Being gay, genetics?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2011, 09:23 PM
RE: Being gay, genetics?
Disability in this sense is offensive and that is why they removed it from the list of disabilities. To say that someone is disabled is to say that they suffer a handicap in life. Sexuality is in general a small part of life. Producing babies is not all that humans do and should not be seen as a necessity. Stop defacing women who can't have children. You are still just as much a natural human being if you have fertility issues (non hetero sex being one). Disability means in most cases something that you don't want. This is where it becomes very difficult, and people seek advancements towards fixing the problem. Being gay is not a problem at all, generally gay people enjoy being gay. The hardest part of being gay is living in a society which rejects your personal needs.

I will stress again Disability means something unwanted. Gay people do not desire to attain heterosexuality.

You are being horribly offensive by discussing the ability to stop homosexuality genetically.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2011, 09:28 PM
 
RE: Being gay, genetics?
(03-06-2011 05:39 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  As for grassy I think you need to stop posting in a thread just to throw a cheap shot at someone mixed with a few words from your big boy thesaurus. So either add something to my topic or hush.
You lend the impression of a sock account.


[Image: 5794583.jpg]

Please, do continue to demonstrate sarcastic Trollism. Smile

Contrary to what your parent(s), Priest(s) told you, you were born gay. It's OK. Learn to live with yourself by loving what is.

If you were seriously seeking answers to why that is, you wouldn't be in an atheist forum. Instead, you'd spend your time seeking sincere replies in a forum dedicated to the field of genetic research that you're implying holds your interest.

" Big boy Thesaurus. " [Image: 6.gif] Don't hate me because it takes you an hour to thumb through a dictionary just to sound out the big words, so as to read me.

On second thought, you'd best remain a troll here and not seek out those science forums.Their big boy Thesaurus' are out of your reach. Smile
Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2011, 10:16 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2011 10:20 PM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Being gay, genetics?
(03-06-2011 09:23 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Being gay is not a problem at all, generally gay people enjoy being gay. The hardest part of being gay is living in a society which rejects your personal needs.

I will stress again Disability means something unwanted. Gay people do not desire to attain heterosexuality.


Just because you enjoy it does not mean that something isn't wrong with it. You are really taking the term disability too personal and that is really just your problem.

I have no problem with gay people just as I have no problem with anyone else who was born with an altercation or handicap. It happens, and yes, people should rationalize whatever there problem may be; I totally support that. But to stand there and say it is offensive does not deter from the fact that there is a difference in the brain. Whether it is right or wrong is really only addressable on the grounds of what people consider right or wrong.

So, I will have to state again, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING ABOUT ANYONE OF YOUR FEELINGS. I am here to obtain factual information on what makes people homosexual. I do not care if you find differing in semantics. I do not care if a word bothers you. I do not care. I am here to address right and wrong on whatever basis we can apply it to.

You want to tell me it was intended naturally? That it isn't a disability? A disorder? Mutation? Give me something. Till then, " It bothers me" Doesn't cut it.

And my reply for grassy: Okay kiddo. Whatever you say. Wink

And FFS I am not religious. Thanks for implying that grassy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2011, 10:39 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2011 10:47 PM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: Being gay, genetics?
I'm saying that you keep proposing to wipe out gay people by genetic manipulation. And we have discussed natural things. Gay people have been around forever, along with trans. Many animals share in homosexuality. Most cultures at some point get to the point where they stop thinking that something besides a procreating person is a freak. I'm not talking about my feelings, and don't write me off like that I'm discussing what you're saying about a group. that I happen to be an activist does not mean that I am discussing my feelings. That would be worse for you. I have explained why it is not a disability, and all you state is you understand those already born not having a choice. That's just not an acceptable response. That's calling us something we're not (well since I'm intersexed I'm still called a defect). Don't make everything that isn't your preferred choices an abomination. Life is varied and many things happen because there is no favoring sameness, if we get too similar a single disease will wipe us out. Stop looking for cures to variance and realize that you'll be fine if you have a gay child. You'll be upset a while, in this culture everyone gets worried. but life moves on.

