If people are really born gay..

[jdiaby]

and there is gay gene that makes people gay. Wouldn't be in this best interest to society to isolate the gay gene and make homosexuality obsolete as its counterproductive to the evolution and progression of our species?

[ace23]

:roll:

[macmac]

and there is gay gene that makes people gay. Wouldn't be in this best interest to society to isolate the gay gene and make homosexuality obsolete as its counterproductive to the evolution and progression of our species?

Do you realize that we're gonna be about 20 billion people on this earth in about 50years? Stop talking about evolution like you have a clue and start learning how to eat a good dikk

[IcanzIIravor]

and there is gay gene that makes people gay. Wouldn't be in this best interest to society to isolate the gay gene and make homosexuality obsolete as its counterproductive to the evolution and progression of our species?

No. How is it counter productive to the evolution and progression of the species? We've done a lot of things to change the natural progression. Might as well give up technology and go back to the cave men days if you want old school survival of the fittest.

[jdiaby]

Do you realize that we're gonna be about 20 billion people on this earth in about 50years? Stop talking about evolution like you have a clue and start learning how to eat a good dikk

Stop making excuses for ******ry:coleman: , if gay people are really born gay and can't help their ways and wish they were so normal, shouldn't they really push to find the gay gene and eliminate it, become normal and rather than push for same-sex marriage.

[IcanzIIravor]

Stop making excuses for ******ry:coleman: , if gay people are really born gay and can't help their ways and wish they were so normal, shouldn't they really push to find the gay gene and eliminate it, become normal and rather than push for same-sex marriage.

If they are born gay that would make it a natural part of human evolution. What makes you think gay people don't consider themselves normal? I take it you are homophobic?

[rufuspaul]

I think this thread was born gay.

[Lebowsky]

OP must be really losing sleep over this to make it his 63rd. post in 6 years. Any inner struggles that we should know of?

[jdiaby]

If they are born gay that would make it a natural part of human evolution. What makes you think gay people don't consider themselves normal? I take it you are homophobic?

There not born gay, thats the point:rolleyes: , they choose to partake in there actions. It's fact that a booty is made to rid of waste not have dick put in it. I'm not homophobe, I'm just tired people acting like people are born gay and can't help it. There are people that go entire lifetimes without sex, we know a dick is made for a ******. I'm all for two people of the same-sex having the same rights as all couples per our constitution, but to act like gays aren't abomination and wrong isn't is ludicuruos.

[jdiaby]

OP must be really losing sleep over this to make it his 63rd. post in 6 years. Any inner struggles that we should know of?

English isn't first language give me a break.

[bmulls]

I think it's probably a combination of nature and nurture. There are genetic traits that makes a person more likely to be homosexual, but something mentally has to happen when a kid is growing up as well.

I believe if it was purely genetic, it would be weeding itself out of the gene pool. Of course some homosexual people will reproduce, but the majority of them won't. Over the thousands of generations of humanity, it should have gotten less prevalent. Instead it seems to be becoming more common.

[IcanzIIravor]

There not born gay, thats the point:rolleyes: , they choose to partake in there actions. It's fact that a booty is made to rid of waste not have dick put in it. I'm not homophobe, I'm just tired people acting like people are born gay and can't help it. There are people that go entire lifetimes without sex, we know a dick is made for a ******. I'm all for two people of the same-sex having the same rights as all couples per our constitution, but to act like gays aren't abomination and wrong isn't is ludicuruos.

What makes you like women? Do you think you choose to be straight or do you think it is inherently what you are attracted too? As a straight person do you think you'd enjoy sleeping with another guy, but you just choose to be with women or are you just naturally attracted to women and not men?

There have always been homosexuals in humanity let alone other animals. It is a part of nature. Are you basing your beliefs squarely from a religious point of view? Certainly can't be from a scientific point of view.

[macmac]

I think it's probably a combination of nature and nurture. There are genetic traits that makes a person more likely to be homosexual, but something mentally has to happen when a kid is growing up as well.

I believe if it was purely genetic, it would be weeding itself out of the gene pool. Of course some homosexual people will reproduce, but the majority of them won't. Over the thousands of generations of humanity, it should have gotten less prevalent. Instead it seems to be becoming more common.

Do you have any stats to back that up or are you just talking out of your as$? By your logic, women also seem much smarter these days than the ones that stayed at home and were subjugated...don't act like Julius Ceasar wasn't taking it in the bum by his army of young strapping Romans or that Aristotle disnt have Alexander the Great suck on his balls before going to sleep...

[miller-time]

and there is gay gene that makes people gay. Wouldn't be in this best interest to society to isolate the gay gene and make homosexuality obsolete as its counterproductive to the evolution and progression of our species?

and who decides what is progressive? evolution is not directed.

[rufuspaul]

What makes you like women? Do you think you choose to be straight or do you think it is inherently what you are attracted too? As a straight person do you think you'd enjoy sleeping with another guy, but you just choose to be with women or are you just naturally attracted to women and not men?

There have always been homosexuals in humanity let alone other animals. It is a part of nature. Are you basing your beliefs squarely from a religious point of view? Certainly can't be from a scientific point of view.


This

[bmulls]

Do you have any stats to back that up or are you just talking out of your as$? By your logic, women also seem much smarter these days than the ones that stayed at home and were subjugated...don't act like Julius Ceasar wasn't taking it in the bum by his army of young strapping Romans or that Aristotle disnt have Alexander the Great suck on his balls before going to sleep...

Just speculating.

However, there's a track record in human history of negative traits being bred out of society. Scientists estimate that in 100 years the ginger gene will be virtually extinct. Gingers are more common than homosexuals as a percent of the global population, and presumably the vast majority of them aren't gay, and yet they are predicted to be gone in 100 years.

Genetically speaking, a homosexuality gene would be FAR less competitive than the ginger gene, and given the many thousands of generations that have lived before us it should be trending downwards.

It's very possible however that the numbers of gays that seem to be growing is due to increased acceptance of it, which would skew the numbers.

[Lebowsky]

English isn't first language give me a break.

I didn't say anything about your English. At all.

[IcanzIIravor]

Just speculating.

However, there's a track record in human history of negative traits being bred out of society. Scientists estimate that in 100 years the ginger gene will be virtually extinct. Gingers are more common than homosexuals as a percent of the global population, and presumably the vast majority of them aren't gay, and yet they are predicted to be gone in 100 years.

Genetically speaking, a homosexuality gene would be FAR less competitive than the ginger gene, and given the many thousands of generations that have lived before us it should be trending downwards.

It's very possible however that the numbers of gays that seem to be growing is due to increased acceptance of it, which would skew the numbers.

I think it is more people don't have to hide it as much. I mean it still isn't acceptable in Islamic countries for one and I'm sure there are a number of other places in the world people have to hide it for fear of being shunned, beaten or worse.

[jdiaby]

What makes you like women? Do you think you choose to be straight or do you think it is inherently what you are attracted too? As a straight person do you think you'd enjoy sleeping with another guy, but you just choose to be with women or are you just naturally attracted to women and not men?

There have always been homosexuals in humanity let alone other animals. It is a part of nature. Are you basing your beliefs squarely from a religious point of view? Certainly can't be from a scientific point of view.

Most gay people flip flop between both sexes, that why men go to prison and end up performing homosexual acts cause only man booty is available. I know I like women cause it's whats right, my dikk is made for ***** and vice versa. To be truthful if I ended up being in prison for a lifetime who knows what I do, i know I ain't getting my shit pushed in. I think homosexuality is just performing unnatural sex acts, just like having sex with animals. It's just this gay agenda stuff is crazy, I just don't agree with the lifestyle, unnatural acts, and overall look at as a disorder. I do however think they should be allowed to civil unions or some type of marriage per our constitution, but on a personal I don't agree with it.

[bmulls]

Most gay people flip flop between both sexes, that why men go to prison and end up performing homosexual acts cause only man booty is available. I know I like women cause it's whats right, my dikk is made for ***** and vice versa. To be truthful if I ended up being in prison for a lifetime who knows what I do, i know I ain't getting my shit pushed in. I think homosexuality is just performing unnatural sex acts, just like having sex with animals. It's just this gay agenda stuff is crazy, I just don't agree with the lifestyle, unnatural acts, and overall look at as a disorder. I do however think they should be allowed to civil unions or some type of marriage per our constitution, but on a personal I don't agree with it.

I agree with this. I don't give 2 shits of they get married, I'm atheist and have no religious issues with gay people, but do we really have to act like it's right and normal?

Unfortunately everybody is going to call you a bigot because this site is 99% liberal morons who can't form an opinion of their own. Being an advocate of homosexuality is trendy these days.

[Lebowsky]

I agree with this. I don't give 2 shits of they get married, I'm atheist and have no religious issues with gay people, but do we really have to act like it's right and normal?

Unfortunately everybody is going to call you a bigot because this site is 99% liberal morons who can't form an opinion of their own. Being an advocate of homosexuality is trendy these days.


And who are you to say what is right or normal? Those things are usually determined by social convention, which is, by nature, arbitrary. As other posters have already pointed out, things like homosexuality or pedophilia used to be common practice in the past and they weren't looked down upon.

[IcanzIIravor]

I agree with this. I don't give 2 shits of they get married, I'm atheist and have no religious issues with gay people, but do we really have to act like it's right and normal?

Unfortunately everybody is going to call you a bigot because this site is 99% liberal morons who can't form an opinion of their own. Being an advocate of homosexuality is trendy these days.

Homosexuality is present in almost all species, if I recall correctly and thus has been around practically as long as any living creature has existed on this planet. Given this information what makes it wrong or abnormal outside of what religion conditioning has imprinted upon you? Enlightenment and greater knowledge has frightened many a person clinging to how things have always been. I see no reason to be in fear or disgust at greater numbers of people excepting what has always been as normal and not shunning fathers, mothers, children, cousins, etc solely because they are attracted to the same sex. Perhaps being a rational person leaves me unable to understand your point of view.

[jdiaby]

And who are you to say what is right or normal? Those things are usually determined by social convention, which is, by nature, arbitrary. As other posters have already pointed out, things like homosexuality or pedophilia used to be common practice in the past and they weren't looked down upon.

Thats true, society does deem whats acceptable and correct, but all throughout history homosexuality has been on the fringes of society. No mainly homosexual society can survive, it's counterproductive to the growth of our society. Sex mainly for reproduction first, pleasure second. To act like we should give people rights and act like performing unnatural sex act validity is crazy, Nobody has to have sex.

[Lebowsky]

Thats true, society does deem whats acceptable and correct, but all throughout history homosexuality has been on the fringes of society. No mainly homosexual society can survive, it's counterproductive to the growth of our society. Sex mainly for reproduction first, pleasure second. To act like we should give people rights and act like performing unnatural sex act validity is crazy, Nobody has to have sex.

Jesus christ, I swear people are getting more and more stupid by the minute.

[jdiaby]

Homosexuality is present in almost all species, if I recall correctly and thus has been around practically as long as any living creature has existed on this planet. Given this information what makes it wrong or abnormal outside of what religion conditioning has imprinted upon you? Enlightenment and greater knowledge has frightened many a person clinging to how things have always been. I see no reason to be in fear or disgust at greater numbers of people excepting what has always been as normal and not shunning fathers, mothers, children, cousins, etc solely because they are attracted to the same sex. Perhaps being a rational person leaves me unable to understand your point of view.

