Is this the cause of homosexuality?

Jump to Last Post 1-33 of 33 discussions (211 posts)

51
cdnbratposted 13 years ago
iPad sent

   An interesting concept on what causes homosexuality,

  An idea that has been brought forth is that homosexuality is caused by gender reversal of the child's parents, meaning a dominant female and a submissive male as a couple raising children. It's being proposed that when a child is born they differentiate between males and females not by their physical appearance but by their parents position in the household. Just as animals have a hierarchy humans do as well but due to social engineering the hierarchy has reversed for some.
If a baby girl is born to such a couple she will identify with the submissive parent, if it happens to be dad, she will identify sexually as a male and have an attraction to females. Same thing with boys only they identify with their dominate mom and will be attracted to males.
Single female or single male households have the same situation. If the parent has the correct gender identity in their relationships with others, their child will be heterosexual.
  If a gay couple adopted a child of the same sex, the child will identify with either the dominant or submissive parent which will be their same sex and therefore will be attracted to the opposite sex.
  But If a gay couple adopts an opposite sex child, the child will associate with one partner which will be of the opposite sex as themselves, therefore causing them to be attracted to their own gender.
  Can it effect their development physically? Many gay women have very masculine features and build, just as many gay males are of a feminine build. Soon after birth can gender identity conflict effect the way a child develops both mentally and physically?
  There are varying degrees of this socially engineered heterosexual relationship, just as there are varying levels of homosexuality. A person may be curious, bisexual, or exclusive. Do varying levels of gender reversal cause varying levels of homosexuality?
  Many say the reason for an increase in the visible gay population is because of public acceptance of their life choice but the percentage of visible homosexuals skyrocketed soon after the feminist movement as well. With equality for women being the prime objective. Then was abused by many causing confusion as to what male and female gender roles even are.
  This hypothesis being presented is not rocket science and is known by many, but is ignored due to self serving agendas. A persons sexual preference has been decided for them long before their first kiss. THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.
  The ultimate casualties of this are kids growing up confused about their identity, many don't take it well, and for others it's a lifelong battle with self. A heterosexual can start life with the correct sexual identity and preference by observing a correct hierarchy growing up, but throughout their life they can change towards the opposite identity due to societies changing views on gender roles, thus causing their own offspring to be gay even though they're not themselves. It's all about nature, the natural development of a child's mind through stages that have been hardwired. They are expecting the male to be dominant and the female submissive, and for their natural survival instinct they are are counting on it.
  As had been noted umpteen times there is nothing in our genes that distinguishes a heterosexual from a gay individual. Just as humans are the only species to be affected by homosexuality, we are also the only species that has tried to 180 nature.
  You cannot dictate nature and homosexuality is the result of trying to do so.

Happy parenting
reply report
1. 58
  MrNickposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have never seen so much inaccurate, unbased rubbish in all my life. I assume I am missing the joke?
  reply report
2. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well...
  
  ... i guess, to answer your question...
  
  ...No. This is not the cause of homosexuality.
  reply report
3. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your post is every bit as meaningful as your hubs.
  reply report
  60
  evvy_09posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree
  reply report
  71
  Jed Fisherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Me agree too.
  reply report
4. 61
  Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So as for homosexuality that exists for the 400+ animals species is all caused by "gender reversal of the child's parents"? I do agree that heterosexuaityl and homosexuality are not choices, but as far as everything else, cdnbrat needs to do a lot more research.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Be careful honking the research horn my friend when yours is flawed in it's own.
  You're getting the different ways animals exhibit dominance mixed up with homosexuality.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Roy and Silo, two Central Park Zoo male Chinstrap Penguins became internationally known when they coupled and later were given an egg that needed hatching and care, which they successfully did."
  
  From Wikipedia
  reply report
  78
  brimancandyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know where you watched the penguin thing, but, it has always been the male penguin that watches the egg in certain groups, while the females go out to hunt for food, and bulk up so that they can care for the infant penguin when they return. The males then mate with them and leave, and return to watch over the new eggs...it's like and endless circle.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The habit with penguins is to pair up, and 'parent' the egg they made. In this case two male penguins mated, and when they were given an egg to parent, they did successfully. The significance of that incident in this thread is that it blows away the claim that homosexuality doesn't exist in the animal kingdom. It does exist and is therefore 'natural' - not abnormal.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  B.S they mated Doug....you know it.
  As well... for something as common as animal homosexuality, as you say it is, why the big fuss over two birds out of say 50 million birds.
  You would think this would have been documented many times before since in your opinion it's the norm.
  But we have a spectacle of something that should have been observed as a norm many times over by your rationale.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Kerryg posted -
  
  "The science of ethology (study of animal behavior) has only existed as a formal science since the 1930s, so that's hardly a surprise, is it? When you've got thousands of Jane Goodall types observing animal behavior 24/7 for 80 years, it's amazing what you'll discover!"
  
  EmpressFelicity posted -
  
  "Ummm... so you're saying that all those zoologists who have observed homosexuality in ostriches, flamingos, beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, bonobos and orangutans have been imagining it?
  
  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … nimal.html"
  
  Evan G Rogers posted -
  
  "I haven't read the book, but I knew something like this HAD to exist on Amazon.com:
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Homosexual … 0521196752
  
  It's a book detailing homosexual behavior in animals."
  
  What do you want .. a Papal Edict??????
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Homosexuality in animals is just a convenient perpetuated escape for a society not wanting to look within.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No.. We are responding to your OP. You said...
  
  "Just as humans are the only species to be affected by homosexuality..."
  
  So the behaviors of the animal kingdom became evidence of your ignorance. You wanted to declare that homosexuality is abnormal - and a host of bloggers came up with a pile of research that shows homosexuality exists in 'nature' so it's not unnatural.
  
  But you are right, we seem to be the only species that's 'affected' to the degree we are the only species that's judgemenntal and paranoid about what others of our species may do when it harms us not a bit.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Doug I was going to ask this earlier...can you name me a species where a same sex pair are exclusively homosexual throughout their lifetime. Since it's so normal I'm expecting a relatively long list.
  Here I'll start you off.....humans.
  reply report
  83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Most animal species are not naturally monogamous. However, we've already listed several species that have extended non-monogamous homosexual relationships, and you can also add a bunch of the social species that form "bachelor bands" when young to the list. Sheep are among the animals documented to sometimes choose homosexual sex over heterosexual sex, and bonobos (especially female bonobos) are notorious for it.
  
  We've also been ignoring the existence of bisexuality. Most animals of the species we've been discussing are bisexual in practice, and there are some respected theories (Kinsey's scale of human sexual response, most famously) suggesting that most humans are too, or would be if we didn't have so many cultural hang-ups about it.
  reply report
  78
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Penguins, black swan, elephant, ibis, macaqu, fruit fly.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The responses are overwhelming. I'll take the provocative plunge...only humans.
  report
  78
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You asked for species. How is that none?
  report
  83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL.
  
  Okay, I have a hypothesis, too: rather than dealing constructively with its mommy/sister/girlfriend/wife issues, the human subspecies Homo sapiens trollicus misogynisticus attempts to assuage its own feelings of inadequacy and self-loathing by spending 12 hours a day on the internet writing posts about how dominant females are castrating men and turning them gay, while ignoring any and all evidence offered to the contrary. I bet I can get all the case studies I need off this forum alone...
  report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  One species eh....maybe because we're so unique.
  report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ok show me the link where two homosexual male elephants with access to fertile females throughout their lives stayed exclusively gay.
  We don't have to look far for an area of controlled study.....how about the wild.
  Since animal behavior has been a fascination for humans there should be many documented cases as this is the proposed norm by most of you.
  Let me guess in the 60's we looked away since it wasn't accepted. Guess we still do.
  How can anyone condem homosexuals when they have two caged hamsters performing the same lewd acts under their noses?
  report
  71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "The responses are overwhelming. I'll take the provocative plunge...only humans."
  
  Dude, psycheskinner named six species. I didn't major in math, but last I checked, it was still true that 6>0.
  
  If you'd challenged her to provide evidence to support her claim, that'd be one thing, but you're pretending that she didn't even make a claim. It's not even as though you're ignoring her claim; you responded to it. But you're pretending it doesn't exist at the same time.How does that even make sense?
  
  How do you expect intelligent people to take your arguments even a little bit seriously after that?
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think it was meant as a joke.
  report
  78
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It was a genuine reply to your question.
  report
  61
  Paul Wingertposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm fully aware of how animals show dominence.
  reply report
5. 76
  Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What a monstrous load of poppycock. Rarely does logic get so horrifically abused as it has with this, erm, hypothesis. Just wow.
  reply report
6. 61
  misscolesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is silly. Parents don't make children homosexual by their lifestyles. A person likes what he/she likes and it usually grows stronger into adulthood. Sometimes they might change their mind and switch up. Nevertheless...no one is questioning why straight people are straight. So why question anybody. Let people enjoy themselves. Maybe if everyone stop trying to figure everyone else out, they can finally find their true self!
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So can a parents lifestyle have any effect on childs development, you say no.
  So apparently any coke addict parent can breath a sigh....it's not their fault their kids are messed up, it's nature again.
  As well, you say, parenting does not have anything to do with their kids identities, forgot were being selective....sexual identities, correct? I disagree.
  I don't think you credit yourself to parenting nearly as much as you should.
  If you read a fascinating novel, do you thank the author or the person that dropped you off in grade one to learn to read?
  Misscoles...look in the mirror....nature gave you what you see....your parents gave you who you are.
  Proper parenting is the most powerful tool in the natural development of a childs mind...period.
  My hypothesis can be summed as follows,
  Much of who you are you learned from your parents, both consciously and subconsciously. You start learning the minute you're born and abnormalities in an expected environment are exhibited in abnormalities in the natural development of the individual exposed.
  reply report
7. 56
  Heathermomposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have said this elsewhere so once again I repeat - There is no doubt that prevalence of homosexuality is on the rise. As it becomes an accepted practice, it will become more prevalent. IMHO this is nature's way of curbing human population growth. Humans are incapable of handling this issue and so nature has stepped in.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Far out!
  
  How did 'nature' measure the growth of human population, determine global population is too high and reprogram the sexual preferences of all these people?
  reply report
  83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree that homosexuality is demonstrably on the rise, but Heathermom's hypothesis is something I've wondered about myself. Some animal species respond to overpopulation with dramatic behavior changes, i.e. species that normally have attentive mothers (or parents) suddenly start eating their own young, or spontaneously aborting, or similar.
  
  Humans are more complicated creatures in some regards - for example, we have both technology and cultural belief systems that can override instinctive behaviors, and even in animals, these types of population control behavior changes affect some individuals more than others - but I've often wondered if the dropping birth rate and general desire of families to have fewer children, rather than more might not be a response to some unconscious internal switch that's getting triggered in some people.
  
  I'm not sure what such a "switch" might be or how one could go about testing if such a thing exists, but like I said, it's something I've wondered about.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Some species can get into overpopulation problems as soon as environmental conditions are too favorable. If predators have been few and there's an abnormally favorable food supply, rabbits can overpopulate fast. In such a species, there might be a biological mechanism to reduce the growth rate.
  
  Humans haven't been in the 6 billion range EVER in known history. The best guess is that we were under a billion for most or all of pre-recorded history and only recently became a species with a global environmental footprint.
  
  So where would such a biological mechanism have developed?
  reply report
  83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In animals, it affects localized populations, not global ones. It's pretty reasonable to assume there have been times in human history when localized populations have over-taxed their environments. Jared Diamond covers a bunch of them in Collapse, but unfortunately doesn't get much into stuff like homosexuality and attitudes towards child-bearing, so it's not terribly helpful for considering the validity of this hypothesis...
  
  Also, humans have several proven physical mechanisms for preventing overpopulation (amenorrhea if body fat drops below a certain level and while nursing - most higher primates nurse for about 5 years, and so do many traditional human cultures), so we must have picked those up somehow.
  reply report
  71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I don't think homosexuality is becoming more prevalent. I just think it's becoming safer for gay people to live in the open, out of the closet. There's definitely a lot of backlash happening from the folks who'd rather keep the gays in the closet where they 'belong,' but overall, fewer people care about who strangers choose to sleep with. So more gay people are acting on their desires. As long as they only have sex with informed, competent, consenting adult partners, most of the rest of us don't care.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Many, many studies have fine picked homosexuality to the bone. Where's the one showing the percentages per capita through the decades?I predict that due to societies acceptance the numbers won't be accurate excuse will be rumbling, but those same are also predicting an increase. Why? Closet doors Im sure.
  So if you don't you think there's an increase, where's your proof showing otherwise....mines everywhere.
  reply report
94
habeeposted 13 years ago
Humans aren't the only species that experience homosexuality. I've lived on farms/ranches and have owned A LOT of critters.

Also, if it's the reversed roles of the parents, how do you explain a homosexual who has hetero siblings? They all had the same parents.
reply report
1. 58
  MrNickposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  2 important points I was thinking. Also the homosexuals in history who had 'normal' (and I don't agree with the use of that phrase, just making it relate) parent relationships.
  
  The Ancient Greeks especially mock your analogy. In many greek cultures (and bear in mind it varied dramatically form city state to city state) the women would serve a 'lesser role' (or submissive as stated) that seems to fit what this post suggests women should be doing - and yet homosexuality was the norm in many cases
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's not my analogy, Mr. Nick.
  reply report
  58
  MrNickposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, meant they mock the original analogy, not yours which I was agreeing with!
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Gotcha!
  reply report
2. 51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Everyone on my block has "normal relationships", I'm not naive enough to think that the twightlight zone doesn't start for some the minute the front door closes. But they as well will be known in history as normal.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In 2000 years when historians look back at our culture, and describe our culture from what they have learned from our artworks....what will they think?
  Will they deduct the correct percentage of homosexuals in our society?
  Is the percentage of homosexual artists higher than that of general population?
  If you were to make a movie what are the chances of it being your viewpoint?
  I doubt Greece was the "gay" world you envision.
  reply report
  96
  rmcrayneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  I'm gonna go out on a limb, and say in 2000 years, there will be very little interest in such deductions
  
  And no concept of homosexuality as mental illness nor aberrance. [in 2000 years.]
  reply report
59
mikelongposted 13 years ago
I agree with you Habee....what kind of tripe is this?
reply report
60
Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago
You nailed it Habee.

The frequency with which a houshold will have childeren with MIXED gender identities - some straight kids - some gay kids - renders the theory false.

My guess is the author has a second article, just as fraudulent, how to make gays go straight.
reply report
1. 94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hi, Doug! Hope you have a wonderful 2011!
  
  Your pal,
  
  Rose
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You too. Be safe and be happy!
  
  Doug
  reply report
2. 51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Doug flush the theory if the studies monitor parenting to precision amongst the families. Do the studies include for changes in parenting structure over time....eg. separations, divorces or at the very least a changing of roles over time. If these are all taken into account in the " multiple sexual identity of siblings" studies I guess I'm wrong.
  reply report
83
kerrygposted 13 years ago
I am pretty sure this theory has been discredited for decades. It's complete rubbish with no bearing on reality at all.
reply report
61
SomewayOuttaHereposted 13 years ago
...what?...?????....
reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago
reply report
1. 64
  prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL...
  reply report
  74
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If I had gay thoughts, would they sign me up?
  
  Because I would love to have a playboy bunny and beat up queers on Saturday night, too, or..........not
  reply report
51
cdnbratposted 13 years ago
Have a feeling that the first person to call the world round received similar responses. Tough forum for this as most "posters" are of the "new age" thought.
The "new age" seems to consist of blaming nature for societies issues, chemical imbalance, they were born that way seem to be the new "outs". Although I agree chemical imbalances can happen, I think its frequency is minimal compared to it's blame. Parental imbalance is far more accurate.
I guess what I am saying is the baby is born straight and mentally sane, it's societies impact that cause variations from the norm.
Take a look around.
reply report
1. 60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Try again. Habee was the first to burst your bubble. She's a republican with noble streaks of moderation. But I don't see her as 'new age'.
  reply report
2. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, that's it. You're a misunderstood visionary waiting for society to catch up.
  
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ron lobbing insults isn't my interest here, although finely tuned in such an art, I now find it boring...sorry.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So you've graduated to sockpuppetry? If you actually believe this B.S. you've posted, why not do it under your actual account?
  
  Why not share your...well, I'll be charitable and call them thoughts...under the name associated with the many fine hubs you've surely written?
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good luck with that.
  
  Anyway - I thought it was the liberal media spreading the gay agenda that made people homosexual. What happened to that scientific theory?
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ron the accent to your writing is anger. This is not what I had intentioned....sorry.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You lay out a nonsensical case for justifying hatred of 10% of the Earth's population and I'M the angry one?
  
  I eagerly await your hub on the subject.
  
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm inciting hatred to homosexuals eh.... Ron when you're throwing popular phrases around, just make sure they suite the debate next time. It's a good day to smile....be well friend.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How does one "suite" a debate. Is there actually a debate going on here?
  
  A good day to laugh indeed.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ron hopefully you're not trying to hurt my feelings, here's some insider info for you.... Canadians feelings are frozen until March.....
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Were any of the Garden of Eden dinosaurs gay?
  reply report
  59
  Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ron, you obviously forgot the Fagasaurus Rex. I am sure there was a reference to it the one time I attempted to read that best selling novel, the bible.
  Before anyone jumps my back for the Fagasaurus Rex remark. I am proud to be another "straight" for gay rights and I do"Give a Damn"
  
  I simply needed a laugh and I supplied myself with one. Gets a little monotonous laughing at those who offer themselves up as a sacrifice to intelligence. Might as well sacrifice them, they got no use for intelligence anyway, they got the bible.
  
  I don't understand the desire to understand homosexuality in the first place. It's not like anyone who heard his god tell him to hate a homosexual is going to change his mind because someone presents him with proof he is wrong. Being incapable of being wrong about everything you know nothing about is just one of the many benefits to forsaking intelligent thought for biblical wisdom.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for validating your position, thought you were a skinhead until.
  Your f asaurus joke was good, but as for validating yourself as pro gay I saw no reason.
  I don't think this is the post to start taking shots at peoples religious beliefs, or lack of. I won't ever debate a persons heart with them, unless their heart is doing harm to others.
  I will never post to religious debates....amen.
  reply report
  59
  Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Problem is cdb, not posting to religious debates is kind of difficult as religion is usually the source of the hatred I am against. I do have a tendency to move the conversation where I want it if I can. I thought that was the idea of debating. Control the direction of the debate and you can get it where you are in a position to win, or at least go...nana nana na na. religion is also front and center of many the issueses this country faces. Some times you have to debate the heart as the brain doesn't work on it's own. Interesting that you only discuss the heart when it is causing harm to other and yet that is what is at the heart of the problems homosexuals face today. Thereligious seek to hurt parents that wish to raise a child, They seek to deny them the right to marry. Most who carry out hate crimes against homosexuals consider themselves to be christian at least in this country. I would venture to say this is a subject you should be directing at the heart, the mind doesn't see the problem does it? It never ceases to amaze me the number of straight people who feel they no more about homosexuals than the homosexuals do. Most have never knowingly met one , very few have any education that touches on human sexuality, (public school system, can't teach about the birds and the bees, remember?) and yet they know everything about the subject. Where does extrordinary education like this come from you ask? The bible of course.
  
  I thought the OP was a shot at homosexuals, my bad.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Without a doubt some of the worlds issues are directly caused by ignorance promoted by religion.
  I find debates on religious grounds frustrating, do I find the religious brainwashed....some...yes.
  I read an article on brainwashing a while back, it said never once in history has a brainwashed person admitted they were brainwashed.
  After that I realized many will never see others viewpoint and Its a fruitless battle trying to reason with them.
  If I encounter someone of faith promoting hatred....yes I will debate their heart with them, but I also realize chances are they won't listen.
  If I'm taking a shot at a group it would be the think tank behind social engineering.
  reply report
3. 71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I guess what I am saying is the baby is born straight and mentally sane, it's societies impact that cause variations from the norm."
  
  So you're saying it's all nurture and no nature? Boys like trucks because they're conditioned by society and their parents to like trucks, and girls like dolls for the same reason?
  
  You couldn't be more demonstrably wrong. Here's the story.
  In a nutshell, a baby boy's penis was irreparably damaged in a botched circumcision. The parents and doctors agreed to change the sex of the child to female, and raised the child as such. When the kid hit puberty, he started to rebel against this nurtured gender role, and was very unhappy until at adulthood, he started living as a male.
  
  So nature plays a strong role, which can't reliably be overcome by nurture.
  
  Of course, this is evidence, so...
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jeff stop fabricating messages into my hypothesis.
  I'm saying variations from the norm, both positive and negative are caused by human involvement in natures ways.It's relative across the board, or maybe you think acid rain is natures fault as well.
  Many things about who your are and what you will be have a direct connection to nature, proper nurture provides proper care and direction. What is humans top innate priority??? To reproduce Jeff , and life continues in it's physical dimension taking another "being", soul for others, on a ride full of lessons, if you wish.
  Why does society as a whole spend disproportionate amounts of time on sexuality, because we have no choice, were hardwired that way for the survival of the human species. Sex came before the chicken or the egg.
  If you believe in multiple dimensions try this.... perhaps without the physical, a multitude of other dependent dimensions cannot exist and our species survival has much "higher" interests. Perhaps the physical dimension is the first stop of many for the soul. Just a sporatic thought.
  Yes I guess I still do believe the antiquated nut and bolt theory, and yes I do think of humans as a species of animal.
  I'm still in the nurture camp of one.
  reply report
  71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Jeff stop fabricating messages into my hypothesis."
  Not fabricating, but extrapolating. If one accepts your hypothesis that babies are born "straight" and "sane," then if a person matures into a gay person, then it's as a result not of their nature but of their environment, social conditioning, what have you.
  
  And I'm not buying it. Why are some groups of siblings, even ones raised by the same parents at or about the same time, a mix of gay and straight? Did the parents do something to raise the one kid gay? Did the one kid (and none of his siblings) get exposed to some kind of chemical? Very very doubtful.
  
  Add to that the results of the unfortunate fellow in the study I cited, where his (straight) male nature overcame a concerted effort to turn him into a female both physically and psychologically.
  
  "or maybe you think acid rain is natures fault as well."
  Now who's fabricating messages?
  
  I, too, think of human beings as a species of animal. But I'm not crazy enough to think I fully understand them, nor am I crazy enough to assume we're all born the same until some outside force acts upon us. We're all born different, which is how species evolve. Some of us are born gay. Why? I dunno. Is it important? Not really.
  
  So few of us are born gay that our species will certainly continue to reproduce even if we allow the gays to fully participate in society as equal citizens under the law.
  reply report
74
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Oh for Christ's sake. Why not just come out and say it.
It's all the MOTHER'S fault!
reply report
51
cdnbratposted 13 years ago
It's a theory, I'm game for being wrong if that's the case.
BTW I do have homosexual friends.....and their parents.....take a guess:)
Everyone enjoy your New Years.....be safe and be well.
reply report
1. 60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "They are expecting the male to be dominant and the female submissive, and for their natural survival instinct they are are counting on it. "
  
  You may think it's 'new age' to think that every couple is free to define in their a relationship the areas where each has authority in the relationship. Most people think that's normal.
  
  As Geico discovered, there are still Neanderthals among us...
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Come on Doug...such a primitive attack from such a forward thinker.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The male-dominant female-submissive attitude brings to mind the 'real man' with the club in one hand dragging the female by the hair with the other hand back to the good-ol' male-cave for some primitive but normal copulation. Anything less breeds queers.
  
  This isn't a distortion of your post - it's just a magnification of message.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's a magnification of your perception Doug, that's all...relax. I don't think knuckle draggers were my point to most but you're playing an expected card. Not right...just expected.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why do I suspect the OP is a stealth promotion of this concept.
  
  " Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord". Colossians 3:18
  
  Now, I have no quarrel with any woman who decides to live by this philosophy. It's her business in a free society which embraces freedom of religion.
  
  There is something a tad sneaky about dressing up a principle of religion and dressing it in ill-fitting secular garb, like this theory and presenting it as science - with no scientific supporting evidence.
  
  More than a tad sneaky, actually....
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But - expected.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Sneaky" is letting it off far too lightly. Try "intellectually dishonest and wilfully, malignantly ignorant".
  
  Sorry if that sounds harsh but at the moment I have a very low tolerance of people who can't or won't accept reality and insist on clinging to a false worldview in defiance of all the facts (long personal story, won't bore you with it).
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Reality is relative to individuals perception...you know that. Ask a cop familiar with witness statements if you don't. There are as many realities in this world as there are people. As for the rolling insult....not bad.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, reality exists outside of one's perception.
  Witness statements are not as reliable in today's day and age, as in the past.
  This would be untrue also.
  
  Just a thought.
  reply report
  76
  Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I know the real reality, but I'm not telling you guys.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ummm... so you're saying that all those zoologists who have observed homosexuality in ostriches, flamingos, beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, bonobos and orangutans have been imagining it?
  
  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … nimal.html
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No I have no doubt the lab techs witnessed some male blue tongued skinks mounting rituals over time.
  I think it's open to interpretation as to why they do it, I still thinks it's a sign of dominance rather than affection.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There we go.....someone was bound to throw out a page from the bible, please can we keep the bible out of this as I don't recognize it's weight in debates.
  If you are unbiased enabled answer me this.....if this "hypothesis" were correct would the people be told?
  Clarity is often gained from the ends back.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Let's see.. We aren't going to argue the introduction of what's basically a religious principle on biblical grounds.
  
  We aren't going to look at it from the viewpoint of anthropology. Even though that's the science that could critically analyze your theory.
  
  Where history would contradict the theory, we will dismiss it.
  
  On what objective basis are we supposed to critique the OP. Silly me, I suggested we can be objective. That was never intended from the moment of the OP. This is supposed to be decided emotionally - colored by ones sexual prejudice.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Doug, I don't see any relationship between my hypothesis and religious beliefs, whatsoever. Religion is a complete non issue to me. Religion has it's place in this world I just think when they condem homosexuals as evildoers,sinners or whatever other prejudice they decide to associate to them, they are playing on the wrong field, a field of more wisdom than they can imagine.
  I don't see God through a priest....God is creation, I see it everywhere.
  I don't talk to God through a priest, I feel with proper direction everyone can communicate with God.....my beliefs in a nutshell.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I suspect many gay and lesbian couples don't see God through a priest either. Their preference is normal and natural and your theory was demolished by hubbers across the political spectrum and from a variety of sciences.
  
  Your implicit condemnation of homosexuality as unnatural failed to get much sympathy or support. Next time, let Brenda know in advance of your post, so you will have at least one supporter.
  
  Why does it seem appropriate that your beliefs can be contained in a nutshell.
  reply report
  96
  rmcrayneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Ha! I was wondering where Brenda might be, not weighing/praying/pontificating in on this one!
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Doug as you can tell from my posts I try to keep my beliefs simple. They encompass all, I need no more.
  reply report
  78
  psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Simple, and in this case dead wrong and without reference to any of the known facts.
  
  There have been plenty of studies and parents fo gay kids and straight kids don't differ on any known variable. Nor indeed do the parents of gay parents and straight parents.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I suggest you take a cold shower then read my comments again...trust me you'll see why.
  reply report
  83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Basically. ~sighs~
  
  One of these days I may change my avatar to something that just says GENDER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT in big sparkly rainbow letters.
  
  Sure, there are genuine biological differences, but not nearly as many as most of us have been trained to think, and the level of variation even within the genuine biological differences is such that making any sweeping generalizations about gender beyond the level of basic anatomical "plumbing" becomes fairly difficult.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My viewpoint of humans as a species differs with many of you. I don't think were near as complex as our egos are telling us. In the scope of the universe I feel were quite basic animals. I figure if you could look at it as whole humans have very predictable patterns. All we've done is found 100 different ways to do the same thing with the same results....real complex.
  Nature is not complicated, trying to change it is.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you wish to keep your true identity a secret, you should not continuously make the same grammatical errors as your "other self".
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  TK?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We're it only true. This won gets more obvious by the our.
  report
  71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Gender is not only a social construct. My post on nature/nurture above has a link to evidence to the contrary. Nature is as powerful as nurture, and in some cases, more so.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We are the combination of both, some of our characteristics can be attributed to nature some to nurture. I don't view it as all or none.
  I have trouble comparing the two in terms of impact to a person, I think the ratio would be all over the board.
  Born physically handicapped by nature or socially handicapped by improper nurture. Same result, it's relative to the impact on the individual.
  reply report
2. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's not a theory. It's a disproven theory. It's a hypothesis.
  
  A theory is something that has YET to be disproven.
  
  For example: the theory of thermodynamics could easily be scrapped completely if there was simply ONE experiment that proved it wrong.
  
  This hypothesis you presented HAS been disproven (for example, I have numerous friends who have the same upbringing, but some of their siblings are gay and some aren't.)
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Evan and I agree - which should dispel all doubt.
  
  Happy New Year, Evan!
  reply report
  71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Evan and you are both smart folks. You're bound to agree sometimes. Evan and I agree sometimes, too.
  reply report
0
Sophia Angeliqueposted 13 years ago
I have a question.

It is known that there were high levels of homosexuality in Ancient Rome (around the time of Christ) and during the high point of Greece (a couple of hundred years earlier).

Would you then say that in during the Pax Romana (1000 years I believe), women dominated the household, although it was the Pax Romana that enforced Christianity. What about Greece?
reply report
1. 74
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  True, societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships have varied over time. But, YES in Ancient Rome and Creek times the young male body remained a focus of male sexual attraction. Many orgies parties were preformed.
  
  A group of artist asked me to sand sculpture an orgy theme on a public beach. I love carving nudes, but this was too much for me to attempt.
  reply report
  0
  Sophia Angeliqueposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So, if what the OP says is true, then in those societies, women must have been more dominant than men. That doesn't make sense, I don't think. I thought that historically women were second class citizens...
  reply report
  83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Upper class women in some of the ancient Greek city-states weren't much better off than women in conservative Muslim societies today. They'd be uneducated, married off in their mid-teens to men twice their age, and often forbidden from leaving the house without a male relative or servant.
  
  The Greeks actually used this as a justification for homosexuality. Women were inferior, so there was no point in educating them, and since they were uneducated, they were inferior, so heterosexual sex was regarded as primitive and animalistic and sex between men the highest expression of love.
  
  Not a world I'd care to go back to, but its existence certainly does smash the OP's theory to smithereens.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  History can be very self serving, I don't take as fact everything I read about ancient cultures. At the very least I acknowledge history can be the writers opinion at times. I can't defend my position against a ancient culture, I don't think I was even walking let alone talking back then. To me the only certainty about history is that some of it never happened.
  No I don't think history is a fairy tale and I believe the majority is accurate, but at the same time I don't take all as absolute fact either.
  Debating with historians is similar to debating the hard core about their bible, they both believe the printed word with no room for discussion.
  I think there's more than enough ammo for the naysayers in today's world without having to use ancient parallels.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Translation : "These facts about ancient cultures where homosexuality existed or even flourished with no social stigma are inconvenient as they totally demolish my theory. Therefore, we will agree to pretend that history can know nothing that doesn't support my beliefs."
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Very good Doug you're using the out of place artifacts analogy. If you're aware ooparts(short) blows history to pieces....you seem pro "book" but your analogy contradicts your position.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What is the 'out of place artifacts analogy'? Would you care to define 'ooparts(short)' ?? My opinion is that we have slid into Orwealian doublethink here...
  
  "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies,.." - (Orwell, New American Library, 1981)
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Doug just google ooparts there are a few different sites on it. I found it an interesting read....
  Guess I'd rate it double double good in newspeak dialect....comprende amigo.....George Orwell ruled.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  YOU google it and present your case if you have one.
  
  This is a forum - and if you care to refute with some obscure source, then YOU show how it relates. My guess is that you are shoveling smoke as hard as you can since your theory has been rejected by liberal, conservative and libertarian hubbers.
  
  The theory has also been demolished by history, anthropology and biology.
  
  Don't hold your breath, folks, if you expect it to be validated by 'ooparts'.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Doug I'm not going to reprint the entire web site and I don't know how to post a link. Trust me it won't do any favors for your rigid view on history.
  reply report
  71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  to post a link, just paste in the URL of the site you want to use as support for your position.
  
  If you want to get fancy, you can type [ u r l = (the actual URL)] link [ / u r l ], (without the extra spaces) and the word 'link' will become an active link for folks to click on.
  
  But you don't know how to, and you don't care to, which is further evidence that the biggest problems in society to day are ignorance and apathy.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Here's the link one of the many sites
  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/blogg … 4619/posts
  
  Should be enough to fill your plate for a while....enjoy.
  I didn't figure 6 key strokes to google would be an issue, but I followed what you said and obviously it worked.
  report
  71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, groovy. Now we have a working definition of ooparts.
  
  Cool, but I don't see how Doug is using an ooparts analogy, nor how the existence of weird stuff "blows history to pieces," especially since many so-called ooparts have been debunked.
  
  BTW, I'd heard of all kinds of weird stuff appearing where it oughtn't, but I hadn't run across the acronym "ooparts" before, so thanks for the education.
  report
  83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's something the Greeks themselves were quite open about, so maybe you should consider studying history instead of pooh-poohing something you apparently know nothing about because it doesn't fit into your pre-determined worldview.
  
  More anthropological fun:
  
  * the hijras of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh are biological men who adopt female gender identities in some of the most repressively patriarchal societies in the world today
  * fa'afafine and mahu are third genders recognized by indigenous Polynesian societies
  * many American Indian tribes recognize third genders, commonly grouped together under the name Two-Spirit today
  * traditional Samurai training in Japan frequently included apprenticeship to an older master who would initiate the student sexually as well as in matters of war and culture. Like the Greeks, these relationships were believed to drive both partners to fight better in order to impress their lover.
  * Thailand has a traditional third gender and Thai kings commonly took both female and male lovers
  * etc.
  
  Homosexual behavior is documented throughout history, both in societies where it has been accepted or encouraged and societies where it carries the death penalty. In the animal kingdom, homosexual behavior is well documented in more than 400 different species, and has been observed in nearly 1500. Homosexual behavior is perfectly natural. It's the violent response of (some) human societies to it that is unnatural.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In 1950 how many documented species were effected by homosexuality, probably far fewer.
  What was defined as dominant behavior back then is now coined homosexual....go figure.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think anyone could make no sense by accident - and this post makes no sense as a response to the one which preceeds it.
  
  Perhaps it's just a smoke screen intended to hide the previous rational & documented argument which he couldn't refute.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Homosexual behavior is perfectly natural" you my friend would be blue in the finger after the next 30 years of debating that quote.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I can't debate the quote "Homosexual behavior is perfectly natural."
  
  because I agree with it. Anyone who wants to debate it will find themselves busy as the opposite view has become unpopular and associated with ignorant bias. You can't go much further right than Dick Cheney and he would tell you it's natural. His daughter is lesbian and I suspect he learned hard. But to his credit, he learned.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A politicians viewpoint, always so correct....forgive me. I think I'd give more credit if a street bum said it.
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No - you are not forgiven. Credit to a troll?
  
  Int gon b. Soz.
  reply report
  83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The science of ethology (study of animal behavior) has only existed as a formal science since the 1930s, so that's hardly a surprise, is it? When you've got thousands of Jane Goodall types observing animal behavior 24/7 for 80 years, it's amazing what you'll discover!
  
  Moreover, your average scientist who is observing animal behavior 24/7 is going to be able to tell the difference between two dogs humping each other after a play fight, and male dolphins who bond as youths and have regular (and frequently creative) sex with each other until one of the pair dies.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Kerry,I'm sure scenarios like this are very common...... two male,"partnered", ,unfixed, "gay for life" dogs...introduce a bitch in heat...what happens?
  I bet one gets his feelings hurt.
  reply report
64
anniedeeposted 13 years ago
I think we should focus some studies on what makes people care about the sexuality of others so much.

There's no obsession over musical differences, food preferences, and clothing styles... why is sexual preference any different?

We're human. We're different. You don't have to understand.
reply report
1. 60
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I think we should focus some studies on what makes people care about the sexuality of others so much."
  
  hahahhahahaahhahaha
  
  well said!
  reply report
2. 71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "There's no obsession over musical differences"
  No, there is. Conservatives also like to blame the nation's ills on Gangsta Rap.
  reply report
67
glenn wallaceposted 13 years ago
As others have already pointed out, there's more holes in cdnhat's 'theory' than swiss cheese.

His theory assumes that homosexuality is a completely learned behavior, saying it's completely in the 'nurture' side of the nature/nurture divide.

But a simple search of Google Scholar for "genetic cause homosexuality" pulls up more than 37,000 documents, and virtually all of them all say that genetics (nature) more than anything mom or dad does is where gaytabulousness comes from.
reply report
1. 67
  glenn wallaceposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...not that environmental influences have been ruled out by science! Studies have led some to believe that there is SOME environmental role. It's just that even in studies where mom or dad ARE gay, there's been no credible evidence showing that they teach gayness to their offspring.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently we don't agree, natures an easy target though, last time I talked with her she was pretty quiet,
  reply report
  67
  glenn wallaceposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's about establishing however many facts as you can before trying to make assumptions to build a theory.
  
  Your theory just runs counter to virtually everything I've read and personally observed about the subject, and the bulk of scientific study.
  
  But you're right, nature is an easy target for pinning human behavior to. Can you name a human behavior that doesn't have a strong correlation to genetics?
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Homosexuality
  reply report
  67
  glenn wallaceposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Points for chutzpah, but you're begging the question.
  
  Besides all the scientific evidence that two seconds of Googling can bring up - let's go beyond even your theory. Let's say homosexuality is entirely, 100% choice, decided on a whim by people that for some odd reason want to be ostracized by society.
  
  The human urge to be sexually active, and to select and bond with mates, no matter what the criteria, is deeply and undeniably genetic in origin.
  reply report
78
brimancandyposted 13 years ago
I read over your comment cdnbrat, and although a lot of it sounds like it might be possible, it is only a grain of salt in all the other theories on why people a homosexual. But, I think the whole roles is kind of off. I mean what if both parents are dominant? Wouldn't that cause one to believe that might turn out a more bisexual child? Or what if they are both weak?

The problem with this theory, is to say that parents are just one or the other when it comes to their dominance over a child's lifetime is scientific hogwash. As you say, animals may have a controlling nature to keep their herd or clan in check, but, humans are far too independent, with many variations to their lives, to be compared to the eat, sleep, hunt, and mate life of an animal. As an animal will have sex with both male and female animals in it's group, including in their family pack. I know, because I lived on a farm, and animals don't care that they might be doing their brother. They just do it.

So the answer to your question is maybe, but probably only about a fraction of a percent of the whole picture. I would be curious to know how much the straight community is studied. I'm sure there are a bunch of deep thinkers looking at graphs and charts as I am writing this, as they are the only people who care. And, that is because someone is paying them big bucks to find and answer that they will never find.
reply report
1. 51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure if you can have two equally dominating or submissive parents in a relationship. I'm sure in their eyes all seems equal, but how does a baby see it? Obviously I don't know but I think it's more probable that what the couple sees as absolute equality is still defined in terms of a hierarchy by the baby.
  I guess the question I have is in the view of their offspring can parents be viewed upon as equal, or is there always a hierarchy?
  As for the farm animals, I'll agree when the animal that does the receiving smiles.
  reply report
  78
  brimancandyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think a child could are less if their parent is dominant. Ask yourself what you tought of your parents when you were a kid or a teen. Did you say gee my dad is really dominant over my mom, or gee mom's really mean and Dad's her bitch. Or did you just think of them as mom and dad, and had no other thoughts about them, other than they are your parents.
  
  Teenagers are so full of self interest, their parents power over each other is the last thing on their minds. But, of course there will be some science geek that will say..oh no...they notice it before they can think for themselves. No they don't, they don't know anything, they crap their pants and get breast fed, and if they can remember doing that as an adult, they are not like a majority of people in this world, and they certainly wouldn't end up gay. More likely just another geek, amazed by all that they know.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting you were born a blob with no innate direction in life, I guess as well sculpted by society,or conceit to become the scholarly "geek" you so are. Nice story....I'll file it in romance.
  I'm not a scientist but Im not dense enough to call one dense either.
  reply report
74
frogdroppingposted 13 years ago
I get the underlying principle cdn ... that homosexuality isn't so much a choice as a part of who an individual is. I prefer the nature over nurture idea, though I can see why the theory has appeared.

I'm supposing if it was watertight I'd be gay - let's just say my mother rewrote the book on female dominance.

Back to the likelihood of nature being the cause, or even nurture. It still won't be enough to convince those that view homosexuality as a matter of choice.

You know - like an individual decides to be gay. They don't want to take the easy road in life and be any old hetero - ohhhhh no ... they want it rough. They want to hide behind closed doors, they want to experience lots of angst before the possibility of telling friends and loved ones. That kind of thing
reply report
1. 51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The debate of choice is so intertwined with religion it's lost credibility.
  reply report
  71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, it has lost its credibility (if it ever had any), but I'm not sure that's the reason...
  reply report
60
Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago
I haven't read the book, but I knew something like this HAD to exist on Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Homosexual … 0521196752

It's a book detailing homosexual behavior in animals.

I don't know the argument is, or what the conclusions they reach are, but if you go through the "look inside" -- or just look at the cover --you will find that homosexuality is a biological "issue", not a "behavior" issue.
reply report
1. 51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You will find just as many or more saying it's a choice though....who's right?
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes Evan I did check out the preliminary reading at amazon....thanks for the link.
  reply report
64
prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago
biology, sociology or even anthropology can't give answers until we gave up the fetish in classifying homosexuals as sinners - then it becomes psychology - obsession to prove that they are really sinners
reply report
1. 51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Homosexuals have done nothing directly or indirectly to cause their preference.
  reply report
  64
  prettydarkhorseposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Human behavior is complex and even multi-disciplinal approach doesn't have answer.
  
  Happy New year to you and good luck in your search for the answer.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But in the OP, you assume that the sexual preference of gays is wrong by suggesting it's the fault of a female dominated household.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No Doug it's the fault of the self serving agendas that created it.
  reply report
60
AskAshlie3433posted 13 years ago
If you are gay, you are gay. You are not born with anything. No matter what they say, if you are gay, you develope it over time. That would be the same as saying a baby is born addicted to drugs. That doesn't mean the baby will use them. Probably a bad example but still, I just don't think your born gay. If that was the case, you would see it at a very young age. Not saying it couldn't happen, but just unlikely.
reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/63612
reply report
1. 83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL!
  reply report
70
Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago
From what I've read, the mix of early prenatal hormonal exposure is one plausible cause of homosexual orientation. It seems likely to me that there may be multiple causes, biological and learned behavior, of sexual orientations, of which there is quite a variety.
reply report
1. 60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ralph, I would eagerly have a discussion with you about the factors in sexual orientation because I would not have anxiety that the objective is to identify where they went wrong. Orientation is. Period. It's not good or bad except in how you express it. Provided it's between consenting adults - it's all good, even if it's not 'your thing'.
  reply report
  0
  Kathryn LJposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hear, hear. Nature, nurture, what does it matter? Why do people fixate so much on sexuality? Surely there are more important things to worry about?
  reply report
  70
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We're on the same wavelength. There is a great variety of sexual orientation and behavior far beyond gay and straight. And I suspect the causes are complex, some biological and others experiential. For example, I suspect that fetishism is primarily experiential, and nearly all gay people believe they were born gay. I haven't had a discussion with a transgender or transexual person, but I would guess that their orientation is innate, not learned.
  reply report
94
habeeposted 13 years ago
I'm pretty dominant, and all 3 of my daughters are straight and married to men, and all have kids. I think having a strong mom made them more assertive and more independent - not homosexual.
reply report
1. 61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  mmmmmmmm, dominant.
  
  Gotta go now.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ron, I don't think she meant fishnets, boots and a whip. Be nice. She's my friend.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You never know what I might have stashed in my closet!
  
  But thanks, Doug - that was sweet.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. She did. She's Mistress Habee to me.
  reply report
  60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  For those who were waiting for the day... I'm speechless.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Now, that's funny!
  reply report
96
rmcrayneposted 13 years ago
My sister and I were born and raised by the same parents. She is gay, I am not. My dad was definitely dominant and my mom submissive. No one who knows my family would dispute this. This was the norm, especially in the South. This was also true for three of our cousins who are gay, and the only ones in their sibling group who are. There may be a trend in my extended family, but it had nothing to do with domineering mothers.

My sister always felt different. When she was in first grade, she named a “girlfriend”. Mom told her little girls had boyfriends, and that she would understand when she got older. Of course, she never did. Having these feelings as a young child obviously had nothing to do with sexuality.
reply report
1. 51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good post, blows my theory away....really can't argue with first hand proof.
  One question though...you had the winning card all along but didn't play it until now....why?
  None the less kudos.
  reply report
  96
  rmcrayneposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just "enjoying" the thread at my leisure.
  reply report
2. 83
  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, some of the transgender people I know or have known have mentioned that they felt "different" as early as 4 or 5. I don't remember any of my gay or lesbian friends or relatives saying that they knew any earlier than about 10, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't happen. My (heterosexual) husband claims that he remembers wanting to get under his teacher's skirt in kindergarten! He says he didn't really know why at that age, just had the vague feeling there was something good there.
  reply report
59
Stump Parrishposted 13 years ago
I'm not convinced that homosexuality is actually that prevalent in the animal kingdom. We have three male dogs that go at each other so much I labelled the pen "The Brokeback Dog Pen" on google earth. These dogs have spent their entire lives living together and taking turns being the bitch. If you were to release a bitch in heat into this pen, I am sure all three dogs would revert to a male female coupling. I think animals are more bisexual than homosexual. That I have also witnessed many a dog humping a pillow or leg, probably blows my theory right out the proverbial doggy door. I will now retire to my cave and ponder this. On a side note, so called "normal" dogs with straight partners passing by the Brokeback Dog Pen never ridicule my bisexual dogs. Odd that some dogs have more acceptance and compassion than the christian moral majority isn't it?
reply report
59
BobbiRantposted 13 years ago
OMG Yes! Let's blame mom for all the homosexuality in the world. It's gotta be kind of ridiculous to me, but hey, whatever!
reply report
1. 60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Once they gave women the right to vote, men were totally emasculated and the flood of homosexuals is the 'natural' result. Repeal women's rights and ban them from the workplace - do away with abortion and all contraception and let women take their place as the breeding animals for real men that God meant for them to be.
  
  And don't let them wear pants.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  When they stopped making people pass an IQ test before they reproduced, that Doug was the start of it all.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So that means we don't have to work anymore??
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh - you have to work. You just shouldn't be paid for it.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hmmm...so nothing changes.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mark my hats off to you, I think you penned the fifth "new age support quote for support seekers" that has nothing to do with my writing.
  Here I'll throw you a bone...... the people that I'm talking about in my writing are white and I'm black.....sorry reverse that...
  Fetch.
  reply report
60
evvy_09posted 13 years ago
I just have one thing to say.

Yet another person signs up and starts crap in the forums. Does not have time to find a avatar or post any hubs but can post a opinion and call it fact. Let's just send all the women back to the kitchens then huh? Will that fix the problem?
Show your ignorance some more if you like, I do like a good laugh. But can we talk about something else in the forums beside God hates everyone that doesn't agree with certain people or simply gay is bad? It's really annoying.
reply report
1. 78
  brimancandyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Love the avatar. I should get a t-shirt like that!
  reply report
  60
  evvy_09posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks
  reply report
2. 51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Traditional spear chucking knuckle dragging rhetoric. Up here I hear you can get a full list of common "sure to garner support one liners" in a daily paper called the globe and mail. Never read it as I see no need for popular vote script as I prefer something thought up by the person making the statement.
  reply report
60
Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago
people are still posting on this forum?

lol
reply report
0
awesome77posted 13 years ago
You do have some truths to your posting, but not the total facts! The union of a very strong female and a weak male do produce most times, weak males! Now, i would not stretch that to include homosexuality.

Humans are going through a huge identity crises and can you imagine what sexuality would look like 30 years from now! Have you noticed how sex with animals is becoming more common(still in the closet)

I think we have entities in this world trying to change us in all forms! Our DNA is been altered, just like they did with plants and animals! If you have no clue to what I am talking about, then you've been blind to the forces slowly reshaping us!
reply report
1. 60
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are RIGHT!
  
  I just realized - aliens from other planets are reshaping our DNA because they are afraid of what we might do to change the universe when we discover warp drive... Men with limp wrists are the first step of their evil plan....
  
  (rolls eyes)
  reply report
  74
  Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Gay is mainly Genetic, since biological we are 99% the same.
  
  How gay is that?
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Doug from a Canadian to a Mexican.....peace.
  reply report
61
misscolesposted 13 years ago
What about genetics? I'm sure that plays a role in child development. Also, have you considered environment? Does a child's parents necessarily provide all the environmental influence? I don't think so. There could be psychological reasons as well!
reply report
1. 51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think genetics has more to do with the physical being and environment has more to do with the individuals personality.Although I feel genetics does play a role in who a person is just to a much lesser degree than the environment.
  I strongly believe the environment greatly influences a childs development from day one. The level of influence a parent has on their offspring is relative to the parents involvment with the child. I do suspect some characteristics will be learned before others....as well I suspect the ones mandatory for survival of our species will be set first.
  reply report
60
kazemaru2posted 13 years ago
I think it is more complicated than just genetics or just environment.
reply report
61
Daniel Carterposted 13 years ago
Children of gay parents usually have a very good perspective about their own sexual identity. Gay parents are usually much more open about sex and identity than traditional parents. These children are not necessarily gay because they grew up with it. In many cases these kids are heterosexual. The statistics are no more lopsided to them being gay than in any other demographic. The difference is that in most cases, gay parents are far more accepting of their child's sexuality, regardless of what it is.

Such theories as cited by the OP are usually contributed by people who are ultra-conservative, who don't really want any associations with LGBT people, but who take a stab in the dark, without facts, to try to describe what they feel is wrong with something. All it does is continue to show incredible ignorance.
reply report
1. 51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Gay parents in a same sex all across..m.m.boy have no issue as one will always be dominate which will be who the boy will identify with, nature makes these boys chase girls.
  reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

This is the cause of homosexuality. You can take a break for some "alone time" if needed.
reply report
1. 94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The guy doesn't work for me. I need a hairy chest and a beer gut. But then again, I'm straight.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  OK, OK, This is what causes heterosexuality among redneck women.(as long as the guy's a relative)
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OK!! NOW I need some alone time! lol
  
  You think I'm a redneck?
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You've described yourself as such.
  reply report
  94
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You believed me? Don't real rednecks lie a lot? How do you know if I'm telling the truth? Is there a such thing as an educated redneck? lol
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Habee a lot of assumptions have been made as to peoples self proclaimed level of intelligence, how do you know you're more educated than a redneck?You may be more openminded than the popularly projected redneck, but as for education you have no clue, you're relying on a stereotype there are plenty of rednecks, from street level to the ceo of very large companies. Your brilliantveducation comment exposed your own level of such Your replys are a precise example of the effects of social engineering, You're ideas are copied from stereotypes promoted by self serving agendas. Isn't this is what your " new age" is supposed to be so against... Demolish the stereotypes? But keep the ones that benefit the self serving activist groups.
  All seem to think that a happy household is not possible in a male dominated home. But at the same time a female dominated home receives praise from all ....why the double standard?
  Why are not dominant females looked upon as abusive and controlling just as dominating males are in a marriage?
  Because the dominating female is the new thing, question it and 160 replys later, you realize people have been brainwashed to accept this double standard, as unfair as it seems, most are blind to the unjust...I'm not.
  Then again the great majority don't question why...they just follow.
  But when they promote stereotypes, which their so against, I don't see the logic
  reply report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

Btw, this is what causes beastiality. Not that I'm equating the two, but given the absurdity of this entire thread...
reply report
1. 51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ron if first pic causes you to think homosexual thoughts.....you're a homosexual, or at the least "bi".If the sheep does it for you as well you're in trouble.
  My initial thoughts on the first pic.... obviosely this guy has spend some time in a gym, apparently your thoughts are of a different nature.
  Yes Ron you and I think differently as I have no connection from the pictures to my penis, sorry.
  reply report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you constantly confuse "your" with "you're" ? There is another forum poster who seems to be challenged by this basic rule of grammar.
  
  Are you possibly related?
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A grammatical error sends my post to your illiterate zone, I make allowances for typos and am capable of piecing together sometimes broken sentences from grammar that's not up to snuff, like mine, you apparently are not.
  Such a unique world you must live in where everything must be proofread before being presented to you.
  Your interpreter must cost you a fortune.
  I'll show you something cool.
  "grogee oerwlel rleus", in words longer than three letters you can jumble all the letters in a word but the first and the last and still decipher the sentence. Try it.
  reply report
65
Greek Oneposted 13 years ago
Homosexuality has its roots in the early 1980s... when the NBA's tight shorty short shorts caused men all over the world to question and discuss their sexuality at large golden testicle-adorned gathering pillars

reply report
1. 86
  I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sadly, this makes about as much sense as the original post. It's disappointing that people can be so misinformed that they actually believe things like the feminist movement caused a spike in homosexuality.
  reply report
  51
  cdnbratposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sadly, I find most of you people so blinded by your rigid four sided views that your opinion has lost its credit to me anymore, pretty much done posting as I have learned little from my debaters....lots of posturing but no facts delivered. None of the two links I was sent...one for amazon to buy a book on it and the other nat geo website where I found nothing either.You people enlightened me, not from your ideas but the lack of. A few tried to bluff their intellect but a few well placed questions told the truth, I found it fun toying with the conceited as well.
  Apart from a few posters with intelligent responses,most were public script .
  I enjoyed being one against all, but I found it quite easy since most used the same attacks....the five from the book of societies in groove quotes,
  completely of of context at that, made them look desperate.
  Honestly I expected better.
  reply report
  71
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Translation: "You people keep not agreeing with me, and I'm in over my head. Eeek. I'm going home."
  
  reply report
  60
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Be a mouse, or be a man. Better to be a hermit and seek the enlightenment of ATHER. Genetic confusion, if genetic it has to be a mutation, or it would have had to come down from a branch of special evolution, which, would, as a driving force, seal the fate of mankind. Just cause you feel like it, doesn't mean you have to surrender to the temptations of the flesh. I like guys, but I LOVE women. If you don't share my veiw, fine by me. won't hurt my feelings.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Is this the cause of homosexuality?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Is this the cause of homosexuality?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies