Careful with that one, dude. You might succeed in convincing her she likes girls, but still prefers the - um - one on one intimacy, if you get my drift.
And you're right. It never works.
The old gf said she'd let me have a threesome with two girls, if I she had one with 2 guys. That about wrapped it up for me, no threesomes.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'd compare it to a woman who slept with a black man, got pregnant, and decided to have an abortion because she doesn't want to have a black baby. I believe she should have every right to do it. I'd also think of her as a horrible, racist person. The two aren't exclusive.
How about those who choose to abort based on genetic testing for conditions such as Down's? Are they horrible people? In either your case, mine, or aborting a fetus with the gay gene a woman is choosing to abort based on the fetus not having the desired DNA or genes. Do we differentaite between acceptable gene testing and unacceptable testing?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I have half a brain.. and I bet I can get your girlfriend to enjoy the love of a pretty girl before you can get my sister to enjoy Pearl Jam.
no you cant. my girlfriend is not attracted to women. and I'll bet I can get your sister to agree that there is at least one pearl jam song she likes. maybe a guitar cord, or chorus....and if she listens to a certain song long enough she might like it. you cant do that with sexuality. even if I brought home 50 of the most beautiful women in the world, my girlfriend will never be attracted to them in a sexual way.
there is more to human sexuality then there is to choosing a pizza topping.
I wasnt born a pearl jam fan.
first time I did a shot of jager, I thought it was gross, now I actually enjoy it. certain things can be acquired in the brain then others. its not as cut and dry as you seem to think.
I will never enjoy having anal sex or passionately kissing a man. but yet there are millions of men who enjoy that since puberty of even birth. gay (or straight) dont go back and forth as if they choose.
But I thought every abortion was a good abortion? Who are you to judge some abortions as negative? Pro-choice means accepting all choices without judgement.
Is aborting a fetus because it may be gay baby any worse than aborting it because it is a baby period? or the mother is poor or feels unprepared?
no, it's no worse. but it certainly exposes a hypocrisy in the pro-LIFE crowd if they suddenly start deciding only straight life is worth protecting. i use the same argument against pro-lifers who feel there should be a rape exemption. i'm sorry, but if a fetus is alive, there should be no exception based on rape... you don't kill an innocent baby becos it's dad was an asshole right?
anyone who says you shouldn't be able to abort a gay baby becos it's gay is also a hypocrite.
no, it's no worse. but it certainly exposes a hypocrisy in the pro-LIFE crowd if they suddenly start deciding only straight life is worth protecting.
A friend of mine thinks abortion is wrong, and he also thinks homosexuality is wrong. Based solely on scripture of course.
His view is this; if evidence supports the 'gay gene' he won't believe it because it's contrary to God's word. It's exactly the position I'd expect him to take, if science is coherent with the Bible then science is right, if it's not, then science is wrong.
If a "gay gene" was identified it would be contradictory to the claim that "Homosexuality is a choice" or worthy of punishment by death, or however it's worded in scripture.
Is this the hypocrisy you are identifying?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
no you cant. my girlfriend is not attracted to women. and I'll bet I can get your sister to agree that there is at least one pearl jam song she likes. maybe a guitar cord, or chorus....and if she listens to a certain song long enough she might like it. you cant do that with sexuality. even if I brought home 50 of the most beautiful women in the world, my girlfriend will never be attracted to them in a sexual way.
there is more to human sexuality then there is to choosing a pizza topping.
I wasnt born a pearl jam fan.
first time I did a shot of jager, I thought it was gross, now I actually enjoy it. certain things can be acquired in the brain then others. its not as cut and dry as you seem to think.
I will never enjoy having anal sex or passionately kissing a man. but yet there are millions of men who enjoy that since puberty of even birth. gay (or straight) dont go back and forth as if they choose.
typical argument ...
hmmm my sister may like a guitar cord - and that makes her a pearl jam fan
well by that logic.. you wife may like my sisters earings - and that makes her gay..
what is gay anyway... ? The desire as you put it .. to have anal sex and pasionate kisses? and that desire is somehow different that the desire to eat chocolate kisses and take a shit?
hmmm my sister may like a guitar cord - and that makes her a pearl jam fan
well by that logic.. you wife may like my sisters earings - and that makes her gay..
what is gay anyway... ? The desire as you put it .. to have anal sex and pasionate kisses? and that desire is somehow different that the desire to eat chocolate kisses and take a shit?
Well, the desire to eat chocolate is very likely a chemical dependency in the brain, obtained by training within the environment. Eating chocolate is addictive. A better simile would be, which brand of chocolate one chooses, yet brand power follows a similar form of neural training. Whereas, sexual orientation may not depend on neural training at all. It's most likely the kind of preference that falls into the same catagory with the desires manifested by our metabolic systems, depending on a complex interaction of hormones and tissues.
The way I see it, there are two ways to approach the matter of homosexuality. One is very opinionated, it claims absolute knowledge that "In-fact homosexuality is a choice." the other rolls with the unfolding database of scientific knowledge, which isn't absolute in any sense of the term. Perhaps some amount of neural training in preadolescence is an epigentic cause for homosexuality, that much is unknown.
It always goes back to choice though, every discussion goes back to human wills and the nature of them. To me; you can say anything is a choice, but it doesn't grant the agent a metaphysical freedom of their will to choose independently of the state of the entire universe. So calling it a choice makes them no more or less responsible.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, the desire to eat chocolate is very likely a chemical dependency in the brain, obtained by training within the environment. Eating chocolate is addictive. A better simile would be, which brand of chocolate one chooses, yet brand power follows a similar form of neural training. Whereas, sexual orientation may not depend on neural training at all. It's most likely the kind of preference that falls into the same catagory with the desires manifested by our metabolic systems, depending on a complex interaction of hormones and tissues.
The way I see it, there are two ways to approach the matter of homosexuality. One is very opinionated, it claims absolute knowledge that "In-fact homosexuality is a choice." the other rolls with the unfolding database of scientific knowledge, which isn't absolute in any sense of the term. Perhaps some amount of neural training in preadolescence is an epigentic cause for homosexuality, that much is unknown.
It always goes back to choice though, every discussion goes back to human wills and the nature of them. To me; you can say anything is a choice, but it doesn't grant the agent a metaphysical freedom of their will to choose independently of the state of the entire universe. So calling it a choice makes them no more or less responsible.
with the exception of the first sentence, I agree.
The truth is that everybody is partially right and partially wrong. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. There are many different factors that make a person homosexual. You can't pinpoint just one cause. I personally think that it has something to do with "male" brains and "female" brains and how sometimes wires can get crossed and mixed up. God does not create absolutley perfect human beings. Anyone with a fucking brain can see that.
The "born with it/choice" debate is silly, because the correct answer is that both are factors. Sexuality is more complex than just making a simple choice. Sexual orientation is based on who you are attracted to. You do make a "choice" to perform a sexual act, but you don't make a "choice" to be attracted to the person that the sexual act is being performed with. So when you say that homosexuality is a choice, are you condemning the sex act itself or are you attacking the person's sexual orientation? One is understandable, the other is grossly unfair. Should a guy who is attracted to men remain a virgin for the rest of his life? Would that be "natural"?
Shit, I read an article several years ago regarding music and how effects human beings. I wish I had saved it on my hard drive!
It was very interesting. It's been quite a few years since I read it, but I'll try to elaborate as much as I can remember.
It did not specifically point to a genetic gene or genetic disposition.
But it did talk about how even order harmonics, odd order harmonics and howdifferent keys/notes in certain sequences result in a chemical/hormonal reaction or create a stimulation of sort.
Even order harmonics are generally precieved as more pleasant, soothing and emotionally engaging. While odd order harmonics were found to more often irritate listeners and make them feel uncomfortable and unsatisfied.
It also went on to discuss how music in diffirent keys.....such as a song written in the key of "D" (just an example); will attract and seduce certain people; while others will not be seduced or engaged by that song in the key of "D".
There was also an article on how specific music ...or tones/notes can assist in relaxation and self-healing of our bodies. Especially when these notes are sequenced together.
You don't have to be a genius to realize that certain music has a very emotional and physical effect on some human beings. All you have to be is a music lover to know that.
Can this be considered a genetic predisposition? Hmmm.....I personally think it very well may be.