There is nothing rational about a dikk in the anus, thats why grown man that partake in the acts have to wear diapers. Tell me a some benefits of homosexuality on society other than the lame population control theory?

[IcanzIIravor]

Thats true, society does deem whats acceptable and correct, but all throughout history homosexuality has been on the fringes of society. No mainly homosexual society can survive, it's counterproductive to the growth of our society. Sex mainly for reproduction first, pleasure second. To act like we should give people rights and act like performing unnatural sex act validity is crazy, Nobody has to have sex.

That is incorrect. Check out Greek society for one. You know the precursors to modern democracy. Openly had homosexuality throughout the society, made most famous by the Spartans.

No society is mainly homosexual because the vast majority of people are heterosexual. I really don't understand what your point is with that last sentence. The only rights homosexuals in the US are fighting for is the right to marry the adult they love the same way I married my wife and probably the same way you will eventually marry whoever you find love with.

[jdiaby]

Jesus christ, I swear people are getting more and more stupid by the minute.

Where is the flaw in what I'm saying?

[LilKateMoss]

Jesus christ, I swear people are getting more and more stupid by the minute.

Yes, it is called the "Lebron23 effect".

[Lebowsky]

Where is the flaw in what I'm saying?

I'm sorry, I'm done feeding the troll.

[IcanzIIravor]

There is nothing rational about a dikk in the anus, thats why grown man that partake in the acts have to wear diapers. Tell me a some benefits of homosexuality on society other than the lame population control theory?

Why does there have to be a benefit in modern society? What benefit is gained by any number of modern technologies in our society, yet they are embraced. We aren't a hunter/gather society from 500 BC needing to pop out babies to sustain the people due to lack of drugs or immunity against disease and other disasters. There is nothing rational about jacking off either, since your sperm should only be used to knock a chick up right? What makes you think all gay men have to wear diapers? Did you get that from a study on gay men having sex or something?

[bmulls]

Homosexuality is present in almost all species, if I recall correctly and thus has been around practically as long as any living creature has existed on this planet. Given this information what makes it wrong or abnormal outside of what religion conditioning has imprinted upon you? Enlightenment and greater knowledge has frightened many a person clinging to how things have always been. I see no reason to be in fear or disgust at greater numbers of people excepting what has always been as normal and not shunning fathers, mothers, children, cousins, etc solely because they are attracted to the same sex. Perhaps being a rational person leaves me unable to understand your point of view.

Liberal morons that are also apparently convinced of their intellectual superiority :rolleyes:

I just posted I'm atheist, I've never been religious and I've never had any religious conditioning "imprinted" on me. I also accept that homosexuality exists and I don't care if they get married.

With that said, I don't need to agree with it. There are more criminals in the United States than gay people. Does that make criminality right and normal? For a legal example, millions of people cheat on their significant others. Is this also right and normal?

The mere fact that people do something doesn't inherently make it a good thing.

[jdiaby]

That is incorrect. Check out Greek society for one. You know the precursors to modern democracy. Openly had homosexuality throughout the society, made most famous by the Spartans.

No society is mainly homosexual because the vast majority of people are heterosexual. I really don't understand what your point is with that last sentence. The only rights homosexuals in the US are fighting for is the right to marry the adult they love the same way I married my wife and probably the same way you will eventually marry whoever you find love with.

I understand that gays want the same rights as heterosexual couples, I believe they should have them per our constitution. I'm just saying they need to stop acting like homosexuality is genetic rather than a fetish or alternative lifestyle. Being gay is a choice, and unhealthy one at that, and just because I don't agree with the lifestyle doesn't make me a homophobe or wrong.

[IcanzIIravor]

Liberal morons that are also apparently convinced of their intellectual superiority :rolleyes:

I just posted I'm atheist, I've never been religious and I've never had any religious conditioning "imprinted" on me. I also accept that homosexuality exists and I don't care if they get married.

With that said, I don't need to agree with it. There are more criminals in the United States than gay people. Does that make criminality right and normal? For a legal example, millions of people cheat on their significant others. Is this also right and normal?

The mere fact that people do something doesn't inherently make it a good thing.

What makes it a bad thing then? Is it just your personal belief and if so where did you get this belief from. Since you are an atheist can one assume you have come to this conclusion over time and examining the issue from a rational perspective? Are you deriving it from the ick factor or is there some other facts that have led you to the position that it is abnormal and wrong? Given that homosexuality is found throughout other species how is it abnormal? Is this the slippery slope argument, since you have thrown in criminals into the mix and adultery? Do you think if homosexuality is accepted in society criminals and adulterers will be as well amongst other things?

[IcanzIIravor]

I understand that gays want the same rights as heterosexual couples, I believe they should have them per our constitution. I'm just saying they need to stop acting like homosexuality is genetic rather than a fetish or alternative lifestyle. Being gay is a choice, and unhealthy one at that, and just because I don't agree with the lifestyle doesn't make me a homophobe or wrong.

Do you really think it is a choice. Recently Iran executed several gay men for being gay. Given that they live in such a harsh society that would kill them rather than accept such, what makes you think they chose to be gay? In the face of a potential death sentence you think they chose to be gay when they could have resisted it and been heterosexual?

[jdiaby]

Why does there have to be a benefit in modern society? What benefit is gained by any number of modern technologies in our society, yet they are embraced. We aren't a hunter/gather society from 500 BC needing to pop out babies to sustain the people due to lack of drugs or immunity against disease and other disasters. There is nothing rational about jacking off either, since your sperm should only be used to knock a chick up right? What makes you think all gay men have to wear diapers? Did you get that from a study on gay men having sex or something?

If homosexuality is so harmless and rational to society and the individuals, I guess you would willing accept blood transfusion from homosexual individual?

[IcanzIIravor]

If homosexuality is so harmless and rational to society and the individuals, I guess you would willing accept blood transfusion from homosexual individual?

Yes. Why wouldn't I. Being gay doesn't mean your blood is bad. What have you been reading?

[jdiaby]

Do you really think it is a choice. Recently Iran executed several gay men for being gay. Given that they live in such a harsh society that would kill them rather than accept such, what makes you think they chose to be gay? In the face of a potential death sentence you think they chose to be gay when they could have resisted it and been heterosexual?

I think people are weak of their fleshly desires, that why you have all-time high of single mothers, divorce, and adultery. People think with their sexual desires, instead of constraining oneself. Those men shouldn't been put to death for their bad decisions, but to act like being gay is ok and is genetic is crazy, if it is more gay people should be pushing to correct themselves and become normal.

[IcanzIIravor]

I think people are weak of their fleshly desires, that why you have all-time high of single mothers, divorce, and adultery. People think with their sexual desires, instead of constraining oneself. Those men shouldn't been put to death for their bad decisions, but to act like being gay is ok and is genetic is crazy, if it is more gay people should be pushing to correct themselves and become normal.

Do you think it is by choice that you aren't gay? Have you ever desired to sleep with another man, but simply chose not too? Is it by choice that you are only attracted to women or do you feel you could easily go gay if you wanted too?

[rufuspaul]

I think people are weak of their fleshly desires, that why you have all-time high of single mothers, divorce, and adultery. People think with their sexual desires, instead of constraining oneself. Those men shouldn't been put to death for their bad decisions, but to act like being gay is ok and is genetic is crazy, if it is more gay people should be pushing to correct themselves and become normal.


Were you born irretrievably stupid or did you just choose that trait?

[jdiaby]

Yes. Why wouldn't I. Being gay doesn't mean your blood is bad. What have you been reading?

I guess my guy, but there is reason why they don't allow homosexuals to donate blood because the have higher chance of being suspectible to AIDS and other diseases, doesn't mean they all have something but higher percentage do because of the acts they engage in. It would be like accepting blood from somebody in central africa.

[rufuspaul]

I guess my guy, but there is reason why they don't allow homosexuals to donate blood because the have higher chance of being suspectible to AIDS and other diseases, doesn't mean they all have something but higher percentage do because of the acts they engage in. It would be like accepting blood from somebody in central africa.


:oldlol:

This doesn't even deserve a comment but I'm bored so I'll feed the troll. Blood from good ole 1st world heterosexuals can transmit disease too. That's why blood is tested and typed before it is used in transfusions.

[jdiaby]

Were you born irretrievably stupid or did you just choose that trait?

Please bro, just cause you wanna accept that ******ry ain't got shit to do with me, we have to agree to disagree and keep it movin'.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

I guess my guy, but there is reason why they don't allow homosexuals to donate blood because the have higher chance of being suspectible to AIDS and other diseases, doesn't mean they all have something but higher percentage do because of the acts they engage in. It would be like accepting blood from somebody in central africa.Wow do you even know how AIDS is transmitted? It has nothing to do with being gay. My god...... Do they even teach this shit in health class any more? Are did you just decide to make your own reality?

[ace23]

Wow do you even know how AIDS is transmitted? It has nothing to do with being gay. My god...... Do they even teach this shit in health class any more?
AIDS is more easily transmitted by **** than ******l because of the blood.

That guy is pretty stupid, though.

[macmac]

Yeah but that ban on gay men blood transfusion has been lifted

[Rockets(T-mac)]

AIDS is more easily transmitted by **** than ******l because of the blood.That's because of the blood, if blood isn't present they there's not add risk. If the girl is on her period, theres blood right there, **** if you use their god damn tooth brush it could have blood. Point is the person I was quoting was saying that they don't take blood from gay people because they could have AIDS which is a retarded statement because like rufus said they check anyone donating blood.

[ace23]

That's because of the blood, if blood isn't present they there's not add risk. If the girl is on her period, theres blood right there, **** if you use their god damn tooth brush it could have blood. Point is the person I was quoting was saying that they don't take blood from gay people because they could have AIDS which is a retarded statement because like rufus said they check anyone donating blood.
Yeah, I hadn't read the whole convo. :oldlol:

[kNIOKAS]

guys english isn't first language... no homo though

[Droid101]

Clearly, jdiaby has been listening to the crazy anti-gay protesting lady a bit too much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRxjJZFGgNM

Watch that if you want to have a good laugh. Sadly, there are people in this world that believe this garbage (including our very own jdiaby).

[shlver]

and there is gay gene that makes people gay. Wouldn't be in this best interest to society to isolate the gay gene and make homosexuality obsolete as its counterproductive to the evolution and progression of our species?
Why do the work when homosexuals don't reproduce anyways? That is if there is a gay gene.

[Droid101]

Why do the work when homosexuals don't reproduce anyways? That is if there is a gay gene.
LOL

Yeah, right. Never heard of surrogates, have you?

Or did you also forget that straight people have gay children from time to time?

[tomtucker]

Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 75 :oldlol:

[Droid101]

Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 75 :oldlol:
He must have just found Jesus.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg/300px-Buddy_christ.jpg

[shlver]

LOL

Yeah, right. Never heard of surrogates, have you?

Or did you also forget that straight people have gay children from time to time?
What is the point of your post? If homosexuality has a purely genetic basis, then surrogate births have zero impact in the long run.
Then you go and attack the genetic basis of homosexuality in the same post.

[shlver]

I know this thread is a bunch of nonsense, but...


I'm pretty sure being gay has nothing to do with genes, right? Not saying it's a choice, but being gay isn't a genetic mutation right?

