As I see it. Only one of these things can exist. They are mutually exclusive ideas. If not? Then explain how they are not.
Cause I don't see it.
You can have one, or the other, not both.
I simply ask because I am a humble man. Who would be more than willing to reconcile these two ideas. If possible.
1... That Evolution rules the biological world.
2... That an ineffectual and detrimental Gene as a, "Gay Gene", would not have been wiped from the existences by evolution a long time ago.
Thus making Homo-sexuality a choice, not genetic.
Now your probrably wondering, "Is this a bait thread?".
No. It isn't.
I simply cannot reconcile the idea that homosexuality is not a choice but genetic, against the scientific theories of Evolutionary Biology.
I have spent hours in another forum. With no intelligent explaination yet to be had.
I figured I would ask our esteemed scientific community, if they could reason this one out for me. (And I mean that. I do respect most all your opinions.)
Homosexuality is against my religion.
If it is a genetic trait, then the homosexual community would have a more valid standing in the eyes of religionists then they do now. And I dare say, the entire world. That is after all the point of argueing it is genetic to begin with? Right?
Please. Explain this contridiction to me.
Has this got something to do with Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez
He asket scientifically. I think he grasps the religion part BUT - the Bible also claims bowl hair cuts and shell fish are abominations...
Your line of thinking would also say that *any* mutated or defective gene would also have to "evolve", and therefore correct itself. If it works for one gene, it must work across the board, I believe.
I know of no scientific evidence to support the thesis you present. However, I may be ignorant of some scientific findings. I believe there is no foundation to what you conclude.
howcome no one ever asks "is heterosexuality genetic"?
Your a man or a woman at birth. Unless a defect occurs. So yes. I think that question has been answered, cosette.
haha that avatar cracks me up
anyway, in a nutshell, people are born straight not "made" straight, just as gay people are born gay not "made" gay because of circimstances.
I don't question paths that others take or choose as that is theirs and nothing to do with me. That lifestyle is between them and the *Man Upstairs*. All that matters to me is they are real.
The question is simply in regards to the scientific aspect of it. Placing both theories at odds with one another is bound to create questions.
But both are taught in schools as "normal" and "true"... So?...
My question is just. How?
Actually I was asked this by my neighbors daughter. She stated she could not understand how both could be in effect, "true?".
I cannot answer that... so I have asked. In several places and have recieved no answer.
Why a sexual orientation, that can be genetic or not, is so important to some people?
After all it's an intimate decision.
Would I be less human , if I decided to have sex with women ?
Thats not the question... but no you wouldn't be tanty.
It is a topic my sons are not overly enthused with either but they accept the same answer as mine. I guess it is a curiosity to the young, why do such contradictions exist? but, my own children were not brought up in the church either so maybe makes accepting my answer easier for them. Why worry about something we have no control over?
Well when she asked the teacher to explain. She was told those were matters for the higher grades she would attend. As in?... College?... She is in the 10th grade now.
IDK?... but she is wondering
So I figured maybe I could get someone with some scientific credentials to explain how those contradictions were clearified.
So far, as I have stated. No answers.
Wouldn't it make more sense to actively seek out scientific sources, rather than ask a shower of forum-posters like us?
I cannot find a source that clearifies it for her. Same as the teacher. The closest you get is as stated by someone. Oh. It isn't a question for evolutionary biology.
Well then who do you ask if not an evolutionary biologist about evlutionary biology?
Who says it's a "detrimental Gene"? Is not cancer a "detrimental gene", and if so, why was it not wiped out by evolution? So if the "gay gene", as you refer to it, isn't detrimental, then yes, both can coexist. It can exist regardless.
The real question to me is how people can learn to exist with people of differing views, differing beliefs, different walks of life and still learn to respect and love one another.
The point of inter-course is pro-creation. There-fore that gene would be detrimental. No reproduction is possible.
That is simple math.
When left to itself a strictly gay tribe would vanish in a generation.
And that doesn't answer the ? either.
That is merely YOUR belief, perhaps rooted in religious beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less.
What about all the gay men who had children and then realized they were gay after? Or were persuaded to become gay by liberal atheist dolphin haters?
Will their children be gay - or does it skip a generation?
Then it is a choice?...
Think of the illogic involved in reproducing gay offspring through genetics of gay parents.... ?
If it were genetic it still wouldn't appease those you say it would. All sorts of things are obviously genetic -- lust, anger, jealousy, but that doesn't necessarily excuse them... at least not in the eyes of "God"
Why are you so concerned anyway? It is OK to be gay. No one here will think any less of you if you come out of the closet. Many are persuaded to deny their true selves by religionists - keep on telling them it is a choice and wrong - I am sure you were told that. Now it is OK - You are amongst friends.
Not sure you are using the term "illogic" correctly unless you are blind to the homophobic religionists shouting that homosexuality is against their religion.
It's always humorous to find people that say "It is OK to be gay." but are actually trying to belittle someone by calling them gay, I sure wouldn't want them on my side.
I only ever say it to obviously latent homosexuals.
So -- you are among friends and can feel free to come out of the closet.
Not really. I suggest you look that word up in the dictionary.
I have no problem with gay people. You appear to be latently homosexual and homophobic. I will help you with that. Feel free to come out. I will not ridicule you for doing so.
The word describes you perfectly, how does one appear to be homosexual or homophobic from words on a computer screen? I don't think you really have any answers do you?
prolly in the same way you can figure out a person's political and philosophical persuasions and level of intellect "from words on a computer screen"...
What is that freakin' liberal doing on this thread... Gett'er off ...
You can figure out someones political philosophy from words on a computer screen, a little harder to determines ones sexuality however.
So - you think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable and have no issue with men being gay then?
Sorry if I assumed that when you attacked me for suggesting I would help TMMason deal with his latent homosexuality and homophobia.
I am glad you are comfortable with homosexuals and do not think there is anything wrong with the practice and I apologize for suggesting that was the case. Good for you.
I obviously got the wrong end of the stick, so to speak.
There is nothing wrong with homosexuals, but you must think there is because you use it as a put down. You must not know what an attack is if you think I attacked you.
'You must not know what an attack is if you think I attacked you.'
Now I'm afraid !
Sweetie pie - I only use it as a put down to those who are obviously homophobic.
Irony - see?
The fact that you use it as a put down at all proves your hypocrisy! I look forward to your next bit of, eh....thought?
Math says that in spite of homosexuality practices, the species is not at all endangered in regard to its proliferation capacity. Numbers keep growing.
Homosexuality is a common practice in many species, other primates, some mammals (canidae), birds...
Unlike stupidity which must be genetic (or genbetic if you prefer), for if it was a voluntary choice... oh my we'd be realy, really mean bastards.
This ? is not about whether it is moral or not. Or a choice or not. It is about. How does one reconcile the percieved obvious contridiction in teching they are both true.
It is a simple question. I thought. They don't reconcile it, you don't reconcile it... it can't be done.
unless one or both are not true.
both are true.
but as sexual behavior can be a choice too, it's not relevant for EB
I don't understand how gravity works. I could do a Google search for five minutes or so and take the time to learn about it, but I am content to trust that gravity is right, and ok both in the sight of God and under the laws of my country. You're right though... if I were in tenth grade someone would probably be demanding I know
It takes a long time for a change in evolution. Give it another few hundred thousand years and your wishes will have come true.
It is only you religionists holding the process back - keep on persuading a few gay men they should really have kids.
Guess what? They pass the gay gene on.
It is all your fault is has not already died out as a trait.
This is not an argument mark. I could care less what you or anyone else do. But the question still stands.
I just explained it to you.
Basically your question was "why hasn't homosexuality died out as a trait?"
I told you why - 1000s of years of religionists such as yourself persuading people to deny their true selves.
They then breed and pass the gene on. Simple.
What did you not understand about that?
But what EB has to do with gays ??
That sounds like discrimination.
and as I said before it can be a choice too.
So I can't think of serious biologists considering gays like a threat for Evolution.
Can you present your sources of biology that says homosexuality is not genetic ?
By the way, You heard about giraffe ?
Now you know you cannot prove a negative to begin with. And the question rightly is... "Can you show homosexuality has a genetic cause.
Please. you do not start by considering the ? answered and then trying to dis-prove it. lol
if you can possibly direct me to any biology source that say it is not genetic that will help a ton. Besides reason i gave you about one animal out of lot is because there are many examples which i can give you that shows it is genetic as well. Now can i have your sources please ? I'm sticking with simple question instead of asking too much in this thread, a single credible biology resource will do. now can you please ? or lol ?
I think we can never know the answer it is case to case basis,
maybe socialization or gene pool
Sceientists and even sociologists are not certain about the causes of homosexuality
how about a boy left in the jungle like Tarzan to survive,
no socialization at all except with animals
we dont know whether he will become homosexual or not
the fact is you live according to the social dimension you are in and by fitting into societies and upbringing too, you learn and do things ascribed by societies only for male or female??
or you just think and behave because of your gene pool
What is to be a homosexual? sexual orientation??
I think there will never be an answer to this one,
I actually agree with your logic. I also agree with (and was going to write but didn't, before) Mark that cultural norms have forced gay people to have straight sex for millenia. However, unless these cultural norms stretch back a hell of a long way, then I am not sure that explains homosexuality's origins.
No matter, an evolutionary biologist CAN explain it. Are you going to ask us about quantum mechanics next?
Actually. No. But I have heard alot of people brag about evolution and some have stated they have degrees. So I am asking for all opinions. Laymans included.
Am I going to be forced to quote Jerry Seinfeld AGAIN
So? I shouldn't have declared what I thought about it at the beginning? tyhat would be disingenuous mark.
My point is clear.
What is sad, is that this young lady is watching you degrade others as if that answers the ? and makes you smart.
Man, illogical indeed.
There is no proof to prove Evolution biology has anything to do with homosexuality.
There is also no proof that it stems from genetics.
It is a sexual preference and a choice.
However, irrational the choice is, it is still a choice.
Those who claim that they have felt it since birth, would be speaking an untruth, because a person's sexual preference only comes from experience of both genders, then they make a choice, as to which they prefer.
How they arrive at their decision? Or what makes them choose those of the same sex is completely unknown and might never be known.
So out of three pages i have one coherant serious response directly to the question asked.
I could be here a while.
Why don't you go to some *science* sites??????????????????????????
Because all this is about Mason's beliefs, I believe !
Actually it is about a ? posed at school by a tenth grade student.
I gave you an answer.
Both are true
GH & EB
but as sexual behavior is a choice as well, I don't think is relevant for EB, unless they decide to change our minds as well.
I started typing up a long response and then decided just to write a hub. Give me an hour or so and I hope you'll find some food for thought.
three for three. thank you cosette.
Or is that four....
thank God whatever # it is.
it is a gray area actually there are lots of researches conducted to ascertain that it is gene pool by buying the cadaver of homosexuals and then studying it, and some scienctist said that the brain of homosexuals are quite larger, but of course, if that person has a child then he could pass his trait to his child, but how about the child has to live alone without social contact in the outside world,
will he become homosexual, with our definition?
I think that genes and socialization has something to do with it, we dont know what percentage is the gene factor et al
plus the way society defines what homosexuals are, but as I have said it can never be answered becayse there is nothing certain or absolute truth specially on the study of behavior
will he have a choice? we dont know isnt it?
Can we raise a homosexual?
OK. I'll have a go.
The problem is not whether same-sex attraction can be passed on, because as long as someone with an inclination for same-sex attraction has sex with someone of the opposite sex, then there is no mystery re: it being passed on.
So, the question would have to be how is it that people with homosexual tendencies had heterosexual sex.
Of course social pressures including the pressure to get married have existed for millenia, so there is no problem explaining a perpuation over time of this inclination (people were pressured into opposite-sex marriage).
But presumably homosexual tendencies existed before the development of a complex institution such as marriage.
None of this is problematic however as long as homosexuality was always in fact BI-sexuality.
So, the question is really: How come homosexuals are not all bi-sexual?
And now you are asking how a man could not be attracted to women... which is really not my territory...
All of this is vaguely reminiscent of the Palestinians and how every group under the sun, from Osama bin Laden, to Saddam Hussein, to The Taliban, to the Christian Right, to the Israel Lobby, to North African young men in France who were never within a thousand miles of Palestine, uses them to feed their own agendas.
Yet, when you see interviews with ACTUAL Palestinians, they usually say: F**ck off and mind your own business -- all of you!
How do you explain pheromones bio-chemical interactions and consequences,(reactions, actions, combos etc.), and their existence in the differing genders.
If not through the fact that sexual preference in some way is established as man with woman. We are in effect two halves that create a whole.
If not preference, then "normal" combination.
So that would dictate a "choice" of homosexuality.
In all serious, really, you're now asking questions about endocrinology. What's next: oncology, urology... I mean, this is not some jack-in-a-box field, thousands upon thousands of specialists work on these questions all over the world. We're just a bunch of time-wasters
this is why those "gay deprogrammers" think they can just subject someone to an intensive ordeal to "degay" them, since, in their minds, homosexuality is a "choice". this is also why some men look at a beautiful lesbian and say "one night with me, baby, and i'll turn you straight"
my brother is gay, and he knew from a very early age that he was gay. he said he always felt that way from as far back as he could remember. children aren't sexual, so how could it be a choice? if we assume that gay people make a choice to be gay, then we have to assume straight people make a choice to be straight.
see, me, i knew from an early age that i was straight. even though as i grew, i found myself occasionally attracted to a sexy, scantily-clad female on TV, i never felt i was gay. i love men. i think women are interesting, and every once in a while, i see or meet a woman who stirs sexual feelings in me, so maybe i am bisexual, although i don't think i am. sometimes i meet a woman who really comes onto me like a man does, and i'm all, hmm...what is she seeing in me that makes her think she can flirt with me?
TM, for clarification, when you say "genetic" do you mean to say that people are born gay? it may not be genes - it may be some other factor that influences whether or not a person is gay, although i do not believe it is a choice.
can you actually control your feelings if you like to have sex with same sex, mind over urges or matter?
if so, you have a choice, the flesh is willing but the mind cant??
or you just follow what is expected of you, to behave according to what you are expected to do
This certainly is a cutting-edge area of research and cannot be explained in forum posts - you really are going to have to do a little research on this one. Evolution and sexual selection is much more complex than simply looking at parent to child inheritance. It also involves society as a whole and takes into account social factors. In condensed form:
Firstly, current knowledge suggests that , whilst genes play a factor in homosexuality, upbringing also plays a part, as does the level of male and female hormones in the mother during pregnancy. It is nature with a little nurture although, as Tantrum said, it may be a choice for some.
So, to answer your evolutionary point, there are a number of distinct possibilities:
Possibility 1: The gene for homosexuality confers other advantages, such as higher sperm mobility and better success in attracting mates. Sexuality is rarely an either/or situation and somebody who is ‘more’ homosexual is also more likely to attract females. Therefore, the homosexuality gene can be advantageous, in evolutionary terms. Dominant/recessive genes relationships ensure that it is never a clear cut case - as with most human behaviour, homosexuality is a spectrum.
Possibility 2: There is the issue of ‘kin survival.’ The passing down of genes is not always limited to direct parent-child transfer (Descendent Kin). Families also pass genes and ,as with many animals (Meerkats, Primates, Golden Moles as just three off the top of my head), families are all involved in raising the children of the dominant pair(Non-Descendent Kin). If homosexuality confers other social advantages, such as negotiating access to resources, then it will persist in a population.
Possibility 3: If men with a tendency towards homosexual behaviour have children, they are better at nurturing them and their offspring are much more likely to survive. Therefore, the gene continues to be passed down.
There are other possibilities covered in the links below:
http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogi … uality.pdf - A useful paper highlighting some of the reasons for homosexuality conferring selection advantages.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ … /3031.full - An academic paper with an exploration of the reasons why such a trait is passed down.
http://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/22 … an_Biology(2006).pdf - A readable paper with information about the vast spectrum of sexual behaviour in animals and humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427196/ - Has a lot of mathematics but with an excellent list of resources to follow.
After all of that, I agree with Tantrum - Personally, I do not give a crap. Live and let live
Great post, sufi! I added one of those links to my new hub.
Too bad somebody made up his mind before he asked the question.
I studied the genetics of psychology quite a bit during college for my major. There's a wide variety of reasons that genes that would not directly encourage the propagation of a species would exist. This goes beyond homosexuality and includes a number of different issues which you would not fail to address.
I would be interested in knowing your background in genetics before I go too much further, just because I don't want to get caught up in a science conversation with someone who doesn't care.
I have done the research peeps. Not only you guys, can read and comprehend. But!!! The research is nothing if not the same as I hear, here.
I wanted the forums opinions.
You don't want to play.... don't.
But stop questioning where the ? goes.
It is a valid argument.
If your saying genetics is involved in homosexuality. Then there are more than just a few questions in regards to the validity of that.
So what about all the science that shows clearly the factual differences between the genders. And of course the results of the combining of those bodies, and the chems, biology, etc...
You cannot sweep alot of facts and science under the rug, to fit the theory.
If you're in the mood for research, look up "naturalistic fallacy"
well, i don't think anyone here is qualified to give any scientific explanation regarding any of this. all we have are our opinions, based on our own experience.
"research" for a forum post? who does that.
why do you ask, anyway? someone else posted a thread last week or so asking the same thing. i asked him why he wondered and he never answered...
Far from sweeping things under the carpet, I just gave you some of the latest research but, obviously, you are the one who chooses to sweep it under the carpet because it does not fit your narrow, predefined view of the world. You asked for the opinions of biologists but you then chose to ignore them.
Not much point continuing, really
you sweep alot under the rug when you state homosexuality is genetic. the proof to support that can only be there if blind to all the other proof. Why does that opffend you. Any honest biologist would tell you that
Again, the sources (peer-reviewed) that I gave showed that it is largely genetic and also reasons why it confers an evolutionary advantage.
For the record, I was a biologist for many years and I like to think that I am honest
And there are as many who say nay.
The question is not answered. We do not know.
So - you ask a question, get an answer from a biologist, do not even read the answers and just revert to this.
hehe - I am fully aware that I was wasting my time but, using your favoured tactic, others will read this thread, the provided sources and Kerry's soon-to-be finished Hub
The guy is not interested in proof, even when it is served on a plate. Search for 'Gay Gene' in Google Scholar, and there is plenty of 'proof.' Try a normal Google search and it throws up religious sites - that is all the 'proof' he needs
AdsenseStrategies had the best answer, though - we should be way beyond trying to pick the thing apart
You don't even need Google scholar. I found a stack of explanations in five minutes using regular Google (of course, it was Google Canada, so maybe a bit more godless and polite than regular Google)
what a word !
I can't find the 'hypocrisy' in MK posts.
I'm looking forward to your next bit of a .... how can I call it ?
I do not intend to say anything.
But I did ask about the "gene" for being Gay. As has been argued for by the gay community, and they claim science supports. (Because science doesn't prove other-weise. I believe someone tried that fable?)
A gene that makes you gay from birth is the thing I seek.
I believe it is a choice. Yes. One made at a very early age, what would most likely seem like all your life, if it was all you could remember, as far back. Ya know.)
But a choice. None the less.
I have heard and read it argued that it is a genetic thing.... but I see no evidence. Nor do I see it being able to exist for mellinia if the world is ruled by Evolutionary Biology, as propounded.
Also... physiology, biology, and all those other things the others are complaining about being drug into. Are a natural part of us as human. They cannot be dis-counted. Differences and all.
There are a lot of 3,4 year old children that have homosexual inclinations.
you can research that in any Med- Psychological site.
I'm sure at that age you don't even know what homo means
I agree. So it is bahaviourism. You think? You do that which you like?
hmm, well, i don't see how it could be a choice. i mean, you know you're straight right, from a very early age? you don't even think about it, you just know you are. you always did. no one wakes up in the morning and goes "hmm, i think i will be gay today".
I used to like bra ads on TV when I was young. I still remember them. Playtex, Cross-Your-Heart. But then, I am from a liberal, European country....
For most of history, in huge numbers of places, both the view that women were men's property and slavery were close to universal beliefs/institutions.
This strongly suggests that tendencies to feel this way about the sexes, as well as about "lower classes" or "slave classes" is genetic (how could the Incas and the Chinese have borrowed from each other, for example).
SO FREAKIN' WHAT.
The gay community is wrong to use genetics to bolster its arguments, because it is simply OK TO BE GAY. Period. If someone comes along and "proves" it is not genetic, SO WHAT.
Conversely, suppose someone proves that we inherit genetically our tendencies for sexism or racism (both of which probably ARE inherited genetically). SO WHAT.
Homosexuality is ok even though it is probably genetic.
Sexism and racism are wrong even though they are probably genetic.
In other words, biology is the wrong tool to answer questions about moral philosophy with.
The question was posed to see responses to it. Just like you do in a forum.
So you cannot behave in a free way and discover something you like. It has to be taught from someone around you? IDK. I don't think so. Learned behavourism can be incidental, or accidental, liking it or not is what counts. isn't it?
It can be accidental or incidental, but it has to do with your environment.
If not is genetic.
Even if you don't like it ,you have to accept it, sometimes. for me that's a proof it's genetic.
Then you should know the difference between the genders are worlds apart.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, "proof" of a gay gene.
I don't know about that prof. But I know lots of cases of gay people telling me they couldn't do anything about it. They were born that way.
I agree. And I don't think, and you atheists should agree. That I should believe something without proof that it exists.
It seems to me this gay gene does exist. It also seems to me that there is a psychological component to the question that has nothing to do with it. So there is gay by design and gay by choice out there. To complicate matters further there is gay by how a person was brought up which is another psychological factor. So all up there are three considerations.
Why in nature should there be a gay gene? I think it is something that is supposed to kick in when there is too strong an imbalance in a population. It arises when there are too many males and not enough females or too many females and not enough males. The psychological components also kick in here as well.
The idea of a gay gene also comes from the fact that gay behavior isn't just human. There are examples of it in the animal world. Dogs, rabbits, etc.
Humans can of course go without sex for very long periods of time. Other animals don't have what it takes in terms of brain matter to do so.
Once the gay gene kicks in it is my thought that it then doesn't matter if the imbalance is settled.
TMMason - if you don't trust the evidence you have been given here by Sufi, (I don't know why you wouldn't as it's extremely strong), why not just go and do a bit of research yourself and ask gay or bisexual people whether they feel they were born that way. Every gay or bisexual person I know (including myself) will say that they always were that way. It's not a choice.
The whole premise of this thread title shows a lack of understanding on the issues of genetics and evolution. There are plenty of genetic characteristics that you might "guess" would be bred out of the population such as a mental illnesses, colic in babies and homosexuality. (Wouldn't it be nice if some could lose their ignorant gene as well?)
Sufi gives you a very good answer as to why your guesses are incorrect.
That is inherantly flawed. I explained why earlier, but I will do so again.
One is basing that they were born gay on the fact that they have remembered being gay all their life. Well, yeah. Thats all you can remember. That is the totality of your life as percieved by you.
Also. There is no proof that a gay gene exists. None.
You can produce all the studies and papers you want. I too can produce thousands, millions, disputing that. It is the way it is. When someone states they know something, when they cannot know that something.
And we CANNOT and DO NOT know.
Then, with all due respect, if we use your own logic, neither we, nor you KNOW one way or the other. There simply isn't enough substantiated evidence one way or the other to arrive at a definitive answer. Hence, there will continue to be those who say it is a choice and those who say it's genetic. And at this point, by your own logic, neither is necessarily wrong. They are differing views that cannot be completely rectified one way or the other.
That is untrue. Sufi has it right and anyone who wants to know will see that.
There is all the proof in the world! Sites that were written by obvious god botherers TM who are naturally homophobes.
So having a homophobic belief. (blatantly obvious to anyone who has read your other threads,) you start yet another religious thread and tie it to another one of your "sins"
You make me wanna puke! A 5 year old could see through you!
Thank you for an honest answer rod.
That is all I wanted to hear. Honest answers in regards to how everyone see the science and how it adds up to them. Which was not what the thread was for.
Last thing I read on this suggested that the “gay gene” has nothing to do with reproduction or homosexuality at all, but that it is a gene that gives a zygote a slightly better chance of adhesion to the uterine wall. The gene has, as a secondary effect, imparting traits linked to homosexuality in men. The gene is passed on the X-chromosome, so it is not necessary for gay men to produce offspring for the gene to continue.
I am not familiar with any theories regarding female homosexuality, which by no means suggests there aren’t any.
And I repeat:
There is: biology, anthropology, psychology
and there is,
Social and political philosophy, moral philosophy and ethics.
A fascist state (perhaps totalitarian states in general) use the first to determine policy (gays are genetic deformities and must wear pink triangles and be exterminated; same for mentally delayed children).
Open, democratic societies use the second (all people have the freedom to act without interference by Big Government).
An answers do not constitute proof, or evidence. I have read quite a few good ones. But I guess now it is about what biology knows, and does not.
And we do not know of any gay gene.
so this thread is no good
How can the OP be debated if there's no prof of one of the statements ?
And anyway, why is homosexuality an issue?
What if I'm a lesbian ?
what's that going to do to the world ????
The post was a question in regards to a young lady's question.
She had my answer.
Now she has many more.
But I don't know what she thinks now.... probrably. "Damn!! should'na asked that!"
But now she has plenty of reading material and can make up her own mind. Thanks to Linkmaster.
And I have not stated "I know".
It was the biologists and his friends that said "they know" or science knows,.
hahahaha read the thread I said I believe, that was about it. And I am the only one to say we don't know. So?....
And of course the threadds good. What else would you being doing right now.
First, everything a person does is a choice. Conscious or Subcounscious choice now thats the question. It isn't necicarily a gene but the path the genes take us. If you are born to an abusive father and a doting mother, one may be more proned to be homosexual, its psychological, but not necicarily the fault of the person who is deemed homosexual. Its the common question of nature vs nurture, and right now its a concept scientists struggle with because of the lack of evolutionary usefullness, but when you look at all and I do mean all aspects of an individuals life, there usually is some explaination, but its not something that can be treated, its as though they were ingrained with it from youth without it being intentional. Just as you are religious, that is how you were brought up, their own psyche was in a sense trained by perceptions and it isn't something that they can wish away. Some think as you do that it is a curse, but still act on it or deny it. Some feel guilt and depression from it, and some have even been known to treat it as though they are being raped because before they can remember they were raped or molested and are subconsciously reinacting the event. There are too many reasons to why someone would be homosexual, but not all are just genes... But roughly yes genes could have some aspects to do with some cases it is not reflective on all homosexual individuals and to be frank, just because someone is one way or the other, it shouldn't matter. The heart and soul if your religious should be what you look at to determine who they are and if they are good. Looking at someone because they are different only hurts you from the oppertunity of knowing them. I personally have known many people of every sexual preference whether in the work place or even one poor girl in church who was judged and ridiculed by her piers in church to the point where even her own sister almost disowned her, and she almost committed suicide over it. If it was a choice, and I do mean a conscious willfull choice then why would anyone subject themselves to the immediate outsider position they start out in, and go through the psychological and physical abuse, or try so despirately in some cases to change it, normally without success or happiness.
by mbuggieh 6 years ago
In May of 1950 President Harry Truman signed a bill---passed by Congress, that created the National Science Foundation. In signing the bill, Truman noted:"Throughout our history, scientists and scientific knowledge have contributed to our progress as a Nation. If you want to keep up that...
by Mark Knowles 8 years ago
Some one just accused me of making a personal attack on them because I said they are ignorant of certain facts. Any one who has interacted with me here will know I try not to make personal attacks, other than to make fun of people, and these threads are littered with snipped personal attacks on me...
by TMMason 10 years ago
I enjoy this video so very much.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&NR=1Abaa.. ah... ah... aba... what?I love that video... not to mention the fact that he never answered the question. Yes, I have read his letter to his fans as to his answer. And it is almost as funny as the video.The...
by sooner than later 11 years ago
It seems that this is a one way street. You ask all the questions, but don't back yourself up beyond insult. I bet I know evolution better than 99.9% in here, and thats why I don't believe in it.I understand that its fun to be smug and bait believers in a forum, but at some point you need to throw...
by Phoenix Brown 3 years ago
Do you think people are born Gay & Straight?Curious to know what people in today's society think on this question.
by Alexander A. Villarasa 6 years ago
Could physics (specifically quantum mechanics), be the groom to biology(specifically molecular genetics), as its bride? The concept of marrying the two seems counterintutive, and therefore anathema to most scientists/empiricists. Physicist Jim Al-Khalili and biologist Johnjoe McFadden(...
Copyright © 2020 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. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|