What do you think?
It obvious a lot of human beings (not all, though) have some kind of physical/emotional/hormonal/chemical reaction and stimulation to specific music. Something happens in our brains .....in our glands when we hear certain music.
I'll try to find that article. I know there's other articles on this subject matter. I'll post some links on this stuff, tomorrow. I'm sure I can find at least a little something on it, even if I can no longer locate the original article I read. If you want, I'll also send the links to you in a PM.
If there were a "gay" gene, wouldn't it have died out a long time ago? Obviously this gene isn't being passed along much. How do you explain the one gay guy that pops up in the family from a long line of very ungay ancestry? I'm honestly just curious. Maybe someone far more versed in genetics than i am can explain it to me.
On the other hand, i've seen, with my own eyes, some pretty gay JEANS.
Probably because there are also bisexuals and closeted gays who either live secretive, double lives; or never act on their true sexuality because of the stigma and discrimination associated with it. So they marry someone from the opposite sex, have children and there you go....the gay gene gets passed down to another generation.
A friend of mine thinks abortion is wrong, and he also thinks homosexuality is wrong. Based solely on scripture of course.
His view is this; if evidence supports the 'gay gene' he won't believe it because it's contrary to God's word. It's exactly the position I'd expect him to take, if science is coherent with the Bible then science is right, if it's not, then science is wrong.
If a "gay gene" was identified it would be contradictory to the claim that "Homosexuality is a choice" or worthy of punishment by death, or however it's worded in scripture.
Is this the hypocrisy you are identifying?
no, that's not hypocrisy. that's just willful ignorance. refusing to believe the evidence becos it contradicts what you want to believe.
the hypocrisy i spoke of is that if people start aborting babies becos the baby has a gay gene, that's hypocrisy. that is religious people saying they are pro-life and innocent life should be sacred and protected, then going forth to "murder babies" that they don't like becos they are gay. of course, they would try to spin it as a gay baby is not innocent or something, but it's still a hypocritical stance.
it is also hypocritical for a pro-choice person to say they support the mother's right to abort based on her inability to properly care for her child, but only if the child is straight.
So I get molested by another male and that is going to turn me gay? Dosen't that go against everything that the brain is set up to do in defense of not liking something?
Anyway, I believe that there probably is a "gay" gene. Same as hair colour, eye colour and everything else in our genes that makes us who we are.
Not too many gay kids in an unaccepting household are going to come out of the closet at dinner to their parents. That is why their parents are so stupid that they are usually the last to know their own child is gay.
If it were to be proven that gay is indeed inherited through a gene it would put the bible and other haters of the gay lifestyle in a tight bind that they could not squirm enough to get out of. God torched two cities because of their lifestyles and then it gets proven that god itself set the gene in humans. Tsk tsk tsk! Bad god.
Shit, I read an article several years ago regarding music and how effects human beings. I wish I had saved it on my hard drive!
It was very interesting. It's been quite a few years since I read it, but I'll try to elaborate as much as I can remember.
It did not specifically point to a genetic gene or genetic disposition.
But it did talk about how even order harmonics, odd order harmonics and howdifferent keys/notes in certain sequences result in a chemical/hormonal reaction or create a stimulation of sort.
Even order harmonics are generally precieved as more pleasant, soothing and emotionally engaging. While odd order harmonics were found to more often irritate listeners and make them feel uncomfortable and unsatisfied.
It also went on to discuss how music in diffirent keys.....such as a song written in the key of "D" (just an example); will attract and seduce certain people; while others will not be seduced or engaged by that song in the key of "D".
There was also an article on how specific music ...or tones/notes can assist in relaxation and self-healing of our bodies. Especially when these notes are sequenced together.
You don't have to be a genius to realize that certain music has a very emotional and physical effect on some human beings. All you have to be is a music lover to know that.
Can this be considered a genetic predisposition? Hmmm.....I personally think it very well may be.
What do you think?
It obvious a lot of human beings (not all, though) have some kind of physical/emotional/hormonal/chemical reaction and stimulation to specific music. Something happens in our brains .....in our glands when we hear certain music.