Are we being overrun by a bunch of gay mutants?
Disregarding in utero environment, brain development, and societal and family influences; if there is a genetic basis, it is probably a product of interaction of many genes, not a specific mutation. This also explains why the numbers just do not follow mendelian or population genetic model predictions. Traits can still piggyback interacting genes even if it or its determinants are maladaptive. Sexuality is a complex phenotypic trait and we're not plants, so just the genes=phenotype paradigm is not applicable.

[rufuspaul]

I know this thread is a bunch of nonsense, but...


I'm pretty sure being gay has nothing to do with genes, right? Not saying it's a choice, but being gay isn't a genetic mutation right?

Are we being overrun by a bunch of gay mutants?

It's the future of the human race.

I think individual personalities are a complex combination of heritable and inheritable traits combined with environmental factors. It's probably just as inaccurate to say that there is a "gay gene" as it is to say that our sinister culture teaches people to be gay.

Anecdotally I can say that every gay person I know says that they knew they were gay from quite early on in childhood without any exposure to the "gay agenda".

[shlver]

There is nothing rational about a dikk in the anus, thats why grown man that partake in the acts have to wear diapers. Tell me a some benefits of homosexuality on society other than the lame population control theory?
Is this true?:oldlol:

[Rolando]

The more men who are gay, the better. I learned this from living in SanFrancisco for a while. Having all those gay guys there helped me have sex with more women and I appreciate that very very much.

Memo to straight men: support gay rights, gay marriage and gay everything. These guys have decided to remove themselves from the "who gets to have sex with the women" competition. God Bless Them All.:cheers:

[Droid101]

Is this true?:oldlol:
Of course ****ing not! Stop listening to that troll.

Or is he saying that males and females don't perform that particular sex act as well?

[CelticBaller]

yes, put those **** in concentration camps :mad:

[hoopaddict08]

I don't buy the being born gay argument. You chose to like what you like. I have seen straight people turn gay and I have seen gay people go straight. What you're attracted to can change. I don't really believe there is a gene for it.

[bagelred]

and there is gay gene that makes people gay. Wouldn't be in this best interest to society to isolate the gay gene and make homosexuality obsolete as its counterproductive to the evolution and progression of our species?

Well, isn't there overpopulation now? So shouldn't we make majority of people gay to reduce the population over time?




:coleman:

[miller-time]

I don't buy the being born gay argument. You chose to like what you like. I have seen straight people turn gay and I have seen gay people go straight. What you're attracted to can change. I don't really believe there is a gene for it.

well go and look up some gay porn and choose to be aroused by it. go on.

[CelticBaller]

Well, isn't there overpopulation now? So shouldn't we make majority of people gay to reduce the population over time?




:coleman:
nope, put the gay people in concentration camps and let them die over time, the population drops and the gay gene is dead :rockon:

God Bless America

[hoopaddict08]

well go and look up some gay porn and choose to be aroused by it. go on.

People get aroused by animals. Are you really going to tell me that there is a gene for that too?

[Eat Like A Bosh]

I was always wondering whether or not being gay is something you are born with, or just influences in your life that changes you.

[RoseCity07]

You don't understand how evolution works. It's mostly straight couples that are having gay children.

[dunksby]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4670667919_79ae373610.jpg

[ace23]

Of course ****ing not! Stop listening to that troll.

Or is he saying that males and females don't perform that particular sex act as well?
Actually it is. **** sex will **** up your rectum. I've heard of people just having shit fall out of their asses after taking it up the crack.

Make sure to use sufficient lube.

[IcanzIIravor]

People get aroused by animals. Are you really going to tell me that there is a gene for that too?

Sounds like you have an interesting animal tale to tell.

[KevinNYC]

I know this thread is a bunch of nonsense, but...


I'm pretty sure being gay has nothing to do with genes, right? Not saying it's a choice, but being gay isn't a genetic mutation right?

Are we being overrun by a bunch of gay mutants?

I'm not sure you understand how genetic mutation work.

Straight hair was originally a genetic mutation. Blue eyes were originally a genetic mutation. Not being completely covered in hair is genetic mutation.

The mutants are already here. They are us.

[Scholar]

OP was trying to see if anyone would offer him dick to gobble on. Agenda found.

[Droid101]

I don't buy the being born gay argument. You chose to like what you like. I have seen straight people turn gay and I have seen gay people go straight. What you're attracted to can change. I don't really believe there is a gene for it.
Oh, so at what age did you decide to be straight?

:facepalm

[Andrei89]

Actually gays help our species. I hope they all get born gay so we don't overcrowd the planet ..:cheers:

[miller-time]

Actually gays help our species. I hope they all get born gay so we don't overcrowd the planet ..:cheers:

i think they also provide a social benefit too. imagine how arrogant and ignorant we would all be if no one was different. people that challenge the status quo force us to reexamine our position which in turn allows us to be more liberal minded and stops us from taking things for granted. difference is beneficial to society, it is just a shame that people who are different have to take the bullshi from guys like the OP.

[NastyCrossover1]

People are born asexual.

[mrpuente]

If its your choice, than...

Why the hell would anyone choose the life of being gay? Why they hell would you like being violently discriminated against? Bullied to suicide in most adolescent scenarios? Being told how unnatural your are and how your are going to hell for your SINS?? GTFO.

[MastaKilla]

This is how I know that you don't "choose" to be gay or straight.


My dick got hard for the pink ranger. I didn't sit down and weigh out the pros and cons of boys v girls as a little 6 year old before i made a decision about what I was attracted to..

MY DICK CHOSE

[chips93]

Do you realize that we're gonna be about 20 billion people on this earth in about 50years? Stop talking about evolution like you have a clue and start learning how to eat a good dikk

:biggums:

its supposed to peak at like 9

[-p.tiddy-]

i think they also provide a social benefit too. imagine how arrogant and ignorant we would all be if no one was different. people that challenge the status quo force us to reexamine our position which in turn allows us to be more liberal minded and stops us from taking things for granted. difference is beneficial to society, it is just a shame that people who are different have to take the bullshi from guys like the OP.
I like this post, and agree with it 100%

that being said I do think down the road in the future that we will eventually weed out genetic disorders and genetic disease from our DNA...not sure if that will ever include any type of "gay gene" that we might find, but I do hear many transgender types say things like "I always felt like I was born in the wrong body" thus the sex change operation, and I am sure they view it as a genetic mishap...

[Jailblazers7]

Liberal morons that are also apparently convinced of their intellectual superiority :rolleyes:

I just posted I'm atheist, I've never been religious and I've never had any religious conditioning "imprinted" on me. I also accept that homosexuality exists and I don't care if they get married.

With that said, I don't need to agree with it. There are more criminals in the United States than gay people. Does that make criminality right and normal? For a legal example, millions of people cheat on their significant others. Is this also right and normal?

The mere fact that people do something doesn't inherently make it a good thing.

You used two examples that have unambiguous moral interpretations (crime/cheating=bad) but homosexuality does follow those examples. Just saying "I dont agree with it" is your right but its open to well-deserved criticism.

Saying that your not religious doesnt suddenly make your stance legitimate.

[Big_Dogg]

The more men who are gay, the better. I learned this from living in SanFrancisco for a while. Having all those gay guys there helped me have sex with more women and I appreciate that very very much.

Memo to straight men: support gay rights, gay marriage and gay everything. These guys have decided to remove themselves from the "who gets to have sex with the women" competition. God Bless Them All.:cheers:

^
This.

More gay men means more women for the rest of us

[-p.tiddy-]

for every gay man there is a gay woman...it doesn't mean more women for the rest of us...it all equals out

[ace23]

for every gay man there is a gay woman...it doesn't mean more women for the rest of us...it all equals out
:facepalm

You realize gays are attracted to people of the same sex right?

I hope I misunderstood what you posted.

[miller-time]

:facepalm

You realize gays are attracted to people of the same sex right?

I hope I misunderstood what you posted.

I think you did, I think he means that because 5% of the male population is gay (or whatever the statistic is) doesn't mean straight guys will get 5% more women to choose from because 5% of females will be gay too (making them unavailable).

[jdiaby]

I appreciate everybody's responses in this thread even if they disagreed, I still believe what I believe when I started this thread, per the constitution(not personal support it) I'm glad they got the right to marriage. I just hope homosexuals are as supportive for polygamist push their marriage to be legal, and homosexuality's cousin, beastility, makes a push for marriage, look at the article below, its just the beginning:
[QUOTE]Bestiality brothels are

[miller-time]

I appreciate everybody's responses in this thread even if they disagreed, I still believe what I believe when I started this thread, per the constitution(not personal support it) I'm glad they got the right to marriage. I just hope homosexuals are as supportive for polygamist push their marriage to be legal, and homosexuality's cousin, beastility, makes a push for marriage, look at the article below, its just the beginning:

Yeah it isn't the beginning of anything. These are all separate issues that need to be debated and either accepted or denied on their own merits. Animal or child sexual-relationships with adults involve a side that is not able to give consent, so I highly doubt they will ever be accepted by mainstream society.

[Hoodlum Science]

I don't know if there's a legitimate "gay gene" or not. I think it makes sense that there would be one, considering how many homosexuals there are in society. I don't think roughly 10%+ of the world's population woke up one day and made the personal decision to be gay, but to some degree, I do believe choice is part of the equation. How big or small that piece to the puzzle truly is, up for debate I suppose.

I think it's a combination of both genetics and social environment, especially at the younger stages of one's life experiences. Many share this theory, but many others believe it's either one way or the other, no in-between. Many subscribe to the 85/15 split, meaning 85% genetics 15% social environment or vice versa. I'd say I'm more of the 85 / 15 split, but with one's social environment being the overwhelming factor.

Obviously, until science can progress further we'll never truly know.

[-p.tiddy-]

I think you did, I think he means that because 5% of the male population is gay (or whatever the statistic is) doesn't mean straight guys will get 5% more women to choose from because 5% of females will be gay too (making them unavailable).
Exactly

[-p.tiddy-]

I don't know if there's a legitimate "gay gene" or not. I think it makes sense that there would be one, considering how many homosexuals there are in society. I don't think roughly 10%+ of the world's population woke up one day and made the personal decision to be gay, but to some degree, I do believe choice is part of the equation. How big or small that piece to the puzzle truly is, up for debate I suppose.

I think it's a combination of both genetics and social environment, especially at the younger stages of one's life experiences. Many share this theory, but many others believe it's either one way or the other, no in-between. Many subscribe to the 85/15 split, meaning 85% genetics 15% social environment or vice versa. I'd say I'm more of the 85 / 15 split, but with one's social environment being the overwhelming factor.

Obviously, until science can progress further we'll never truly know.
Science has shown that gay males have brains that are the same shape as straight females and that gay females have a brain that is the same shape as straight males.

Google it...I know that sounds made up but its true.


I think that the vast majority of the time it is genetic...a case of wrong body to match the brain.

[miller-time]

Science has shown that gay males have brains that are the same shape as straight females and that gay females have a brain that is the same shape as straight males.

I don't think it is the whole brain that is similar, but just certain sub-structures.

[Hoodlum Science]

Science has shown that gay males have brains that are the same shape as straight females and that gay females have a brain that is the same shape as straight males.

Google it...I know that sounds made up but its true.


I think that the vast majority of the time it is genetic...a case of wrong body to match the brain.

I think I get the gist of what you're trying to say ... but I can't say I agree with it. At conception, a random roll of the dice determines body type A) and brain type B)? I'm sure you didn't mean to paint such a simplistic picture, but that's what I get from it. I think it's much more complicated than that.

Let's say it's genetics. Purely genetics. Dad busts into mom. What's to say if sperm A) is 50% more prone to be homosexual than sperm B)? Then how about sperm C) 33.72% likelihood said child is "born" homosexual. That's why I don't see genetics being as big a part of the equation as commonly thought. I think it's much more complicated, and there's a "cap" on just how "born gay" one can be, and the pushing, main driving factor in one's ultimate arrival at being a homosexual is primarily dictated by their (youthful) social environment.

I think some individuals are born more gay than others, and they have a much higher likelihood of ultimately being gay. I also believe these same individuals could turn out straight, and not gay. This is why I don't see genetics being an end-all be-all end result of one's sexual preference. I think genetically some are more prone to being homosexual than others (like depression, or any other disorder), but combined with social environment, solidifies where they land.

Having said that, people who claim to be gay later on in life change to being straight. Then they go back to being gay. Some switch only once; some switch multiple times. This tells me it's not entirely genetics, and much more a choice in their personal lives. I'm not saying one choice is right and one choice is wrong, I'm just saying these circumstances with these individuals tell me social environment plays a much more vital role in their sexual preference than the grade of gasoline dad pumped into mom's tank.

[MavsSuperFan]

Stop making excuses for ******ry:coleman: , if gay people are really born gay and can't help their ways and wish they were so normal, shouldn't they really push to find the gay gene and eliminate it, become normal and rather than push for same-sex marriage.

:facepalm Gay people dont want to be straight, if they do it is only because the dominant majority (in this case straight bigots like you) have made their lives so horrible they can't stand it.

For large portions of American history white people made non-white people desire to be white. They didnt really want to be white, its just that whiteness had huge advantages associated with it.

Dont worry man there are virtually 0 case of gay men raping straight men. Just say no.

[jdiaby]

Yeah it isn't the beginning of anything. These are all separate issues that need to be debated and either accepted or denied on their own merits. Animal or child sexual-relationships with adults involve a side that is not able to give consent, so I highly doubt they will ever be accepted by mainstream society.

It's funny you choose to address one part of my post, but I'll entertain you regardless. Beastility consider it "lifestyle choices" if you saw the article I referenced in the previous post. Which is the same agrument homosexuals initially made. Polygamist such as Mormon and Muslims make the same argument that its a "lifestyle choice", I hope your as supportive as you are of gay rights as the other 2 groups otherwise your a hypocrite.

[miller-time]

Having said that, people who claim to be gay later on in life change to being straight. Then they go back to being gay. Some switch only once; some switch multiple times. This tells me it's not entirely genetics, and much more a choice in their personal lives. I'm not saying one choice is right and one choice is wrong, I'm just saying these circumstances with these individuals tell me social environment plays a much more vital role in their sexual preference than the grade of gasoline dad pumped into mom's tank.

Often those choices are really just due to repression or uncertainty. They are caused by internal or external pressures. If you remove the pressure then the person will snap back to their default orientation. Remember a choice is only temporary. I can choose to eat a banana (and I have done) even though I really don't like them but at the end of the day I am always going to internally disagree with my choice (no matter how much my choice might please others).

To add, the banana isn't a euphemism lol, I really do dislike them.

[Jello]

I think I get the gist of what you're trying to say ... but I can't say I agree with it. At conception, a random roll of the dice determines body type A) and brain type B)? I'm sure you didn't mean to paint such a simplistic picture, but that's what I get from it. I think it's much more complicated than that.

Let's say it's genetics. Purely genetics. Dad busts into mom. What's to say if sperm A) is 50% more prone to be homosexual than sperm B)? Then how about sperm C) 33.72% likelihood said child is "born" homosexual. That's why I don't see genetics being as big a part of the equation as commonly thought. I think it's much more complicated, and there's a "cap" on just how "born gay" one can be, and the pushing, main driving factor in one's ultimate arrival at being a homosexual is primarily dictated by their (youthful) social environment.

I think some individuals are born more gay than others, and they have a much higher likelihood of ultimately being gay. I also believe these same individuals could turn out straight, and not gay. This is why I don't see genetics being an end-all be-all end result of one's sexual preference. I think genetically some are more prone to being homosexual than others (like depression, or any other disorder), but combined with social environment, solidifies where they land.

Having said that, people who claim to be gay later on in life change to being straight. Then they go back to being gay. Some switch only once; some switch multiple times. This tells me it's not entirely genetics, and much more a choice in their personal lives. I'm not saying one choice is right and one choice is wrong, I'm just saying these circumstances with these individuals tell me social environment plays a much more vital role in their sexual preference than the grade of gasoline dad pumped into mom's tank.
:biggums:

[MavsSuperFan]

There is nothing rational about a dikk in the anus, thats why grown man that partake in the acts have to wear diapers. Tell me a some benefits of homosexuality on society other than the lame population control theory?

Gay men like taking ***** in the ass, because they were born that way. As straight men we cant comprehend that, because we were born straight. Your lack of understand how they can enjoy receptive **** sex, is evidence that they didn't choose to be gay.

[jdiaby]

:facepalm Gay people dont want to be straight, if they do it is only because the dominant majority (in this case straight bigots like you) have made their lives so horrible they can't stand it.

For large portions of American history white people made non-white people desire to be white. They didnt really want to be white, its just that whiteness had huge advantages associated with it.

Dont worry man there are virtually 0 case of gay men raping straight men. Just say no.

First off you got me messed up, how I am bigot cause I don't accept the gay lifestyle? Its wrong, **** what you heard!!
Second, Im Arab ( many circles I would and am considered black), alot black people if they could would try to pass for white if they could, its why alot of you white posters wouldn't want you future daughters with black man. You kind made my agrument for me, just in the same way blacks want to be accepted into white America, gays want their "lifestyle choices" to be accepted into American society, I'll leave up to you which you think is right and wrong.

[jdiaby]

Gay men like taking ***** in the ass, because they were born that way. As straight men we cant comprehend that, because we were born straight. Your lack of understand how they can enjoy receptive **** sex, is evidence that they didn't choose to be gay.

Real talk if you really believe an asshole is made for ****ing this conversation is over, really, really:biggums: :coleman: :biggums: :biggums:

You think people that **** animals, kids, trees, etc... like being fringe of society as well, if that your agrument end it:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[Hoodlum Science]

Often those choices are really just due to repression or uncertainty. They are caused by internal or external pressures. If you remove the pressure then the person will snap back to their default orientation. Remember a choice is only temporary. I can choose to eat a banana (and I have done) even though I really don't like them but at the end of the day I am always going to internally disagree with my choice (no matter how much my choice might please others).

To add, the banana isn't a euphemism lol, I really do dislike them.

OK, so let's say subject A) arrived at "default" sexual orientation of being straight. Then a year later they're gay. Two years after that, they're straight, then gay again, then back to being straight, and now finally they're gay. Is that individual gay or straight? We don't know, they don't know. The fact they even had homosexual tendencies to begin with, does that mean they're gay, period - no question's asked?

This further makes it clear you can't be born 100% gay. If the subject example above keeps flipping back and forth, doesn't it demonstrate they're more bi-sexual? Alright, so if it's 100% pure genetics; either you're born gay, you're born homosexual, or you're born bi-sexual, there shouldn't be so much flip-flopping, right?

It doesn't make sense that you are born 100% gay. Wouldn't you agree? Especially these people who keep switching teams, right? Doesn't it make more sense to subscribe to the % this and % that theory?

[miller-time]

Real talk if you really believe an asshole is made for ****ing this conversation is over, really, really:biggums: :coleman: :biggums: :biggums:

It isn't what it is made for, it is something that is used for sexual gratification. Same with mouths and hands and toys. Do you think oral sex is unacceptable because mouths aren't made to be used on genitals?

[MavsSuperFan]

Real talk if you really believe an asshole is made for ****ing this conversation is over, really, really:biggums: :coleman: :biggums: :biggums:

You think people that **** animals, kids, trees, etc... like being fringe of society as well, if that your agrument end it:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Straight men have **** sex with women too. You know that right?

Sex is for fun. If you have fun having someone step on you balls (some people are into this) what is the harm as long as it is consensual?

[Hoodlum Science]

:biggums:

I suppose that simply went way over your head, because it seemed pretty clear to me. Nothing difficult to understand about that, and wasn't some far left field shit. Seems much more to me you're just one of those who can't see there could be a middle ground. All or nothing, right? Either you're born homo, or no. If that's your stance, I'd like to hear an explanation.

[miller-time]

OK, so let's say subject A) arrived at "default" sexual orientation of being straight. Then a year later they're gay. Two years after that, they're straight, then gay again, then back to being straight, and now finally they're gay. Is that individual gay or straight? We don't know, they don't know. The fact they even had homosexual tendencies to begin with, does that mean they're gay, period - no question's asked?

This further makes it clear you can't be born 100% gay. If the subject example above keeps flipping back and forth, doesn't it demonstrate they're more bi-sexual? Alright, so if it's 100% pure genetics; either you're born gay, you're born homosexual, or you're born bi-sexual, there shouldn't be so much flip-flopping, right?

It doesn't make sense that you are born 100% gay. Wouldn't you agree? Especially these people who keep switching teams, right? Doesn't it make more sense to subscribe to the % this and % that theory?

Do you have an example? I don't even know how you came up with this idea that there is a person that is constantly going back and forth over many years being gay and straight? If that person exists then they might be bi, they might have some social factor influencing their choice (such as community, family, or religion), they might simply be choosing to override their natural proclivity because they can.

I don't have a problem with the idea that sexuality lies on a continuum but unless you are in the middle bit where you are attracted to both males and females OR you have other pressures then I don't think anyone is going back and forth between straight and gay.

[jdiaby]

It isn't what it is made for, it is something that is used for sexual gratification. Same with mouths and hands and toys. Do you think oral sex is unacceptable because mouths aren't made to be used on genitals?

Oral sex is just that "Oral Sex" its not the intended way for sexual gratification, get this for"BOTH PARTNERS", i think most recognize that, why don't you address my other points?:coleman:

[bmulls]

Nothing to see here. Jdiaby thinks gay dudes having gay sex is really icky and he's performing extraordinary mental gymnastics trying to justify his bigotry. Unfortunately, like a huge % of the population, he's too stupid to realize it.

[Hoodlum Science]

Do you have an example? I don't even know how you came up with this idea that there is a person that is constantly going back and forth over many years being gay and straight? If that person exists then they might be bi, they might have some social factor influencing their choice (such as community, family, or religion), they might simply be choosing to override their natural proclivity because they can.

I don't have a problem with the idea that sexuality lies on a continuum but unless you are in the middle bit where you are attracted to both males and females OR you have other pressures then I don't think anyone is going back and forth between straight and gay.

Do I have a personal example? No, but realistically, does that matter? Clearly, we can't deny this individual doesn't exist. This person does exist, and has many times over. What I'm saying is there are many people in this world who are confused about their sexuality ... and I strongly believe this isn't because they're born 100% bi-sexual - meaning they like men 50% and women 50% equally. IMO, it'd be more like they like men 16% and women 84%.

I think 100% of men are born with an overwhelming percentage being naturally attracted to men, but also that 100% of men are born with something as low as 000001% (just a random number), meaning men are by default born attract to women primarily, but that some men are born more naturally attracted to other men, but that there's a cap, and there's nothing like a man being born 95% attracted to other men 5% to men; if anything the other way around.

... and again, one's social environment, being the flagship factor in how one arrives at being homosexual. I don't mean that in a disrespectful manner. It's not meant to be that way. If you're gay, OK you're gay, you were perhaps born more gay than the next man, and perhaps there were circumstances that happens to you that didn't happen to others, and maybe that "pushed" you into being your specific sexual orientation. Maybe nothing happened.

[bmulls]

I think I get the gist of what you're trying to say ... but I can't say I agree with it. At conception, a random roll of the dice determines body type A) and brain type B)? I'm sure you didn't mean to paint such a simplistic picture, but that's what I get from it. I think it's much more complicated than that.

Let's say it's genetics. Purely genetics. Dad busts into mom. What's to say if sperm A) is 50% more prone to be homosexual than sperm B)? Then how about sperm C) 33.72% likelihood said child is "born" homosexual. That's why I don't see genetics being as big a part of the equation as commonly thought. I think it's much more complicated, and there's a "cap" on just how "born gay" one can be, and the pushing, main driving factor in one's ultimate arrival at being a homosexual is primarily dictated by their (youthful) social environment.

I think some individuals are born more gay than others, and they have a much higher likelihood of ultimately being gay. I also believe these same individuals could turn out straight, and not gay. This is why I don't see genetics being an end-all be-all end result of one's sexual preference. I think genetically some are more prone to being homosexual than others (like depression, or any other disorder), but combined with social environment, solidifies where they land.

Having said that, people who claim to be gay later on in life change to being straight. Then they go back to being gay. Some switch only once; some switch multiple times. This tells me it's not entirely genetics, and much more a choice in their personal lives. I'm not saying one choice is right and one choice is wrong, I'm just saying these circumstances with these individuals tell me social environment plays a much more vital role in their sexual preference than the grade of gasoline dad pumped into mom's tank.

I might be talking out of my ass here, but I think when they talk about being born gay they aren't necessarily talking about chromosomal genetics.

At certain points in a baby's development the brain is exposed to testosterone and other hormones that shape it into a male or female brain. When this process malfunctions a baby girl's brain might get too much testosterone and a baby boy might get too little. Therefore they have definite structural differences in their brains vs. straight people, but it's not a result of genetics.

I'm sure this is ridiculously simplified and there are a lot more hormones and processes involved but I believe that's the gist of it.

[MavsSuperFan]

Why are some of you guys so threatened by the idea that other men could enjoy gay sex? None of what they do has any impact on your life at all.

[Hoodlum Science]

I might be talking out of my ass here, but I think when they talk about being born gay they aren't necessarily talking about chromosomal genetics.

At certain points in a baby's development the brain is exposed to testosterone and other hormones that shape it into a male or female brain. When this process malfunctions a baby girl's brain might get too much testosterone and a baby boy might get too little. Therefore they have definite structural differences in their brains vs. straight people, but it's not a result of genetics.

I'm sure this is ridiculously simplified and there are a lot more hormones and processes involved but I believe that's the gist of it.

OK, so you basically agree you can't be born 100% gay or 100% straight?

[Nanners]

Why are some of you guys so threatened by the idea that other men could enjoy gay sex? None of what they do has any impact on your life at all.

gay sex is so gross

imagine two women playing with each others tittyballs

[Nanners]

and there is gay gene that makes people gay. Wouldn't be in this best interest to society to isolate the gay gene and make homosexuality obsolete as its counterproductive to the evolution and progression of our species?

funny you would say that

if a gay gene existed it would naturally erase itself

a gay gene would be constantly declining in frequency relative to the straight gene. the main reason any gene would increase in frequency is because it gives an organism some kind of reproductive advantage, obviously gay people dont have any reproductive advantages over straight people.

[AintNoSunshine]

By the same logic we should isolate the people with the same low iq as yourself and kill you all

[miller-time]

Oral sex is just that "Oral Sex" its not the intended way for sexual gratification, get this for"BOTH PARTNERS", i think most recognize that, why don't you address my other points?:coleman:

**** sex works for both partners. I'll get to your other points when you can at least tell me why **** sex is somehow unacceptable when any other form of non-******ll intercourse is fine?

[bmulls]

OK, so you basically agree you can't be born 100% gay or 100% straight?

I agree with that, but I also think brain chemistry and sexual attraction is a whole lot more complicated than just some X% gay and some Y% straight.

[miller-time]

I agree with that, but I also think brain chemistry and sexual attraction is a whole lot more complicated than just some X% gay and some Y% straight.

Can you explain what he is trying to say? I can't even follow it lol. It mostly just sounds like conjecture.

[bmulls]

Why are some of you guys so threatened by the idea that other men could enjoy gay sex? None of what they do has any impact on your life at all.

This is what I ask people when discussing gay marriage. I'm pretty conservative and so are most of the people I hang out with, so naturally they are against gay marriage and I just can't wrap my head around it.

You could legalize gay marriage tomorrow and I wouldn't know about it for months or years unless someone told me it happened. Gay people getting married or having sex does not affect my life in any way, shape or form. I can't pretend to understand or sympathize with homosexuality, but I understand these people are being made to suffer for no reason and that is just straight up wrong.

[bmulls]

Can you explain what he is trying to say? I can't even follow it lol. It mostly just sounds like conjecture.

I think his main point is nurture, rather than nature, is the primary factor in determining homosexuality.

We all fall somewhere on the sexual attraction continuum, having X% preference for men and Y% preference for women. He believes all men are born with the majority of their sexual attraction toward women, and that a certain guy with 10X/90Y split could turn out gay if he's exposed to certain factors as a kid while another guy with a 15X/85Y split might turn out straight.

[Hoodlum Science]

I think his main point is nurture, rather than nature, is the primary factor in determining homosexuality.

We all fall somewhere on the sexual attraction continuum, having X% preference for men and Y% preference for women. He believes all men are born with the majority of their sexual attraction toward women, and that a certain guy with 10X/90Y split could turn out gay if he's exposed to certain factors as a kid while another guy with a 15X/85Y split might turn out straight.

Spot-on.

[Nanners]

This is what I ask people when discussing gay marriage. I'm pretty conservative and so are most of the people I hang out with, so naturally they are against gay marriage and I just can't wrap my head around it.

You could legalize gay marriage tomorrow and I wouldn't know about it for months or years unless someone told me it happened. Gay people getting married or having sex does not affect my life in any way, shape or form. I can't pretend to understand or sympathize with homosexuality, but I understand these people are being made to suffer for no reason and that is just straight up wrong.

amen. it amazes and confuses me that so many of the religious conservatives surrounding me in the midwest perform the mental gymnastics required in order to support laws against gay marriage.

people that call themselves christians have been seen protesting a lot of things, but has anybody ever witnessed a christian protesting against divorce lawyers? if anybody has actually read a bible, divorce is a lot worse than homosexuality. to hear these people say things like gay people threaten the sanctity of marriage while ~50% of marriages result in divorce is mind bogglingly hypocritical. when was the last time a church turned down a wedding because one of the parties involved was previously divorced?

also, i thought conservatives wanted the government to get the hell out of their lives. allowing uncle sam to deny the rights of two consenting adults or tell them that they are not allowed to love each other is the opposite of small government.

[Hoodlum Science]

amen. it amazes and confuses me that so many of the religious conservatives surrounding me in the midwest perform the mental gymnastics required in order to support laws against gay marriage.

people that call themselves christians have been seen protesting a lot of things, but has anybody ever witnessed a christian protesting against divorce lawyers? if anybody has actually read a bible, divorce is a lot worse than homosexuality. to hear these people say things like gay people threaten the sanctity of marriage while ~50% of marriages result in divorce is mind bogglingly hypocritical. when was the last time a church turned down a wedding because one of the parties involved was previously divorced?

also, i thought conservatives wanted the government to get the hell out of their lives. allowing uncle sam to deny the rights of two consenting adults or tell them that they are not allowed to love each other is the opposite of small government.

"Divorce is a lot worse than marriage"

Bible: "man who lay with man, shall surely die" (commonly argued both physically and spiritually) ... yet, you say divorce is described as much worse in the Bible. How exactly is "surely dying" a lot worse than what the Bible says about divorce.

Maybe you know something we don't. Please enlighten us, oh knowledgeable one.

:oldlol:

[Nanners]

"Divorce is a lot worse than marriage"


um wat? where did i say that?

i said that according to the bible, divorce is worse than homosexuality. i have had more exposure than i would have liked to the bible during my life, and i know that while everything that the bible has to say about homosexuality is just that one verse of leviticus that you quoted, there are countless bible verses devoted to divorce.

in light of the fact that you call yourself a christian, you should know this stuff josh.


Romans 7:2-3

For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.


Matthew 19:6

"Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."


Matthew 5:31-32

"And it was said, 'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


Luke 16:18

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

from a religious perspective, claiming that allowing gays to get married harms the sanctity of marriage is laughably absurd. when was the last time you saw a christian protesting over the fact that people are working on the sabbath? these people are going to quote a passage of leviticus to condemn gay people and then go eat dinner at red lobster.


Leviticus 11:10 ESV / 71 helpful votes

But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.

edit: sorry for all the edits, cleaning up my garbled nonsense. i shouldnt be awake right now.

[Hoodlum Science]

um wat? where did i say that?

i said that according to the bible, divorce is worse than homosexuality. everything that the bible has to say about homosexuality is pretty much just that one verse of leviticus that you quoted, but there are countless bible verses devoted to divorce.

in light of the fact that you call yourself a christian, you should know this stuff josh.

Right. I suppose your argument is divorce/marriage is mentioned more often in the Bible, so therefore divorce is "a lot" worse than homosexuality. Whatever happened to quality > quantity?

Marriage/divorce is mentioned more often in the Bible because it's much more common than homosexuality. I think however it's quite obvious which sinful nature God is more opposed to, based off texts.

Again, show me scripture where the Bible says something that would be "a lot" worse than what I have already quoted.

[Nanners]

Right. I suppose your argument is divorce/marriage is mentioned more often in the Bible, so therefore divorce is "a lot" worse than homosexuality. Whatever happened to quality > quantity?

Marriage/divorce is mentioned more often in the Bible because it's much more common than homosexuality. I think however it's quite obvious which sinful nature God is more opposed to, based off texts.

Again, show me scripture where the Bible says something that would be "a lot" worse than what I have already quoted.

since when is leviticus considered quality? go protest a red lobster.

i dont think it is "quite obvious which sinful nature god is more opposed to based off the texts". adultery or abomination... according to the texts they are both bad, but there are 10 passages in the bible about adultery for every 1 about homos.

[Hoodlum Science]

since when is leviticus considered quality? go protest a red lobster.

i dont think it is "quite obvious which sinful nature god is more opposed to based off the texts". adultery or abomination... according to the texts they are both bad, but there are 10 passages in the bible about adultery for every 1 about homos.

:facepalm

You're reiterating points I've already made clear. Again, show me something I can read that outweighs "if man lay with man, he shall surely die" - and without some weak ass "oh, that came from Leviticus!" defense. Really dude? That's your argument? I'll have to be sure to keep that in mind next time someone quotes something you stated.

:rolleyes:

[Nanners]

:facepalm

You're reiterating points I've already made clear. Again, show me something I can read that outweighs "if man lay with man, he shall surely die" - and without some weak ass "oh, that came from Leviticus!" defense. Really dude? That's your argument? I'll have to be sure to keep that in mind next time someone quotes something you stated.

:rolleyes:

divorce = adultery. lets see what leviticus says about adultery -


Leviticus 20:10

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife – with the wife of his neighbor – both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."


anybody who is not tarded can see that leviticus is full of absolute ****ing nonsense.

here is a great passage that would condemn just about every young person in murica -


Leviticus 20:9

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

leviticus also has some great insight on slave ownership -


Leviticus 25:44-45

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

when you starting reading some this nonsense the "that came from leviticus" defense makes a lot of sense

[Hoodlum Science]

divorce = adultery. lets see what leviticus says about adultery -



anybody who is not tarded can see that leviticus is full of absolute ****ing nonsense.

here is a great passage that would condemn just about every young person in murica -



leviticus also has some great insight on slave ownership -



when you starting reading some this nonsense the "that came from leviticus" defense makes a lot of sense

:roll:

Find or show me a single book or gospel within the Bible that doesn't have at least something that doesn't make complete and total sense? I'm starting to believe you can't find a single scripture that would come across as more condemning as the one I've quoted.

[mrpuente]

OK, so let's say subject A) arrived at "default" sexual orientation of being straight. Then a year later they're gay. Two years after that, they're straight, then gay again, then back to being straight, and now finally they're gay. Is that individual gay or straight? We don't know, they don't know. The fact they even had homosexual tendencies to begin with, does that mean they're gay, period - no question's asked?

This further makes it clear you can't be born 100% gay. If the subject example above keeps flipping back and forth, doesn't it demonstrate they're more bi-sexual? Alright, so if it's 100% pure genetics; either you're born gay, you're born homosexual, or you're born bi-sexual, there shouldn't be so much flip-flopping, right?

It doesn't make sense that you are born 100% gay. Wouldn't you agree? Especially these people who keep switching teams, right? Doesn't it make more sense to subscribe to the % this and % that theory?

Hes trying to say that the people that flip from homosexual to heterosexual are really one or the other and not really both. People will follow their heart not what choice they are supposed to make or do make at the certain time. Im sure there are bi people, but bi isnt exactly straight up gay.

You have grown ass men with familes wives and lives finally wake up one day and say "Holy shit, Im focking gay! And have been my whole life." People will hide and go on living their unhappy lives because of what is supposed to be right.

How can someone other then an actual gay person tell you whether or not they where born that way? The entire gay community tells us how they are born that way and love who they love. Which in return is why its wrong to judge them for being BORN a certain way.

[Nanners]

:roll:

Find or show me a single book or gospel within the Bible that doesn't have at least something that doesn't make complete and total sense? I'm starting to believe you can't find a single scripture that would come across as more condemning as the one I've quoted.

i agree, there is something in leviticus that makes total sense.

we need to start killing people who say bad things about their parents.


Leviticus 20:9

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

[-p.tiddy-]

OK, so you basically agree you can't be born 100% gay or 100% straight?
I know for fact that at least some gay men are born 100% red hot flamer gay...basically come straight out of the womb with a limp wrist, a lispy voice, and giving their mother fashion tips lol

I went to grade school with a boy who everyone in the school knew was gay before any of us even knew what sex was. You could just tell, it was amazingly obvious even in the 1st grade...and when he "came out" in high school no one was surprised...he was just confirming what everyone else knew already.


ALSO, I know a girl who was raped in high school and because of that she tried to go lesbian...it didn't work out for her mo matter how hard she tried because she was born completely straight and there is nothing she could do about it.

If being gay was more of a nurture thing then people would be flip flopping all the time...nut they aren't, they all feel as though they were born a certain way and there is nothing they can do about it.

[Nanners]

I know for fact that at least some gay men are born 100% red hot flamer gay...basically come straight out of the womb with a limp wrist, a lispy voice, and giving their mother fashion tips lol

I went to grade school with a boy who everyone in the school knew was gay before any of us even knew what sex was. You could just tell, it was amazingly obvious even in the 1st grade...and when he "came out" in high school no one was surprised...he was just confirming what everyone else knew already.


ALSO, I know a girl who was raped in high school and because of that she tried to go lesbian...it didn't work out for her mo matter how hard she tried because she was born completely straight and there is nothing she could do about it.

If being gay was more of a nurture thing then people would be flip flopping all the time...nut they aren't, they all feel as though they were born a certain way and there is nothing they can do about it.

nice post. anecdotal evidence of a "kid you know who has been gay since 1st grade" and a "girl who was raped in high school" used to come to the conclusion that "they all feel as though they were born a certain way and there is nothing they can do about it"

[LJJ]

nice post. anecdotal evidence of a kid you know who has been gay since 1st grade and a girl who was raped in high school used to come to the conclusion that "they all feel as though they were born a certain way and there is nothing they can do about it"

Also the entire nature vs nurture argument doesn't boil down to:
Nature - people are born gay or straight and nothing that happens after birth has any impact on one's sexuality.
Nurture - people have 100% control over their sexuality and can flip flop at will.

The argument is more of a weighting issue, which factor contributes more and which factor contributes less, rather than a this-or-that. There is a lot of research that indicates early childhood has an impact on sexuality. There is a lot of evidence that supports genetics playing a big role also.

[Nanners]

Also the entire nature vs nurture argument doesn't boil down to:
Nature - people are born gay or straight and nothing that happens after birth has any impact on one's sexuality.
Nurture - people have 100% control over their sexuality and can flip flop at will.

The argument is more of a weighting issue, which factor contributes more and which factor contributes less, rather than a this-or-that. There is a lot of research that indicates early childhood has an impact on sexuality. There is a lot of evidence that supports genetics playing a big role also.

my guess is that terms of the social traits of a human being, nature almost always trumps nurture.

I would really appreciate one of the posters that think sexuality is determined by genetics to help me wrap my head around this-

if a gay gene existed, it would always be declining in frequency relative to the straight gene. the reason that gene frequency changes in a population is beneficial genes increase the probability or viability of an organism to reproduce. anybody with a gay gene would be reproductively disadvantaged compared to individuals with straight genes.

people say things like "homos are against what nature intended!". if the laws of nature are actually opposed to gay individuals, the genes involved would be eradicating themselves over time without without any help from us.

[Swaggin916]

The nature vs. nurture thing to me is a dead argument. We are all born wired a certain way, but environment shapes the development of a person. Babies who don't fuss a lot are easier to create attachments towards and will likely have their needs met more than a very fussy child. The very fussy child might not feel like it's needs are being met and go more into avoidance as it gets older rather than attachment... generally speaking that will have effects on the individual throughout their lives, but it's not always the case as different temperaments create different outcomes and certain experiences at certain times can completely send the brain haywire.

I haven't done any research on this, but I'm sure there are pre-dispositions for homo sexuality, but certainly environment plays a huge role in shaping sexuality. If there wasn't all this crap about men/women are "supposed" to be together and have sexual relationships, who knows how many more same sex encounters/relationships there would be. I am 99.9% sure there would be a helluva lot more. A lot of teens go throughout high school with few encounters with the opposite sex... It's not going out on a limb to say those horny teens would be more likely to do stuff with each other if there wasn't this bias.

[ace23]

I think you did, I think he means that because 5% of the male population is gay (or whatever the statistic is) doesn't mean straight guys will get 5% more women to choose from because 5% of females will be gay too (making them unavailable).
The number of gay men does not influence the number lesbians. Two independent counts.

[Jello]

Just let them ****. :facepalm

[joe]

my guess is that terms of the social traits of a human being, nature almost always trumps nurture.

I would really appreciate one of the posters that think sexuality is determined by genetics to help me wrap my head around this-

if a gay gene existed, it would always be declining in frequency relative to the straight gene. the reason that gene frequency changes in a population is beneficial genes increase the probability or viability of an organism to reproduce. anybody with a gay gene would be reproductively disadvantaged compared to individuals with straight genes.

people say things like "homos are against what nature intended!". if the laws of nature are actually opposed to gay individuals, the genes involved would be eradicating themselves over time without without any help from us.

One possible theory is it has to do with testosterone exposure in the womb. Males are usually exposed to X amount of testosterone at different times, whereas females get a lesser amount. But they've found that some males for whatever reason are given less. Somehow that leads to homosexuality. Google it I don't remember it fully..

[Psileas]

Imo, nature sets your limits, while nurture sets your placement within these limits.

Oh, and silly OP, btw.

[nightprowler10]

Imo, nature sets your limits, while nurture sets your placement within these limits.
Nailed it.

[chosen_one6]

OP is an idiot :lol

[miller-time]

The number of gay men does not influence the number lesbians. Two independent counts.

They might be mutually exclusive, and the percentages might not line up exactly but the point is that there won't be AS many straight females left over because of gay males due to the fact that there will be some lesbians.

[ace23]

They might be mutually exclusive, and the percentages might not line up exactly but the point is that there won't be AS many straight females left over because of gay males due to the fact that there will be some lesbians.
You're assuming that I believed there to be no lesbians in existence with this statement. Of course there are lesbians, but that has nothing to do with the number of gay males. More gay males = less competition, plain and simple

This is a stupid argument.

[-p.tiddy-]

Also the entire nature vs nurture argument doesn't boil down to:
Nature - people are born gay or straight and nothing that happens after birth has any impact on one's sexuality.
Nurture - people have 100% control over their sexuality and can flip flop at will.

The argument is more of a weighting issue, which factor contributes more and which factor contributes less, rather than a this-or-that. There is a lot of research that indicates early childhood has an impact on sexuality. There is a lot of evidence that supports genetics playing a big role also.
right but he is saying it is 85-15 in favor of nurture and I am saying it is the opposite...neither of us are saying it is 100% all together although many examples may be 100%.

and I am saying my theories are just theories...so is he I beleive

[-p.tiddy-]

my guess is that terms of the social traits of a human being, nature almost always trumps nurture.

I would really appreciate one of the posters that think sexuality is determined by genetics to help me wrap my head around this-

if a gay gene existed, it would always be declining in frequency relative to the straight gene. the reason that gene frequency changes in a population is beneficial genes increase the probability or viability of an organism to reproduce. anybody with a gay gene would be reproductively disadvantaged compared to individuals with straight genes.

people say things like "homos are against what nature intended!". if the laws of nature are actually opposed to gay individuals, the genes involved would be eradicating themselves over time without without any help from us.
there are plenty of genetic disorders that follow gene pools who don't reproduce...down syndrome is genetic...autism is actually on the rise...I am betting neither of those groups reproduce a great deal

also, there is nothing wrong with people siting examples that we have come across in real life...the two examples I sited are common ones that I am sure many in here have come across


now Nanners, if you could help me wrap my head around this-

If there was no gay gene, then how is it that gay men and women have different shaped brains then their straight counterparts? Does our childhood influence the shape of our brain?

[-p.tiddy-]

One possible theory is it has to do with testosterone exposure in the womb. Males are usually exposed to X amount of testosterone at different times, whereas females get a lesser amount. But they've found that some males for whatever reason are given less. Somehow that leads to homosexuality. Google it I don't remember it fully..
right...I remember reading an article where scientists showed they believe homosexuality was all determined in the womb...I remember them siting identical twins a lot because twins do have the same DNA but there are examples of identical twins where on is gay and the other is straight, but their experiences together in the womb were not the same.

made sense to me...i'll try to dig it up

edit:

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&gs_rn=17&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=gay%20brain%20sh&tok=wxRBdHM44w1DgGCPOoNXug&pq=gay%20brain%20shape&cp=24&gs_id=5k&xhr=t&q=homosexuality+in+the+womb&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=homosexuality+in+the+wom&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc&fp=17d659bb72df4532&biw=1492&bih=801

yeah tons of articles on this

[Hoodlum Science]

Hes trying to say that the people that flip from homosexual to heterosexual are really one or the other and not really both. People will follow their heart not what choice they are supposed to make or do make at the certain time. Im sure there are bi people, but bi isnt exactly straight up gay.

You have grown ass men with familes wives and lives finally wake up one day and say "Holy shit, Im focking gay! And have been my whole life." People will hide and go on living their unhappy lives because of what is supposed to be right.

How can someone other then an actual gay person tell you whether or not they where born that way? The entire gay community tells us how they are born that way and love who they love. Which in return is why its wrong to judge them for being BORN a certain way.

So it's your stance that you're either born 100% gay or 100% straight? You're saying one's social environment plays no role whatsoever? You're saying life experiences (particularly at a young age) play no role? It's just as simple as born gay or born straight, period. At this point none of us (which includes genetic scientists who have been studying this exact subject for years) know the entire scientific truth behind how one arrives at their sexual preference.

As science advances itself, we'll get closer and closer to the actual truth. We're only beginning to scratch the surface of human genome studies. Geneticists, even as intelligent as they are, and growing in numbers, have a huge uphill battle if we wish to unlock and discover the secrets within DNA. Picture how the study of biology has changed/advanced/evolved in just the past hundred years - now picture a hundreds years from today, I'd like to believe we'd have uncovered many of its hidden secrets, but entirely? Highly doubtful.

I'm confident in the next 20-25 years - scientifically - we'll be somewhere in the 99% range of knowing concretely if an individual is truly and purely "born" gay and/or we'll have a better understanding of splitting/sharing ratios. I doubt we'll get it down to an exact science, but we'll have the undeniable data and knowledge to help us be 99% confident in the scientific/factual determination of one's sexual preference.

I think at that time (many years into the future) it'll still be commonly considered to some degree, social environment and life experiences play some role. PT, maybe you're right, my 85/15 theory will be flipped on its head, and be more like the 85/15 you subscribe to (meaning you believe it's primarily hereditary with a little wiggle room for S.E. and L.E.'s). Would I be surprised if the hard data in the future tells us it's 100% one way or the other - no middle ground? Yes, very surprised. It wouldn't shock me though, if it were overwhelmingly genetic (85) and slightly S.E. / L.E. (15).

I don't believe any man (or woman) is 100% straight or 100% gay. It's also my opinion there's a cap. For example, no man can be born more than 20% (just using a random number) homosexual. Let's say some men are born in the 1-5% range, then 5-10%, and so on. A man born 18% homosexual prone, is way more likely to arrive at a same-sex sexual preference, whereas a man born 2% homosexual prone, a much less likelihood of being gay. Say you have a high probability (but still capped) subject, and you combine that with youthful life experiences that make one more prone to being a homosexual when they're older, then that individual is way more likely to turn out gay than a 3% who lives a typical normal life of a young male.

I realize many believe the numbers should be the exact opposite, and hey, maybe you're right. Maybe my "cap" theory is silly as hell. Maybe there are those who have the chance to be born upwards of 90-99% gay, and their S.E. has little to no impact whatsoever. Maybe some fall right into that 50/50 split range, and they end up either bi or pick a side. Maybe this said individual is personally conflicted and perplexed their entire life b/c there's no majority sexual preference pool.

Another thing that comes to mind is people who are more prone to be "born" gay, genetics being the overwhelming or only factor, then wouldn't that mean that individual's family tree is more gay than someone else's? If it's all or very high genetics, heredity must be a specific determining source. Just as they link depression, etc. to family history, I would assume it'd be no different than homosexuality, right? Maybe a young man at the age of 17 anxiously and fearfully announces at their annual family Christmas party he's gay. He's upset, crying or whatever. Some other family members drop their jaw. Meanwhile his grandpa's and dad's hearts stop. A chill runs through their bodies, because deep inside they feel or knew their entire lives they were gay, but were afraid and ashamed to admit, so they faked a marriage to fit into what society expected of them.

This family tree thing is very interesting to me. In my family, we have an open lesbian (my cousin, three years younger than me). Everyone is very accepting of her. To her's and everyone's knowledge, we don't know of anyone else in the family who is homosexual but there'd have to be, right? If it's hereditary, genetics, right? Especially if we're talking about you are straight up BORN gay or NOT born gay. There'd have to be a history of homosexuality down the line somewhere, right? This is why I believe it's more S.E. and L.E. > genetics. If the gay gene is prevalent, there should be other homosexuals within that family unit, and vice versa in straight families.

It wouldn't make sense if Family A (sample size of say 20 individuals) had only one truly legit homosexual in their unit. If it's hereditary, there'd have to be more, if we're talking 100% born gay. Maybe not immediate family, but somewhere in their family tree, there'd have to be more homosexuals, and like depression, etc. - it'd have to more than just the one fluke. It seems if genetics are the sole driving factor in one's sexual preference, other members of that family tree would be highly prone to being gay as well - almost like a domino effect.

Now if we're looking at Family B (same sample size), truly no homosexuals... it should stay that way, right? Perhaps mutations could occur, and as we all know this is the very basis of evolution. Once that individual develops a naturally occurring gay gene (from birth) does this greatly increase the chances of this person passing the gay gene to their offspring? Does this son or daughter do the same? The domino effect I'm picturing.

The higher population of homosexuals in any particular family tree, more homosexuals should occur, naturally, right? The higher population of heterosexuals in another family tree, more heterosexuals occur, naturally, right? I apologize for the rambling. If you didn't read all that, I don't blame you; I probably wouldn't have either.

[Nanners]

If there was no gay gene, then how is it that gay men and women have different shaped brains then their straight counterparts? Does our childhood influence the shape of our brain?

there are pretty much endless examples of how gene expression can be influenced by an organisms environment, as you and joe already noted it starts for humans when we are still in the womb. i have never heard that gay men and women have differently shaped brains than their straight counterparts, but it is certainly possible that early life experiences could have an influence in the shape of a persons brain.

[Hoodlum Science]

there are pretty much endless examples of how gene expression can be influenced by an organisms environment, as you and joe already noted it starts for humans when we are still in the womb. i have never heard that gay men and women have differently shaped brains than their straight counterparts, but it is certainly possible that early life experiences could have an influence in the shape of a persons brain.

I had never heard this before either - but doing a quick Google search, results were found.

Gay men and straight women have similar shaped brains (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology)

gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html)

This is a fairly new find in the scientific/biological world or is it (unless I'm missing something; the first source I posted says 2008, so IDK)?

:confusedshrug:

So does this tell us if a male has the same shaped brain as a straight female, the male is unquestionably a homosexual? Are the articles/sources simply making a suggestion? Maybe there's no way to find the deeply hidden gay gene, but we can simply do a CAT-scan on any man, and if his brain mirrors that of a straight woman, BINGO! You're gay! Busted!

:lol

[Nanners]

I had never heard this before either - but doing a quick Google search, results were found.

Gay men and straight women have similar shaped brains (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology)

gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html)

This is a fairly new find in the scientific/biological world or is it (unless I'm missing something; the first source I posted says 2008, so IDK)?

:confusedshrug:

So does this tell us if a male has the same shaped brain as a straight female, the male is unquestionably a homosexual? Are the articles/sources simply making a suggestion? Maybe there's no way to find the deeply hidden gay gene, but we can simply do a CAT-scan on any man, and if his brain mirrors that of a straight woman, BINGO! You're gay! Busted!

:lol

the study tells us specifically that-


the right side of the brain in heterosexual men was typically 2% larger than the left. Lesbians showed a similar asymmetry, with the right hand side of the brain 1% larger than the left.

typically a difference of 1 or 2%

so no, i dont think the article is suggesting that you can unquestionably identify a homosexual based on their brain shape.

[shlver]

Fetal programming of the brain(through brain macrophages, dendritic synthesis, etc) is tied with hormonal levels and the endocrine system. There also seems to be some genetic contribution as certain brain cells and their quantity are involved in the biosynthesis and upregulation of certain hormones. Prenatal environment also has an effect on hormone balance. Most evidence suggests that hormone levels during sexual differentiation of the brain is the primary influence in the structure of the brain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23407936

[mrpuente]

So it's your stance that you're either born 100% gay or 100% straight? You're saying one's social environment plays no role whatsoever? You're saying life experiences (particularly at a young age) play no role? It's just as simple as born gay or born straight, period. At this point none of us (which includes genetic scientists who have been studying this exact subject for years) know the entire scientific truth behind how one arrives at their sexual preference.

As science advances itself, we'll get closer and closer to the actual truth. We're only beginning to scratch the surface of human genome studies. Geneticists, even as intelligent as they are, and growing in numbers, have a huge uphill battle if we wish to unlock and discover the secrets within DNA. Picture how the study of biology has changed/advanced/evolved in just the past hundred years - now picture a hundreds years from today, I'd like to believe we'd have uncovered many of its hidden secrets, but entirely? Highly doubtful.

I'm confident in the next 20-25 years - scientifically - we'll be somewhere in the 99% range of knowing concretely if an individual is truly and purely "born" gay and/or we'll have a better understanding of splitting/sharing ratios. I doubt we'll get it down to an exact science, but we'll have the undeniable data and knowledge to help us be 99% confident in the scientific/factual determination of one's sexual preference.

I think at that time (many years into the future) it'll still be commonly considered to some degree, social environment and life experiences play some role. PT, maybe you're right, my 85/15 theory will be flipped on its head, and be more like the 85/15 you subscribe to (meaning you believe it's primarily hereditary with a little wiggle room for S.E. and L.E.'s). Would I be surprised if the hard data in the future tells us it's 100% one way or the other - no middle ground? Yes, very surprised. It wouldn't shock me though, if it were overwhelmingly genetic (85) and slightly S.E. / L.E. (15).

I don't believe any man (or woman) is 100% straight or 100% gay. It's also my opinion there's a cap. For example, no man can be born more than 20% (just using a random number) homosexual. Let's say some men are born in the 1-5% range, then 5-10%, and so on. A man born 18% homosexual prone, is way more likely to arrive at a same-sex sexual preference, whereas a man born 2% homosexual prone, a much less likelihood of being gay. Say you have a high probability (but still capped) subject, and you combine that with youthful life experiences that make one more prone to being a homosexual when they're older, then that individual is way more likely to turn out gay than a 3% who lives a typical normal life of a young male.

I realize many believe the numbers should be the exact opposite, and hey, maybe you're right. Maybe my "cap" theory is silly as hell. Maybe there are those who have the chance to be born upwards of 90-99% gay, and their S.E. has little to no impact whatsoever. Maybe some fall right into that 50/50 split range, and they end up either bi or pick a side. Maybe this said individual is personally conflicted and perplexed their entire life b/c there's no majority sexual preference pool.

Another thing that comes to mind is people who are more prone to be "born" gay, genetics being the overwhelming or only factor, then wouldn't that mean that individual's family tree is more gay than someone else's? If it's all or very high genetics, heredity must be a specific determining source. Just as they link depression, etc. to family history, I would assume it'd be no different than homosexuality, right? Maybe a young man at the age of 17 anxiously and fearfully announces at their annual family Christmas party he's gay. He's upset, crying or whatever. Some other family members drop their jaw. Meanwhile his grandpa's and dad's hearts stop. A chill runs through their bodies, because deep inside they feel or knew their entire lives they were gay, but were afraid and ashamed to admit, so they faked a marriage to fit into what society expected of them.

This family tree thing is very interesting to me. In my family, we have an open lesbian (my cousin, three years younger than me). Everyone is very accepting of her. To her's and everyone's knowledge, we don't know of anyone else in the family who is homosexual but there'd have to be, right? If it's hereditary, genetics, right? Especially if we're talking about you are straight up BORN gay or NOT born gay. There'd have to be a history of homosexuality down the line somewhere, right? This is why I believe it's more S.E. and L.E. > genetics. If the gay gene is prevalent, there should be other homosexuals within that family unit, and vice versa in straight families.

It wouldn't make sense if Family A (sample size of say 20 individuals) had only one truly legit homosexual in their unit. If it's hereditary, there'd have to be more, if we're talking 100% born gay. Maybe not immediate family, but somewhere in their family tree, there'd have to be more homosexuals, and like depression, etc. - it'd have to more than just the one fluke. It seems if genetics are the sole driving factor in one's sexual preference, other members of that family tree would be highly prone to being gay as well - almost like a domino effect.

Now if we're looking at Family B (same sample size), truly no homosexuals... it should stay that way, right? Perhaps mutations could occur, and as we all know this is the very basis of evolution. Once that individual develops a naturally occurring gay gene (from birth) does this greatly increase the chances of this person passing the gay gene to their offspring? Does this son or daughter do the same? The domino effect I'm picturing.

The higher population of homosexuals in any particular family tree, more homosexuals should occur, naturally, right? The higher population of heterosexuals in another family tree, more heterosexuals occur, naturally, right? I apologize for the rambling. If you didn't read all that, I don't blame you; I probably wouldn't have either.

Its not just me saying gay people are born gay.

THE ENTIRE GAY COMMUNITY SAYS THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY!

How the hell can you argue with a gay man telling him he chose to be gay?

[Draz]

I think this thread was born gay.
Lml

[Hoodlum Science]

the study tells us specifically that-



typically a difference of 1 or 2%

so no, i dont think the article is suggesting that you can unquestionably identify a homosexual based on their brain shape.

Agreed. 1 or 2% isn't enough to convince me differences/similarities in brain shapes, sizes, etc. equates to one's sexual preference at birth, but I will say the scientific data in itself be it as minute as it may be, still says something. It's nothing rock-solid, but it shouldn't be ignored either.

[Hoodlum Science]

Its not just me saying gay people are born gay.

THE ENTIRE GAY COMMUNITY SAYS THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY!

How the hell can you argue with a gay man telling him he chose to be gay?

Brugh, calm down. LOL, your exclamation marks, "how the hell'z" and ALL CAPS isn't helping you drive home your point. I didn't say being a homosexual was purely 100% a choice. I never claimed I know more about being gay than an actual homosexual man who claims he was.

All I was simply saying was there's a combination of genetics and social environment/life experiences together that determine one's sexual orientation. I never said what I claim is fact. I made it pretty clear I was sharing nothing more than my individual opinion.

I'll agree the vast majority of the gay community will claim they were born gay from the very second they were born. They were gay the exact moment of conception. I'll concur most will honestly believe that within their heart of hearts, but I sure as hell won't say as you put it THE ENTIRE GAY COMMUNITY! ... fair to say at least some (be it as few as it may be) play the "I was born this way!" card but deep within they're still confused and perhaps riding the wave of this homosexual revolution that's taking place right now... for what reason? Hell I don't know, LOL. To be a part of history ... to look back and tell their retirement home buddies "I was a part of that movement!" ... "I was there!" ... "we made change!" ... "we pushed the limits at a time when we were society's # 1 enemy!"

As silly as that shit sounds, I think there's some truth to some people "being gay" because of the attention they get from it. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind there are individuals out there (I've already admitted this is likely an incredibly small number, but don't you be closed minded by saying THERE'S NOT A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OUT THERE WHO'D DO THIS") - individuals out there who play the gay card because it brings them attention. A conflicted, confused, frustrated teenager who hates his family, siblings, just hates everyone, and knows it'd haunt and upset everyone if he dropped the "hey everybody, I'm gay" bomb - again, good luck finding them, but best believe, they're on the map somewhere.

Inner city high schools are a breeding ground for young males being rebellious and having everyone think/believe they're gay, and YES for the simple fact there's a dump truck of attention that comes with it. Yes, I realize I'm using extreme unlikely rare examples, but they're out there nonetheless. I dated a girl (Leslie) who worked at such a high school and explained to me in such detail. Later in the year, dude stopped acting gay, went back to his what he was before wanna be gangsta shit talking about how he played the entire school. LOL'n all the way to the bank, pretending to be in # 1 stunna mode.

The point I'm making is not every single homosexual makes the claim they were born that way. It might take a little while to find a pool of examples, but yes, some gay individuals will tell you they made a personal decision to be gay, that they used to like/love women, but now they love/like men (for whatever reason), and that example is obviously way more commonplace with women. I'm just saying don't make generalizations that aren't entirely true, or I'll unfortunately be forced to throw out rare, yet true examples that debunk your claim.

[-p.tiddy-]

there are pretty much endless examples of how gene expression can be influenced by an organisms environment, as you and joe already noted it starts for humans when we are still in the womb. i have never heard that gay men and women have differently shaped brains than their straight counterparts, but it is certainly possible that early life experiences could have an influence in the shape of a persons brain.
okay so if it is shown that the differences in brain shape are there at birth then would you say that it is in fact something that was given at birth and not because he was playing with mommy's lipstick as a child?

[-p.tiddy-]

Hoodlum, one of the main reasons I have trouble thinking it is mainly a nurture thing (obviously nurture can be found in some examples) is that I relate it to my own sexual well being.

I think about sex with women literally dozens of times through out any given day, and I don't for one second believe that it is the result of what society told me to think about...I think it is the result of my hormones I was born with being wired to want to impregnate women. I also don't think there is the slightest chance that ANYTHING in my childhood could change that, I think that I would like women NO MATTER WHAT...even if the rest of the male population in society liked men, I would still be the odd ball who thinks about women all the time.

[Randy]

Honestly, who cares? Some people are straight, some people are gay, and a few are somewhere in-between. Whatever goes on between consenting adults is their business, not anyone else's. It's 2013! Can we please move past narrow minded and petty judging of other people?

[Nanners]

okay so if it is shown that the differences in brain shape are there at birth then would you say that it is in fact something that was given at birth and not because he was playing with mommy's lipstick as a child?

no. i would definitely not say that.

i would say the same thing that the scientists who did this research on brain size differences said -


"These differences might be laid down during brain development in the womb, or they could happen after birth, though it could very likely be a combination of the two," said Savic.

[-p.tiddy-]

no. i would definitely not say that.

i would say the same thing that the scientists who did this research on brain size differences said -
and what about this one who did the same research?


Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development.
"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.
The amygdala, he said, was important because of its role in "orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to an emotional stimulus - be it during the "fight or flight" response, or the presence of a potential mate.
"In other words, the brain network which determines what sexual orientation actually 'orients' towards is similar between gay men and straight women, and between gay women and straight men.
"This makes sense given that gay men have a sexual preference which is like that of women in general, that is, preferring men, and vice versa for lesbian women."
I'm guessing you would not say the same as him, because it differs from your original beliefs

[Nanners]

and what about this one who did the same research?


I'm guessing you would not say the same as him, because it differs from your original beliefs

what do you say about the conclusion drawn by the people who did the research on brain size?


"These differences might be laid down during brain development in the womb, or they could happen after birth, though it could very likely be a combination of the two," said Savic.

I am guessing you would not say the same as him, because it differs from your original beliefs

[bluechox2]

if a higher being decides that being gay is wrong and an error in humanity, then let that being pass judgement, who are we to say otherwise

[Nanners]

if a higher being decides that being gay is wrong and an error in humanity, then let that being pass judgement, who are we to say otherwise


if jesus walked the earth today his message would be - forget about the tired hungry and sick, go round up all the gays and put a stop to them dirtying up the gene pool

[MadeFromDust]

I think there is another force at work here other than genetics or choice. It's spiritual. There are certain spiritual laws perpetually in existence that are in action regardless of a nation's laws or cultural fads of the time. Just like gravity, every single human being is subject to these spiritual laws. For instance, people who don't really acknowledge a higher power will nevertheless attribute certain events to "Karma" when referring to a baddie getting his just desserts seemingly unrelated to his past bad deeds.

Similarly, it is revealed in the Holy Bible that certain people who once believed in God but turned away from the faith were "turned over" to their ungodly lusts and to do unnatural acts of sodomy and gay rape, etc. So really once turned over to such things the gays become slaves to that behavior. They couldn't stop it if they tried. They no longer have a choice. This spiritual force is even stronger than genetics. The only thing that could stop it is repentance and divine intervention.

Another spiritual law is generational sin...i.e. God visits the sins of the fathers to their children, and to their children's children, unto the 3rd and 4th generations. So if a father fell away from the faith and was turned over to gay lust and sinned in abominable ways, then chances are that same sin/temptation will crop up in the flesh of their generational children assuming they ever actually mated with the opposite sex. Of course if their flaming homoedness actually prevents them from having normal heterosexual relations at all resulting in offsping, then their bloodline and also the sin stops there with their death and destruction.

I don't ever hear ANYONE talking about that perspective but it's the most plausible explanation that I can see.

[red1]

I think there is another force at work here other than genetics or choice. It's spiritual. There are certain spiritual laws perpetually in existence that are in action regardless of a nation's laws or cultural fads of the time. Just like gravity, every single human being is subject to these spiritual laws. For instance, people who don't really acknowledge a higher power will nevertheless attribute certain events to "Karma" when referring to a baddie getting his just desserts seemingly unrelated to his past bad deeds.

Similarly, it is revealed in the Holy Bible that certain people who once believed in God but turned away from the faith were "turned over" to their ungodly lusts and to do unnatural acts of sodomy and gay rape, etc. So really once turned over to such things the gays become slaves to that behavior. They couldn't stop it if they tried. They no longer have a choice. This spiritual force is even stronger than genetics. The only thing that could stop it is repentance and divine intervention.

Another spiritual law is generational sin...i.e. God visits the sins of the fathers to their children, and to their children's children, unto the 3rd and 4th generations. So if a father fell away from the faith and was turned over to gay lust and sinned in abominable ways, then chances are that same sin/temptation will crop up in the flesh of their generational children assuming they ever actually mated with the opposite sex. Of course if their flaming homoedness actually prevents them from having normal heterosexual relations at all resulting in offsping, then their bloodline and also the sin stops there with their death and destruction.

I don't ever hear ANYONE talking about that perspective but it's the most plausible explanation that I can see.
::coleman: