots (actually more like 8 or 9) in a relatively short period I tend not to remember what I do, so things might have happened. I would need the survialance camera tapes to know for sure...

I belive his point was.. perhaps homosexuality is something very much like the occurance of a hermaphodite.. only far more subtle... why hasn't the genetic occurances leading to the creation of a hermaphodite been weeded out by natural selection ??

During the process of mixing the dnas(I forgot what it was called), or during meosis if it incorrectly makes a percet sex cell (such as one with two thirteens instead of one) then that causes a genetic defect. Trisomy thirteen causes down syndrome and trisomies aren't weeded out since it occurs during the process of meiosis.

Homosexuality is caused by an unknown reason, possibly a gene or something during the developing stages or choice (for at least some).

Now for the shot guys, I wouldnt make out or do a dude after seven shots, or at all.

I am not too good with links on ns. The last couple kindof failed but i shalt try.
www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/13/content_381937.htm

Color blindness could have some benefits such as allowing people to see camoflauged things better.

have you ever considered the benifits to homosexuality? the occurance of homosexuality in some races of birds show that birds raised by two male parents are in fact more likely to survive .. of course the two male birds dont have this child.. but rather steal the eggs from another nest and raise the offspring themselves. Perhaps homosexuality has benifits that we simply fail to realize.. or recognize

I am not too good with links on ns. The last couple kindof failed but i shalt try.
www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/13/content_381937.htm

Color blindness could have some benefits such as allowing people to see camoflauged things better.

and is this really the case... im not sure it is.. since color blindness in humans is limited to only a few shades of color ... and i dont know of many things which camofloge themselves in blue or red >.>

and is this really the case... im not sure it is.. since color blindness in humans is limited to only a few shades of color ... and i dont know of many things which camofloge themselves in blue or red >.>

...

In war soldiers who are color blind have a better chance to see a camoflauged enemy.

See none but I did find something that unfortunately supports abortion but i could probably negate it easily. Scratch that I just thought of a way to make it untrue in human terms. HA HA HA HA I am so off topic.

May you provide a link with the birds having a better chance to survive?

I think to compare any other species with man is absurd. None other has mastered their environment as man has. Our social nature has allowed for homosexuality to exist as it has. My theory is generally considered to be 'homophobic' even though I do not have an irrational fear of homosexuals. IMO homosexuality is very much like religion; if you are religious, wonderful...just keep it to yourself. If you are running around spouting your religiousity, I think you should be smacked around and sent on your way. Everyone has a right not to have to listen to that shit when they choose not too (and not just turn the channel). Same goes with homosexuality; if you are gay, have a blast...I don't need to know about it so if you run around spouting your homosexuality you should be smacked around and sent on your way. As to my 'homophobic' theory on why homosexuality exists, it is along the lines of the 'natural birth control' thought process, only very much less politically correct. On a side note, the number of males sibling theory mentioned before was a riot...I guess most gays are Irish catholics :D . Anyway, back to the theory. IMO homosexuality represents a failure of that individual to be his or her respective gender. He or she does not have homosexual tendencies at 3...no they occur when certain environmental realizations are made subconsciously or not. Since no homosexual ever admits it was a choice, the homophobes that 'call them on it' are branded bigots, etc. Today's civilized society allows for homosexuality. In particular PCness has given various demographics something to stand on.

Like I said...not a popular pov but every time I try to be objective, it seems to come back to the same conclusion...in my opinion.

SEAS

Does being gay by choice, or by genes honestly matter? Does being gay matter? I still find it amazing how people feel threatend around those with a different lifestyle.

I think it's pretty sad that some people are so concerned with the private lives of total strangers.

On a side note, the number of males sibling theory mentioned before was a riot...I guess most gays are Irish catholics :D .
SEAS

I do not see how you get that. Catholics oppose homosexuality. I am an Irish Roman Catholic and no one in my family for the past three generations (including my own) was gay, the farther back ones I am not sure about since they weren't alive the same time I was alive, but i am pretty sure that they were straight.

The guy lost the bet. It is now 10:02pm est.

Sexual orientation a choice?

Who cares? Let people live their lives the way they want to, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. And, the last time I checked being gay/lesbian never hurt anyone so I repeat: Who cares?

so.. ur saying....
after 7 shots your making out with guys ?

After 7 shots I'm unconscious .. . .

During the process of mixing the dnas(I forgot what it was called), or during meosis if it incorrectly makes a percet sex cell (such as one with two thirteens instead of one) then that causes a genetic defect. Trisomy thirteen causes down syndrome and trisomies aren't weeded out since it occurs during the process of meiosis.

Homosexuality is caused by an unknown reason, possibly a gene or something during the developing stages or choice (for at least some).

Now for the shot guys, I wouldnt make out or do a dude after seven shots, or at all.

Trisomy 21 causes Down's syndrome. Trisomy 13 is even more rare and has even broader implications for poor health and mental retardation. There is only one other Trisomy that you can have and even be born alive and which number it is eludes me. The vast majority of trisomies (and monosomies) result in spontaneous abortion before pregnancy is even recognized by the mother. It is theorized by some that up to half of pregnancies are not noticed because of meiotic errors resulting in abnormal numbers of chromosomes.

I do not see how you get that. Catholics oppose homosexuality. I am an Irish Roman Catholic and no one in my family for the past three generations (including my own) was gay, the farther back ones I am not sure about since they weren't alive the same time I was alive, but i am pretty sure that they were straight.

I was making a joke. Playing on the notion that Irish families have 100s of kids each. Since Irish can be catholic, I thought it was satirical to add catholicism into the mix. A+B=complete silliness.

SEAS

i am an irish catholic. and, somewhat, devout. i am, though, a lesbian. i can't help the way i feel , but believe me, i've tried. it's just appart of who i am, in a way.

I don't believe who you are attracted to is a choice*, I believe it is biological with perhaps some sociological factors aswell. Sexual activity is a choice but as long as the people are both consenting and considering it doesn't affect anyone else it's their choice to make.

*and anyone who does, don't be expecting any sympathy when you're rejected, break up with a partner or get divorced because you can just choose not to be attracted to them right?