I told you the currently known factors. They have not determined a specific sexuality gene. What they have noticed is that there is a strong likelihood of a chemical response from stress by the mother during a specific part of the fetus's growth which leads to a higher likelihood of a gay baby. Do you want them to just start dissecting fetuses until they find one that must've been gay? Science in this case can only observe we don't test humans as disposable specimens. it's hard to substantiate a lot of data when you only realize a baby was gay after it ages far enough to express it.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2011, 05:30 AM
RE: Being gay, genetics?
(03-06-2011 10:39 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I'm saying that you keep proposing to wipe out gay people by genetic manipulation. And we have discussed natural things. Gay people have been around forever, along with trans. Many animals share in homosexuality. Most cultures at some point get to the point where they stop thinking that something besides a procreating person is a freak. I'm not talking about my feelings, and don't write me off like that I'm discussing what you're saying about a group. that I happen to be an activist does not mean that I am discussing my feelings. That would be worse for you. I have explained why it is not a disability, and all you state is you understand those already born not having a choice. That's just not an acceptable response. That's calling us something we're not (well since I'm intersexed I'm still called a defect). Don't make everything that isn't your preferred choices an abomination. Life is varied and many things happen because there is no favoring sameness, if we get too similar a single disease will wipe us out. Stop looking for cures to variance and realize that you'll be fine if you have a gay child. You'll be upset a while, in this culture everyone gets worried. but life moves on.

I told you the currently known factors. They have not determined a specific sexuality gene. What they have noticed is that there is a strong likelihood of a chemical response from stress by the mother during a specific part of the fetus's growth which leads to a higher likelihood of a gay baby. Do you want them to just start dissecting fetuses until they find one that must've been gay? Science in this case can only observe we don't test humans as disposable specimens. it's hard to substantiate a lot of data when you only realize a baby was gay after it ages far enough to express it.

Again, with the strawman. You insist on continuing to imply that I am calling homosexuals freaks and abominations. Also you imply I would be upset if my child is gay. And then you are assuming what science isn't doing as if it's right rather than assuming they are doing it because it would start controversy. All stated all of this was incorrect in my previous post, which apparently you did not read.

The funny thing is I have seen deaf people talk of the same way as you do about homosexuals. They don't want to change, they have their own community. Society is the problem.

So please, get off this topic, I will say again, I am looking for what medically separates homosexuals from heterosexuals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2011, 06:49 AM
RE: Being gay, genetics?
I told you what's known medically. Why can't you see that? I discussed that it's seen as a stressful impact during the (I think) 22nd week. It's also known that people who are gay have more chemical receptors for the opposite biological sex (men who can use estrogen more efficiently or vice versa). I stated why they don't know more because it would take human testing. Researching after the fact takes a lot of study material, and older gay people don't have good birth records. In this respect medical ethics demands that research not proceed swiftly due to the immorality of using humans as tools. Many huge medical breakthroughs are caused by dictators who see no problem dissecting and examining things. We don't do that here.

The reasons for it being perfectly natural come from studies such as the bonobo (a small chimpanzee) and the many non western cultures adaptations of third genders. There is plenty of social evidence that gay people are a helpful part of society and can often times be part of bridging the gap between hard gender roles. We don't have as many hard gender roles, but that does not make gay people all the sudden nothing.

Yes many gay people have children along with raising children, and it is just as uncommon for their children to be gay. There has been no correlation made to suggest it's an inherited trait at all.

I was explaining exactly what you asked and telling you how bad your question was, because you have to understand asking the wrong question is a good way to get hurt.

I'm also the only person who has entertained your question because I do like to inform people on these issues any time I can. If you really think I'm getting in the way of things then I can leave, but remember to remove any of the actual facts presented by gassy and myself. And this can go back to a purely psychological thread since your question about the actual biology seems to give the wrong answer.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2011, 01:59 PM
RE: Being gay, genetics?
(04-06-2011 06:49 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I told you what's known medically. Why can't you see that? I discussed that it's seen as a stressful impact during the (I think) 22nd week. It's also known that people who are gay have more chemical receptors for the opposite biological sex (men who can use estrogen more efficiently or vice versa). I stated why they don't know more because it would take human testing. Researching after the fact takes a lot of study material, and older gay people don't have good birth records. In this respect medical ethics demands that research not proceed swiftly due to the immorality of using humans as tools. Many huge medical breakthroughs are caused by dictators who see no problem dissecting and examining things. We don't do that here.

The reasons for it being perfectly natural come from studies such as the bonobo (a small chimpanzee) and the many non western cultures adaptations of third genders. There is plenty of social evidence that gay people are a helpful part of society and can often times be part of bridging the gap between hard gender roles. We don't have as many hard gender roles, but that does not make gay people all the sudden nothing.

Yes many gay people have children along with raising children, and it is just as uncommon for their children to be gay. There has been no correlation made to suggest it's an inherited trait at all.

I was explaining exactly what you asked and telling you how bad your question was, because you have to understand asking the wrong question is a good way to get hurt.

I'm also the only person who has entertained your question because I do like to inform people on these issues any time I can. If you really think I'm getting in the way of things then I can leave, but remember to remove any of the actual facts presented by gassy and myself. And this can go back to a purely psychological thread since your question about the actual biology seems to give the wrong answer.

Grassy has helped in no way. So please do not imply that.

As for you, just because you say it's hurtful does not mean it is. We just might as well not address deaf people because it might be offensive that we want them to hear. God forbid we try to restore hearing in their children and take them away from their community!

Now for the factual information you have gave me, it has barely been much. You have spend most your time arguing semantics and what offends you or other people.

Give me facts, studies, evidence, I am not hear to talk about what bothers people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2011, 09:01 PM
RE: Being gay, genetics?
Environment in the womb - hormone levels in the mother can influence everything. It's amazing how much hormone signalling can change the body and brain wiring/chemistry while the baby is forming.

The actual individuals genes only give part of the picture. There are also epigenetic switches that can disable some parts of the genetic code and/or cause other genes to be over-expressed.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2011, 10:36 AM
RE: Being gay, genetics?
Hormones play a big role with sexuality, and hormones are largely genetic. There's the Fraternal Birth Order theory/hypothesis(not sure which one it is) that DeepThought talked about. It pretty much says that the mother develops antibodies for the hormones that makes a male fetus masculine(since a female was never had to deal with them, her body sees them as foreign). Her immunity builds up with each boy, causing an increased chance for each following son to be gay. I also heard that after even more sons, the chances of having a transgender(trans-sexual? I can't recall and I'm not all that familiar with the terminology) increases also. This idea has some criticism(I think the study suggesting it was claimed to be faulty/dishonest). Personally, I think the question of nature versus nurture to be as exciting as finding out if liking pickles is genetic.

Anyway, I present a relevant cartoon for your viewing pleasure.



I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2011, 11:15 AM
 
RE: Being gay, genetics?
I read somewhere, and can't now be bothered to go searching for a link to provide, that the sexuality of a person (as opposed to the sexual anatomy of a person) occurs along a continuum which includes at one end complete alignment of sexuality with sexual anatomy to complete malalignment of sexuality with sexual anatomy at the other. Where on the continum a person is is decided by the timing type and intensity of various hormonal cascades that occur during pregnancy. I find this theory satisfying as it explains all of the variants that exist. To say that complete alignment of sexuality with sexual anatomy is normal and everything else is a disease state or disability is the same as saying that along the continum of height versus limb length only people with perfectly aligned limb length to their height is normal and everyone else has a disease or disability. Just because one is an external state which is easily seen and the other is an internal state which can't, doesn't mean that they are different features that can't be compared. Both have their genesis in the anatomy and physiology of human beings. To call one a disability/disease and the other a normal human variant is offensive, and makes the psychological pain inflicted on the people who don't occupy a pinpoint on the extreme end of the sexuality/anatomy continuum understandable.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: