Soulja Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Do you think they are born gay, or chose to be gay. I say they chose to be gay, by acting on some feelings in there bodies during puberty, they are confused to think they are gay, and keep acting on this feeling until they are gay. What do you think? :scratch: :scratch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 It's a good question. I don't think I can answer it in a satisfactory way, but I do know that in the vast majority of cases there is no conscious choice involved whatsoever. You might as well say that heterosexuals choose to be so inclined, when obviously the overbearing biological impulse is to procreate. Maybe a better way of putting the question is 'what is the source of the biological impulse towards homosexuality?', although that would possibly have the side effect of limiting the discussion to biological rather than social effects. I'm going to go away and think about this - it beats the training I'm doing at work at the moment. Some people just don't want to learn! Edit: Why is this in pseudoscience anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulja Posted October 8, 2002 Author Share Posted October 8, 2002 Edit: Why is this in pseudoscience anyway? Im sorry somebody move this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 There is a physiological basis for homosexuality. Certainly this is not the only cause, and certainly not everyone with this conidtion is gay. During the early stages of development, males are typically in an environment with more testosterone. This results in inhibiting development of the corpus callosum. the part of the brain responsible for for communication between both sides, which accounts for many differences between men and women. This is the extreme example, but there are subtle changes in other parts of the brain structure due to testosterone. These effects are supressed if there is an above average level of estrogen. Creating a more effeminate brain structure obviously influences sexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Well its certainly not genetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Maybe not directly, although there may be some genes that create more of a susceptibility to it. Don't tell me the "it's impossible because its again evolution" bs, because cancer, alzheimers, diabetes, etc. are all genetically influenced. and of course there's always bisexuality, which wouldn't be evolutionarily removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Don't tell me the "it's impossible because its again evolution" bs, because cancer, alzheimers, diabetes, etc. are all genetically influenced. and of course there's always bisexuality, which wouldn't be evolutionarily removed. Yes, but cancer and alzheimers don't typically affect reproductivity because they usually occur after the peak reproductive age. Diabetes is probably alot more common now days because of poor dietary habbits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Sometimes they do. And that was just a small sample of genetically linked conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 Sometimes they do. And that was just a small sample of genetically linked conditions. Yes, but it all comes down to reproductivity. Bottom line, a homosexual is less likely to reproduce than a heterosexual, and therefore the heterosexual takes evolutionary preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 So explain midgets. Especially considering its a dominant gene and homozygotes die. The homozygote problem along with the fact they're really not as likely to reproduce... so why are they still in the gene pool? You're still not understanding the concept of susceptibility. The genes that influence it could technically have nothing to do with it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 8, 2002 Share Posted October 8, 2002 faf (6:10:00 PM)[in chat room]: so next time you want to showcase your high school understanding of evolution and polygenic traits lol. Highschool understanding of evolution. Spare me! You mean my intro to biology understanding In all seriousness, as far as I understand it, its all about reproductive success. So explain midgets. Dwarfs can reproduce, they're just rare. Achnodroplasia is rare is because of natural selection. People who are not affected are homozygous recessive, and unless they reproduce with a dwarf, will not produce one. This results in most of the alleles being removed from the population. ----- The genes that influence it could technically have nothing to do with it at all. Still however, if gene "A" even indirectly affects it, and a carrier of gene "A" fails to reproduce, gene "A" will slowly decline, even though it doesn't have a direct effect. Take for example red blood cells. People with normal red blood cells are susceptible to malaria. Normal RBCs don't CAUSE malaria, but they cause a person to be more suceptible to its symptoms. Someone who catches malaria with normal RBCs is more likely to die as a child before reproducing. However, people with sickle cell anemia are more likely to survive malaria as a child and live to reproductive age. Although sickle cell anemia is definatly not a GOOD trait to have, it allows the person to reproduce and pass his genes on. After awhile people with normal RBCs will become more and more rare in areas where malaria is rampant. This is a case where we see a gene that makes one more SUCEPTIBLE to something become more and more rare. If there is a gene that makes someone SUCEPTIBLE to homosexuality, then it will become rare, if not eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I don't know where you got the idea theres such a strong connection where it would drastically effect evolution. I'm saying a genetic disposition is one of many components, in fact it wasn't even my primary point. You're acting like it's a single gene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Not to mention obesity... some people are more genetically prone to it, yet obesity has been on the rise for centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Not to mention obesity... some people are more genetically prone to it, yet obesity has been on the rise for centuries. Obese people reproduce too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Not as often Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I'd say a lack of a healthy diet, stress, and laziness are contributing to our obesity problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I think it is more hormone related. Depending on hormones children can be born with both sets of sex organs. Normal acting men can have XY chromosomes. Some women can have XX. I think it all depends on the hormones they are exposed to in the womb. This makes more sense to me than a genetic tendency. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 yes they contribute, but they aren't the only reason. if you think obesity isn't only external factors and not related to genetics, you're going on the ignorance list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 XY/XX/etc are genetic Hormones is what my original post was about :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I said that it was more related to the hormones in agreement with you during gestation but that there are recorded gross genetic problems to deal with also. Then after birth there are the social influences and pressures. Maybe there are natural born homosexuals and there are cultural homosexuals. Just aman :flame: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 It's always a combination of both. Can't be completely natural born because of evolution, can't be completely cultural because of the same reasons (basic instinct would always override culture, especially in ancient history, even in societies such as ancient greece where homosexuality, especially older men with young boys, was quite common, but their societal population overall wasn't effected) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 if you think obesity isn't only external factors and not related to genetics, you're going on the ignorance list ..are contributing to our obesity problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 well its the same thing with homosexuality. society contributes, but you can't ignore biology. i win, thank you and good night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 offtopic, but it really bothers me that we could have 50 posts yesterday (most since august 10th) and virtually none today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 well its the same thing with homosexuality. society contributes, but you can't ignore biology. i win, thank you and good night You didn't win anything because the arguments not over. You sidestepped the issue and claimed victory. Its not the same thing with homosexuality, which was my argument. :flame: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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