I'll try to find that article. I know there's other articles on this subject matter. I'll post some links on this stuff, tomorrow. I'm sure I can find at least a little something on it, even if I can no longer locate the original article I read. If you want, I'll also send the links to you in a PM.
I don't know - it is very interesting. For me its the Nature vs Nurture concept. Its somehow a combination of many things nature and many things nurture that leads to just about everything.
A gay gene?
They don't talk about gene for any other personality thing that is considered normal do they?
if its abnormal and if there is a gene - hmmm there is money to be made in preventing it...
no, that's not hypocrisy. that's just willful ignorance. refusing to believe the evidence becos it contradicts what you want to believe.
the hypocrisy i spoke of is that if people start aborting babies becos the baby has a gay gene, that's hypocrisy. that is religious people saying they are pro-life and innocent life should be sacred and protected, then going forth to "murder babies" that they don't like becos they are gay. of course, they would try to spin it as a gay baby is not innocent or something, but it's still a hypocritical stance.
it is also hypocritical for a pro-choice person to say they support the mother's right to abort based on her inability to properly care for her child, but only if the child is straight.
i love how non-Christians are on here talking about how Christians act and think
So I get molested by another male and that is going to turn me gay? Dosen't that go against everything that the brain is set up to do in defense of not liking something?
Anyway, I believe that there probably is a "gay" gene. Same as hair colour, eye colour and everything else in our genes that makes us who we are.
Not too many gay kids in an unaccepting household are going to come out of the closet at dinner to their parents. That is why their parents are so stupid that they are usually the last to know their own child is gay.
If it were to be proven that gay is indeed inherited through a gene it would put the bible and other haters of the gay lifestyle in a tight bind that they could not squirm enough to get out of. God torched two cities because of their lifestyles and then it gets proven that god itself set the gene in humans. Tsk tsk tsk! Bad god.
scientific proof didn't seem to phase them on evolution vs. genesis.
i love how non-Christians are on here talking about how Christians act and think
i was raised christian. i am quite familiar with their thoughts, beliefs, and actions. my brother is on track for priesthood, my uncle is a priest, and he and my other brother and all their friends are heavily involved in non-denominational young life programs. by no means am i a stranger to this stuff.
i was raised christian. i am quite familiar with their thoughts, beliefs, and actions. my brother is on track for priesthood, my uncle is a priest, and he and my other brother and all their friends are heavily involved in non-denominational young life programs. by no means am i a stranger to this stuff.
interesting...
you've seemed to backlash against that a tad bit...lol
“Kept in a small bowl, the goldfish will remain small. With more space, the fish can grow double, triple, or quadruple its size.”
-Big Fish
you've seemed to backlash against that a tad bit...lol
not really backlash, they do some good things. i just think a lot of their doctrines are arbitrary and nonsensical. i feel the same way about most political groups. maybe im more aggressive in pointing it out about christianity cos i do it so often with my brothers... becos like any good old brother, i cannot resist fucking with my younger siblings
Couldn't homosexuality be considered a sexual disorder along the lines of erectile dysfunction or infertility?
I mean, from a scientific persepective, we're really only here to make sure our genes get passed on to the next generation. Homosexuality obviously prevents that.
how does the gay gene(s) phenomenon explain bisexuals
There might be more than one gene involved. Those genes can be turned on or off by factors in the environment. A process called DNA Methylation. Genes are responsible for the specific structure of proteins produced and these proteins interact with brain cells to alter the behavior.
The point I've been trying to get across, with my less than sophisticated understanding of biology, is that gene expression is not a simple process. Sexual determination is very complex involving any number of factors.
It seems to me that genes and environment or nature and nurture together in some complex interactions, determines what we determine to do. So when we talk about 'choice', underlying choice, as a causal conditional, are genes and environment.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Couldn't homosexuality be considered a sexual disorder along the lines of erectile dysfunction or infertility?
I mean, from a scientific persepective, we're really only here to make sure our genes get passed on to the next generation. Homosexuality obviously prevents that.
In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant. While the 1973 DSM-II controversy was highly public, more recently a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality. The author presents the DSM-III controversy and a reformulation of the issues involved in the diagnostic status of homosexuality. He argues that what is at issue is a value judgment about heterosexuality, rather than a factual dispute about homosexuality. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/210
There is always controversy over it. The often cited research mentioned in the main article of this thread, was performed by two researches J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard. Their research is often interpreted to support the genetic hypothesis of homosexuality. However, Bailey wrote a book a few years ago call The Man Who Would Be Queen which raised a lot of controversy in the Gay/Lesbian community.
The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism is a controversial 2003 book by J. Michael Bailey, published by Joseph Henry Press.[1] In it, Bailey lays out an argument that male homosexuality is congenital and a result of heredity and prenatal environment. He also suggests that transsexualism is either an extreme type of homosexuality or an expression of a paraphilia, known as autogynephilia.
The book generated considerable controversy, as well as a formal investigation by Northwestern University, where Bailey was Chair of the Psychology Department until shortly before the conclusion of the investigation. Northwestern made it clear that his change in status had nothing to do with the book. Bailey insists that he did nothing wrong and that the attacks on him were motivated by the desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about transsexualism, especially autogynephilia.[2]
Written in a popular science style, the book summarizes research done on the topic that supports Bailey's opinions. The online version of the book (along with most other books in the catalogue) was removed from the Joseph Henry Press site in February 2006.
The trend is apparent I believe. The Gay/Lesbian community wants research to support their intuitive and emotional perspective and fight hard against any prejorative or derogatory terms or classifications. Rightly so? Perhaps, but also a bit anal. I'm not sure how to take it myself. But it would seem to me at face, that homosexuality is a disorder of sorts.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
sounds like a lot of political correct B.S. getting in the way of honest research, though i could see how it could be used to persecute gays.
Yea, I don't think most researchers are out to persecute gays. That's the kind of bullshit society is apt to do. But social groups will persecute out-group members regardless of what science labels them. However, nobody says Autism is a choice, perhaps because it is considered abnormal and a defecit. On the other hand, that might change as well. Several Autistic communites are looking for the same type of omission from the DSM. I personally don't recall science making value judgements about Autism or Homosexuality. It simply illustrates the phenotype as either a loss of function or an abnormal function.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
since such a tiny percentage of child molesters are women how do you then explain what contributes to females becoming lesbian?
how do you know? you don't. I'd reckon less women are caught in acts of depravity than men and even then perhaps theres more likely to be cover-ups because of the difficulty concerning the victim. It would be naive to assume that women do not have an equal part in this evil.
Couldn't homosexuality be considered a sexual disorder along the lines of erectile dysfunction or infertility?
I mean, from a scientific persepective, we're really only here to make sure our genes get passed on to the next generation. Homosexuality obviously prevents that.
not a disorder...its naturally occuring...doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything...I'm thinking people that can't grasp this are dysfunctional and they need some serious medical help...
Comments
The old gf said she'd let me have a threesome with two girls, if I she had one with 2 guys. That about wrapped it up for me, no threesomes.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
there is more to human sexuality then there is to choosing a pizza topping.
I wasnt born a pearl jam fan.
first time I did a shot of jager, I thought it was gross, now I actually enjoy it. certain things can be acquired in the brain then others. its not as cut and dry as you seem to think.
I will never enjoy having anal sex or passionately kissing a man. but yet there are millions of men who enjoy that since puberty of even birth. gay (or straight) dont go back and forth as if they choose.
damn dude...you are SO missing out.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
no, it's no worse. but it certainly exposes a hypocrisy in the pro-LIFE crowd if they suddenly start deciding only straight life is worth protecting. i use the same argument against pro-lifers who feel there should be a rape exemption. i'm sorry, but if a fetus is alive, there should be no exception based on rape... you don't kill an innocent baby becos it's dad was an asshole right?
anyone who says you shouldn't be able to abort a gay baby becos it's gay is also a hypocrite.
A friend of mine thinks abortion is wrong, and he also thinks homosexuality is wrong. Based solely on scripture of course.
His view is this; if evidence supports the 'gay gene' he won't believe it because it's contrary to God's word. It's exactly the position I'd expect him to take, if science is coherent with the Bible then science is right, if it's not, then science is wrong.
If a "gay gene" was identified it would be contradictory to the claim that "Homosexuality is a choice" or worthy of punishment by death, or however it's worded in scripture.
Is this the hypocrisy you are identifying?
typical argument ...
hmmm my sister may like a guitar cord - and that makes her a pearl jam fan
well by that logic.. you wife may like my sisters earings - and that makes her gay..
what is gay anyway... ? The desire as you put it .. to have anal sex and pasionate kisses? and that desire is somehow different that the desire to eat chocolate kisses and take a shit?
Well, the desire to eat chocolate is very likely a chemical dependency in the brain, obtained by training within the environment. Eating chocolate is addictive. A better simile would be, which brand of chocolate one chooses, yet brand power follows a similar form of neural training. Whereas, sexual orientation may not depend on neural training at all. It's most likely the kind of preference that falls into the same catagory with the desires manifested by our metabolic systems, depending on a complex interaction of hormones and tissues.
The way I see it, there are two ways to approach the matter of homosexuality. One is very opinionated, it claims absolute knowledge that "In-fact homosexuality is a choice." the other rolls with the unfolding database of scientific knowledge, which isn't absolute in any sense of the term. Perhaps some amount of neural training in preadolescence is an epigentic cause for homosexuality, that much is unknown.
It always goes back to choice though, every discussion goes back to human wills and the nature of them. To me; you can say anything is a choice, but it doesn't grant the agent a metaphysical freedom of their will to choose independently of the state of the entire universe. So calling it a choice makes them no more or less responsible.
with the exception of the first sentence, I agree.
The "born with it/choice" debate is silly, because the correct answer is that both are factors. Sexuality is more complex than just making a simple choice. Sexual orientation is based on who you are attracted to. You do make a "choice" to perform a sexual act, but you don't make a "choice" to be attracted to the person that the sexual act is being performed with. So when you say that homosexuality is a choice, are you condemning the sex act itself or are you attacking the person's sexual orientation? One is understandable, the other is grossly unfair. Should a guy who is attracted to men remain a virgin for the rest of his life? Would that be "natural"?
Shit, I read an article several years ago regarding music and how effects human beings. I wish I had saved it on my hard drive!
It was very interesting. It's been quite a few years since I read it, but I'll try to elaborate as much as I can remember.
It did not specifically point to a genetic gene or genetic disposition.
But it did talk about how even order harmonics, odd order harmonics and howdifferent keys/notes in certain sequences result in a chemical/hormonal reaction or create a stimulation of sort.
Even order harmonics are generally precieved as more pleasant, soothing and emotionally engaging. While odd order harmonics were found to more often irritate listeners and make them feel uncomfortable and unsatisfied.
It also went on to discuss how music in diffirent keys.....such as a song written in the key of "D" (just an example); will attract and seduce certain people; while others will not be seduced or engaged by that song in the key of "D".
There was also an article on how specific music ...or tones/notes can assist in relaxation and self-healing of our bodies. Especially when these notes are sequenced together.
You don't have to be a genius to realize that certain music has a very emotional and physical effect on some human beings. All you have to be is a music lover to know that.
Can this be considered a genetic predisposition? Hmmm.....I personally think it very well may be.
What do you think?
It obvious a lot of human beings (not all, though) have some kind of physical/emotional/hormonal/chemical reaction and stimulation to specific music. Something happens in our brains .....in our glands when we hear certain music.
I'll try to find that article. I know there's other articles on this subject matter. I'll post some links on this stuff, tomorrow. I'm sure I can find at least a little something on it, even if I can no longer locate the original article I read. If you want, I'll also send the links to you in a PM.
Probably because there are also bisexuals and closeted gays who either live secretive, double lives; or never act on their true sexuality because of the stigma and discrimination associated with it. So they marry someone from the opposite sex, have children and there you go....the gay gene gets passed down to another generation.
no, that's not hypocrisy. that's just willful ignorance. refusing to believe the evidence becos it contradicts what you want to believe.
the hypocrisy i spoke of is that if people start aborting babies becos the baby has a gay gene, that's hypocrisy. that is religious people saying they are pro-life and innocent life should be sacred and protected, then going forth to "murder babies" that they don't like becos they are gay. of course, they would try to spin it as a gay baby is not innocent or something, but it's still a hypocritical stance.
it is also hypocritical for a pro-choice person to say they support the mother's right to abort based on her inability to properly care for her child, but only if the child is straight.
Anyway, I believe that there probably is a "gay" gene. Same as hair colour, eye colour and everything else in our genes that makes us who we are.
Not too many gay kids in an unaccepting household are going to come out of the closet at dinner to their parents. That is why their parents are so stupid that they are usually the last to know their own child is gay.
If it were to be proven that gay is indeed inherited through a gene it would put the bible and other haters of the gay lifestyle in a tight bind that they could not squirm enough to get out of. God torched two cities because of their lifestyles and then it gets proven that god itself set the gene in humans. Tsk tsk tsk! Bad god.
I don't know - it is very interesting. For me its the Nature vs Nurture concept. Its somehow a combination of many things nature and many things nurture that leads to just about everything.
A gay gene?
They don't talk about gene for any other personality thing that is considered normal do they?
if its abnormal and if there is a gene - hmmm there is money to be made in preventing it...
i love how non-Christians are on here talking about how Christians act and think
And you tell us all about Iran for what reason? It isn't for your depth of knowledge of the place and their people.
so tell me, what do know you about iran?
know anyone who ever lived there? has 1st hand knowledge of the place?
scientific proof didn't seem to phase them on evolution vs. genesis.
i was raised christian. i am quite familiar with their thoughts, beliefs, and actions. my brother is on track for priesthood, my uncle is a priest, and he and my other brother and all their friends are heavily involved in non-denominational young life programs. by no means am i a stranger to this stuff.
interesting...
you've seemed to backlash against that a tad bit...lol
-Big Fish
not really backlash, they do some good things. i just think a lot of their doctrines are arbitrary and nonsensical. i feel the same way about most political groups. maybe im more aggressive in pointing it out about christianity cos i do it so often with my brothers... becos like any good old brother, i cannot resist fucking with my younger siblings
I mean, from a scientific persepective, we're really only here to make sure our genes get passed on to the next generation. Homosexuality obviously prevents that.
There might be more than one gene involved. Those genes can be turned on or off by factors in the environment. A process called DNA Methylation. Genes are responsible for the specific structure of proteins produced and these proteins interact with brain cells to alter the behavior.
The point I've been trying to get across, with my less than sophisticated understanding of biology, is that gene expression is not a simple process. Sexual determination is very complex involving any number of factors.
It seems to me that genes and environment or nature and nurture together in some complex interactions, determines what we determine to do. So when we talk about 'choice', underlying choice, as a causal conditional, are genes and environment.
In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant. While the 1973 DSM-II controversy was highly public, more recently a related but less public controversy involved what became the DSM-III category of Ego-dystonic Homosexuality. The author presents the DSM-III controversy and a reformulation of the issues involved in the diagnostic status of homosexuality. He argues that what is at issue is a value judgment about heterosexuality, rather than a factual dispute about homosexuality.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/210
There is always controversy over it. The often cited research mentioned in the main article of this thread, was performed by two researches J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard. Their research is often interpreted to support the genetic hypothesis of homosexuality. However, Bailey wrote a book a few years ago call The Man Who Would Be Queen which raised a lot of controversy in the Gay/Lesbian community.
The trend is apparent I believe. The Gay/Lesbian community wants research to support their intuitive and emotional perspective and fight hard against any prejorative or derogatory terms or classifications. Rightly so? Perhaps, but also a bit anal. I'm not sure how to take it myself. But it would seem to me at face, that homosexuality is a disorder of sorts.
sounds like a lot of political correct B.S. getting in the way of honest research, though i could see how it could be used to persecute gays.
Yea, I don't think most researchers are out to persecute gays. That's the kind of bullshit society is apt to do. But social groups will persecute out-group members regardless of what science labels them. However, nobody says Autism is a choice, perhaps because it is considered abnormal and a defecit. On the other hand, that might change as well. Several Autistic communites are looking for the same type of omission from the DSM. I personally don't recall science making value judgements about Autism or Homosexuality. It simply illustrates the phenotype as either a loss of function or an abnormal function.
not a disorder...its naturally occuring...doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything...I'm thinking people that can't grasp this are dysfunctional and they need some serious medical help...
lots of homosexuals have kids...