mister_me Posted January 22, 2003 Posted January 22, 2003 God made Addam and Eve... not Addam and Steve. "And man looked on the woman and said it was good." -The Bible (somewhere)
Skye Posted January 22, 2003 Posted January 22, 2003 Studies have linked it to estrogen levels very early in pregnancy; alters the development of the brain, particularly the corpus callosum. Are the estrogen levels at this time largely controlled by genes?
Radical Edward Posted January 22, 2003 Posted January 22, 2003 on genetics: as faf said, it isn't just one gene.. so perhaps certain characteristics of the opposite sex may make one more atractive to the opposite sex, for example women (allegedly) like guys who are understanding and caring... and depending on how all that fells out in the genetic mix, it may well end up selecting for a bunch of genes with these characteristics, that may well end up giving a child a tendency towards homosexuality... A similar example is the disporoportionately high rate of autistic children who are born to academics and clever people. who often display slight social retardation of some forms. It's a pretty complicated game really.
fafalone Posted January 22, 2003 Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by Skye Are the estrogen levels at this time largely controlled by genes? It's controlled by several of the mothers genes along with internal and external environmental factors.
kenel Posted January 22, 2003 Posted January 22, 2003 To throw in a comment to argue about, in a book that I've been reading about Prison Writing, Edited by Franklin H. Bruce, a convict, who had been in jail since the age of 16, had stated, "I do not know if I'm a homosexual or not, I've never had the chance to sexually relate to members of the opposite sex". I believe that there are both people who turn homosexual, and people who are born homosexual--these more so represented in the female community than the male; Women who have had extreemly bad relationships with men, decide to try women, and become homosexual.
Glider Posted January 22, 2003 Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by mister_me God made Addam and Eve... not Addam and Steve. "And man looked on the woman and said it was good." -The Bible (somewhere) It's Adam, not Addam. And the (mis)quote you're looking for is: Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis If you're going to quote it, might be an idea to read it.
kenel Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 The United States has always recognized a seperation of Church and State...Why the hell don't you people realize the same relationship applies to Church and Science?
fafalone Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 Actually a good deal of the governments policy is heavily influences by the church.
Sayonara Posted January 24, 2003 Posted January 24, 2003 Originally posted by mister_me God made Addam and Eve... not Addam and Steve. Actually that's really catchy.And it's a great argument. I bet gay people everywhere read that and decide it's time to stop being so darned gay, and go straight rather than burn in hell. Can you get T-shirts with that slogan on? I want to buy one so I can proudly wear it around town.
Skye Posted January 28, 2003 Posted January 28, 2003 The United States has always recognized a seperation of Church and State A guy I know came back from the States and brought some bills with him, doesn't it say 'In God We Trust' on them?
JaKiri Posted January 28, 2003 Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by kenel The United States has always recognized a seperation of Church and State...Why the hell don't you people realize the same relationship applies to Church and Science? You mean Mister_me's being an idiot. WOWZAH
DocBill Posted March 22, 2003 Posted March 22, 2003 Why are people Gay? Hmm. Why are people colored (White, brown etc.) Why are people horizontal as opposed to vertical? Why are people distally disigned? Why just one heart, yet two kidneys? Why not a second pancreas? Can you see where this is going? I hope so. Bill, Heterosexual but not really sure why.
fafalone Posted March 22, 2003 Posted March 22, 2003 All those were genetic survival advantages... homosexuality is not.
Sayonara Posted March 22, 2003 Posted March 22, 2003 I think having two or more hearts would be distinctly advantageous.
YoungStrife Posted March 22, 2003 Posted March 22, 2003 What I am about to say may seem like I don't agree with homosexuality, but I would like to state that I do, and have nothing against it. Homosexuality goes against darwin's law of natural selection, for as you see a gay species would never survive in nature Homosexuality is not genetic, it is caused by the way one is raised. I have once heard that scientists don't know it's origin but I am sure it is not genetic since gay men can't reproduce, unless if they use the recent technology of "test tube babies" As to why this happens I'm not sure, all I can tell is that the brain is one thing we may never truely undertsand in its complexity, and has an infinant ways it can go wrong.
Sayonara Posted March 22, 2003 Posted March 22, 2003 Homosexuality does not go against Darwinian natural selection at all. Gay men can reproduce. Since many gay men in fact have children, and a disproportionately large part of the homosexual demograph donate sperm, you cannot really claim that homosexuality is an evolutionary disadvantage. It would be interesting to see how the figures for homosexuals and straight males passing on their genetic information compare.
blike Posted March 22, 2003 Posted March 22, 2003 Originally posted by YoungStrife ...Homosexuality goes against darwin's law of natural selection, for as you see a gay species would never survive in nature. Homosexuality is not genetic, it is caused by the way one is raised. I have once heard that scientists don't know it's origin but I am sure it is not genetic since gay men can't reproduce, unless if they use the recent technology of "test tube babies" If you look at the earlier postings in this thread you can see there was a heated debate about whether it was genetic or not. I think we came to the conclusion that it was at least partially genetic, or due to the chemical environment the fetus were in, given the correlation of homosexuality between twins seperated at birth. The likelihood of a homosexual's twin (seperated at birth) also being homosexual is stronger than two randomly assigned males. This indicates at least a fetal connection, if not genetic. Homosexuality has also been reported in populations of monkeys studied in the wild, which indicates that at least some individuals in a population can exhibit homosexual tendencies, regardless of natural selection.
YoungStrife Posted March 22, 2003 Posted March 22, 2003 I did not state that homosexuality doesn't exist in nature, and I do agree that if the species is intelligent enough, it can be homosexual oddly. It does have a fetal connection, like smoking effects a baby, or extreme yelling may damage it mentally. That's why pediatritions suggest that pregnant mothers rub their stomach, and have very low amounts of stress in their lives. Hiomosexuality is not genetic, but a resault of the effects on the baby before, and after birth. You may disagree, but this is the information I know of, if you have any other information to bring to my attention, I'll be glad to review it.
fafalone Posted March 22, 2003 Posted March 22, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Homosexuality does not go against Darwinian natural selection at all. Gay men can reproduce. Since many gay men in fact have children, and a disproportionately large part of the homosexual demograph donate sperm, you cannot really claim that homosexuality is an evolutionary disadvantage. It would be interesting to see how the figures for homosexuals and straight males passing on their genetic information compare. Yes, it does. Gay men can reproduce, but they are LESS LIKELY to do so. You cannot claim the rate of reproduction of homosexuals is the same as heterosexuals.
YoungStrife Posted March 22, 2003 Posted March 22, 2003 Not taking technology into view, a truly homosexual male can not reproduce at all, unless a man can have a baby, which when I last checked never happens. Bisexual malkes on the other hand can, yet as the dear hater of ignorane Mr. Fafalone said: they are less likely to.
Ryoken Posted March 22, 2003 Posted March 22, 2003 Has anyone ever heard of the test where a lesbian was given daily doses of testostrone, in an effort to see how far she could be changed into a man? When I saw anything of her last of her, she had grown more like a man features wise (brawd shoulders, facial hair, muscle mass) but she did not report any psychological changes. After 6 months, although I am unsure about that time scale. Also, in the case where homosectual parent adopt children, the children do not necesarily turn out to be homosexual. So there should be more factors involved than the environment one is raised in. Although I believe that would be the most prominent.
Sayonara Posted March 23, 2003 Posted March 23, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Yes, it does. Gay men can reproduce, but they are LESS LIKELY to do so. You cannot claim the rate of reproduction of homosexuals is the same as heterosexuals. Well, true. But insofar as humans are evolving at all, if homosexuality is genetic I doubt we will see it being selected against significantly enough to remove the effect from our species.
Sayonara Posted March 23, 2003 Posted March 23, 2003 Originally posted by YoungStrife Not taking technology into view, a truly homosexual male can not reproduce at all, unless a man can have a baby, which when I last checked never happens. Bisexual malkes on the other hand can, yet as the dear hater of ignorane Mr. Fafalone said: they are less likely to. Yes he can. He goes and has sex with a woman, and they make babies. Maybe it happened before he realised he was gay. Maybe he was really drunk. Maybe she was a surrogate for his child. Maybe he was a donor for her child, because she wanted a suitable male partner without the relationship. All of these things happen. If - as you seem to be - you are talking about homosexuality as a behaviour in species that do not have self determination, or the ability to artificially assist conception and birth, then it is possible that there is some evidence of homosexuality being selected against as most homosexual behaviour in animals tends to be a component of promiscuous bisexuality.
YoungStrife Posted March 23, 2003 Posted March 23, 2003 Ryoken: This is true, it's a prosedure used to feminise or masculinize a person if they feel that they are one trapped in the body of the opposite sex. It should have no mental changes and it doesn't. Environment does effect the brain, in fact it dictates the entire personality of a person, so since we all grow up in a slightly different environment we all have different personalities. Homosexuality is no different, since no one is born gay without having "special effects" while still a fetus. As I said, not taking new technology in to view, a truly homosexual man could not produce a child. That would require sex with a woman, and a homosexual would not have sex with a woman. If he realises he's gay afterwards, then technicly a gay man can not produce a child since at the time he wasen't. If he's drunk that's considered new technology as is sperm doning.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now