It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If not genetic, then biological in nature. If it were a CHOICE then do you think we would even have homosexuality? Given the way they're treated, abused, and killed? It's obviously something that can't be changed by choice.
Abstract
Several lines of evidence indicate the existence of genetic factors influencing male homosexuality and bisexuality. In spite of its relatively low frequency, the stable permanence in all human populations of this apparently detrimental trait constitutes a puzzling ‘Darwinian paradox’. Furthermore, several studies have pointed out relevant asymmetries in the distribution of both male homosexuality and of female fecundity in the parental lines of homosexual vs. heterosexual males. A number of hypotheses have attempted to give an evolutionary explanation for the long-standing persistence of this trait, and for its asymmetric distribution in family lines; however a satisfactory understanding of the population genetics of male homosexuality is lacking at present. We perform a systematic mathematical analysis of the propagation and equilibrium of the putative genetic factors for male homosexuality in the population, based on the selection equation for one or two diallelic loci and Bayesian statistics for pedigree investigation. We show that only the two-locus genetic model with at least one locus on the X chromosome, and in which gene expression is sexually antagonistic (increasing female fitness but decreasing male fitness), accounts for all known empirical data. Our results help clarify the basic evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality, establishing this as a clearly ascertained sexually antagonistic human trait.
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
Ivanka Savic* and Per Lindström
Stockholm Brain Institute, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
Edited by Jan-Åke Gustafsson, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, and approved April 30, 2008 (received for review February 27, 2008)
Abstract
Cerebral responses to putative pheromones and objects of sexual attraction were recently found to differ between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Although this observation may merely mirror perceptional differences, it raises the intriguing question as to whether certain sexually dimorphic features in the brain may differ between individuals of the same sex but different sexual orientation.
A genetic defect. if it was evolution then to continue down that path would lead to the destruction of the species through non reproduction. A defect like any other requires treatment.
we will be having genetic issues for all sorts of things leading to them being accepted without any credible scientific evidence whatsoever.
I agree David, on a purely amoral and pragmatic basis any behavior that would result in the extinction of the species if adopted universally is completely in opposition to the evolutionary paradigm. Yet to refer to it as dysfunction is so politically incorrect, you are labeled a bigot for questioning it.
And on and on it goes, the ones that don't think there is a genetic or natural basis shouldn't even talk, because they won't even take the time to look at the research.
This a characteristic behavior that would wipe out the human race if it were universally adopted
Originally posted by AlexG141989
Murder is wrong, and so says the bible but I can give you reasons why murder is wrong without quoting the bible. Can you do the same for homosexuality???
Originally posted by AlexG141989
Maybe homosexuality is a defect, maybe it isn't. Its as useless, but as harmless as the male nipple, but you don't see humans trying rid males of their nipples lol
Originally posted by AlexG141989
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I agree David, on a purely amoral and pragmatic basis any behavior that would result in the extinction of the species if adopted universally is completely in opposition to the evolutionary paradigm. Yet to refer to it as dysfunction is so politically incorrect, you are labeled a bigot for questioning it.
But not every human is homosexual so it can cause no harm to the human race as a whole. In fact homosexuals are only a small percentage of the human race.
Fox News
The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.
A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average.
Even if this sexually antagonistic genetic system is at work, it can only account for a portion of the overall causes of homosexuality in men, Camperio-Ciani said. Other factors, both genetic and social, likely also play a part.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Ok this is dangerous ground. But I absolutely can and back it with science. First - they are accepted in the USA but not endorsed. The sodomy laws etc have been repealed. But we do not endorse it by giving tax benefits etc. because it does damage to society. How? Mainly through the erosion of the nuclear family unit. I am not singling out homosexuals. Divorce causes this as well. The net results of traditional family erosion in the United States is quite obvious with dramatic increases in teen violence school shootings etc.
This is also supported by science. A secular Harvard Univ. sociologist Dr Carle Zmmerman wrote a book called Family and Civilization. He documented the fall of great nations like Greece and Rome and he found in such cases the collapse was always preceded by a break down of the family unit. He did not saying homosexuality caused it but he did list it as one of the causes and also that it's widespread acceptance and endorsement is an indicator of the impending destruction of the family unit. One reason being males are naturally pursuers and some what predatory. Traditional marriage and children , family life etc. helps stop an abundance of sexually predatory single men. So those are non religious ways it does harm to society backed by sound non religious sociological research.
I think it is a self evident fact that - on average- children are better off in healthy families with a male and female parent who are together. Of course their are always exceptions but they are not relevant to the discussion.
It's not harmless. The nipple analogy is beyond silly. The fact that evolutionists are struggling to explain why it survived as a trait proves it is not harmless. It was harmless as a nipple there would be no controversy.
Oh please... Do you really think it was necessary to tell me "not every human is homosexual "? I was addressing the notion that it is somehow not a defect in a biological sense. It certainly is. This trait would "result in the extinction of the species if adopted universally"is a true statement. In that light, sentimentality aside, it is harmful to the survival of humanity. So is alcoholism, being a sociopath or any other genetic or biological disorder.
look at the abstract for the paper schrodingers dog cited above...
Language like "this apparently detrimental trait" and "sexually antagonistic human trait." It is clearly viewed by cold hard science as a negative.
I'm in any way not suggesting we do anything to eradicate it but I think it is scientifically unsound to pretend it is not a dysfunction of the biological order. Again if was not an abnormality my original question would have been pointless. Natural selection should weed it out. Basic anatomy is all the evidence you need to support that.
[edit on 10/19/2008 by Bigwhammy]
Ok this is dangerous ground. But I absolutely can and back it with science. First - they are accepted in the USA but not endorsed. The sodomy laws etc have been repealed. But we do not endorse it by giving tax benefits etc. because it does damage to society. How? Mainly through the erosion of the nuclear family unit. I am not singling out homosexuals. Divorce causes this as well. The net results of traditional family erosion in the United States is quite obvious with dramatic increases in teen violence school shootings etc.
This is also supported by science. A secular Harvard Univ. sociologist Dr Carle Zmmerman wrote a book called Family and Civilization. He documented the fall of great nations like Greece and Rome and he found in such cases the collapse was always preceded by a break down of the family unit. He did not saying homosexuality caused it but he did list it as one of the causes and also that it's widespread acceptance and endorsement is an indicator of the impending destruction of the family unit. One reason being males are naturally pursuers and some what predatory. Traditional marriage and children , family life etc. helps stop an abundance of sexually predatory single men. So those are non religious ways it does harm to society backed by sound non religious sociological research.
It's not harmless. The nipple analogy is beyond silly. The fact that evolutionists are struggling to explain why it survived as a trait proves it is not harmless. It was harmless as a nipple there would be no controversy.
Originally posted by ghaleon12
The family unit has been corrupted all by itself without the aid of gays. Having women working has eroded the traditional "nuclear family unit" more than anything else, but we have no intention of going back to that now do we. Bill and Tom married and living happily in Cali is not the reason Sue and Jeff divorced in Texas. To think that gay marriage has some subtle, invisible energy flow that affects straight marriage is absurd. Anyone that blames their family/ marital problems on a couple of gays living down the street is a moron. So somehow gays are responsible for bad parents? Give me a break. Bob and Linda didn't ignore their teen, causing him to shoot up a school, because of gays.
It doesn't help that the book was written in 1947, some updated views on sexuality would probably do him and the book good. Homosexuality was still considered a mental illness at the time... I still don't see how males having sex in private areas has some massive affect on society. Maybe we could try an experiment, all gays have sex just before the stock market opens and we'll see if it plummets, hey there could be good money in it if it works. You know one thing that helped the Roman Empire succeed? Slavery. But I don't see that lesson being incorporated into today's societies.
Well I wouldn't call them "healthy families" just by having a male and female as parents. What is it, like 85% of people live in dysfunctional homes? Who knows what that means I guess but there are many children that love their gay parents. And who cares if there are some that don't like their gay parents, would it be hard to find a couple of teens that say they don't like their straight parents? Give me 30 seconds, lol.
It is harmless. Since when is something harmful when a scientist has a hard time explaining something? Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do, think of questions and find answers? It's controversial in our society because of religion. In many other societies they have had no problem and even welcomed gays. Since when is a pleasurable activity that has no impact on others subject to controversy? No one harps on you for your food preferences or your taste in cars, this is a similar innocent desire. Sex and sexuality is being put on such a high pedestal its ridiculous. All a human being is is a desire to receive pleasure, so what does it matter what the pleasure is from if it has no immediate impact on others?
Your statement that if everyone was a homosexual it would result in the extinction of humanity is false.
If we were talking about frogs or something, then yes, it would destroy the species.
But Human beings have these things called "Brains", well some of them do to be fair. Do you think we'd sit there and let ourselves go extinct?
As I have already said, gays and lesbians want kids. So no, it is not harmful to the world or society. Don't we have millions of starving children in Africa and around the world that aren't being taken care of? I don't think more babies is going to solve the problem, we need more brains.
Cold hard science doesn't view gays in a negitive or positive way, that's the beginning of science, being unbiased. What is this about "dysfunction of the biological order"? We are humans, and we should be concerned about eachother. You need to be more specific about "dysfunction", who is it a dysfunction for? Oh right, no one. Love thy neighbor as thyself, it's good advice.
Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by AlexG141989
Its only a defect in your mind. To homosexuals, if they don't face the worst in others but are respected as a natural variation or alternate configuration, their lives are just as meaningful, productive, spiritual, filled with as much love as anyones. Its not a disease and doesn't require a fix. In fact, I appreciate the differences in people and think they're built into the system so we don't act in a hive mentality but have to respect others.
[edit on 19-10-2008 by mystiq]