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.
I have never seen so much inaccurate, unbased rubbish in all my life. I assume I am missing the joke?
... i guess, to answer your question...
...No. This is not the cause of homosexuality.
Your post is every bit as meaningful as your hubs.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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??????
Homosexuality in animals is just a convenient perpetuated escape for a society not wanting to look within.
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.
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.
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.
Penguins, black swan, elephant, ibis, macaqu, fruit fly.
The responses are overwhelming. I'll take the provocative plunge...only humans.
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...
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?
"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?
I'm fully aware of how animals show dominence.
What a monstrous load of poppycock. Rarely does logic get so horrifically abused as it has with this, erm, hypothesis. Just wow.
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!
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.
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.
How did 'nature' measure the growth of human population, determine global population is too high and reprogram the sexual preferences of all these people?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Hi, Doug! Hope you have a wonderful 2011!
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.
I am pretty sure this theory has been discredited for decades. It's complete rubbish with no bearing on reality at all.
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.
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'.
Yeah, that's it. You're a misunderstood visionary waiting for society to catch up.
Ron lobbing insults isn't my interest here, although finely tuned in such an art, I now find it boring...sorry.
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?
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?
Ron the accent to your writing is anger. This is not what I had intentioned....sorry.
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.
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.
How does one "suite" a debate. Is there actually a debate going on here?
A good day to laugh indeed.
Were any of the Garden of Eden dinosaurs gay?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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...
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.
"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.
Oh for Christ's sake. Why not just come out and say it.
It's all the MOTHER'S fault!
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.
"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...
Come on Doug...such a primitive attack from such a forward thinker.
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.
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.
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....
"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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Doug as you can tell from my posts I try to keep my beliefs simple. They encompass all, I need no more.
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.
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.
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.
If you wish to keep your true identity a secret, you should not continuously make the same grammatical errors as your "other self".
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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."
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.
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)
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"Homosexual behavior is perfectly natural" you my friend would be blue in the finger after the next 30 years of debating that quote.
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.
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.
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.
"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"
No, there is. Conservatives also like to blame the nation's ills on Gangsta Rap.
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.
...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.
Apparently we don't agree, natures an easy target though, last time I talked with her she was pretty quiet,
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Homosexuals have done nothing directly or indirectly to cause their preference.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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?
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.
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.
Ron, I don't think she meant fishnets, boots and a whip. Be nice. She's my friend.
You never know what I might have stashed in my closet!
But thanks, Doug - that was sweet.
Yes. She did. She's Mistress Habee to me.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
When they stopped making people pass an IQ test before they reproduced, that Doug was the start of it all.
Oh - you have to work. You just shouldn't be paid for it.
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...
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.
Love the avatar. I should get a t-shirt like that!
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.
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!
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....
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!
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.
I think it is more complicated than just genetics or just environment.
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.
This is the cause of homosexuality. You can take a break for some "alone time" if needed.
The guy doesn't work for me. I need a hairy chest and a beer gut. But then again, I'm straight.
OK, OK, This is what causes heterosexuality among redneck women.(as long as the guy's a relative)
OK!! NOW I need some alone time! lol
You think I'm a redneck?
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
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
Btw, this is what causes beastiality. Not that I'm equating the two, but given the absurdity of this entire thread...
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Translation: "You people keep not agreeing with me, and I'm in over my head. Eeek. I'm going home."
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.
by Rhonda D Johnson14 months ago
A Colorado school district is being sued for discrimination. The parents of six year old Coy Matthis, who they say has identified himself as a girl since he was a toddler, are incensed that the school will not...
by mdawson177 years ago
In the recent years I have seen more men come out of the closet after being married for more than 5 years. This concerns me becuase I think of the spouse that has dedicated her complete life to him!I have seen children...
by flacoinohio3 years ago
If Phil Robertson was inappropriate in sharing his opinion with Drew Magary I could understand the outcry from the GLBT community and the GLAAD organization. I know many gay and lesbian couples who openly discuss...
by Sharifa Mayle21 months ago
Hello I am bisexual and I have the most interesting conversations with males...... it is like I am the inside look to the female mind or something. "You are like one of US that is cool.... we can talk about...
by Alem Belton6 years ago
The subject bar would not let me type in my whole question, so I chose the part of it that would get the most attention. Below is the entire question and an explanation of it:DOES HOLLYWOOD HAVE A 'GAY AGENDA' OR...
by Sooner284 years ago
“Anti-bullying legislation is exactly the same,” Mr. Fischer said. “It’s just another thinly veiled attempt to promote the homosexual agenda. No one is in favor of anyone getting bullied for any reason, but...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.