Homosexuality May Start in the Womb

This might be old but I found this is interesting.

link


"From a strictly Darwinian viewpoint, homosexuality shouldn't still be around. It isn't the best way to pass along one's genes, and to complicate the picture further, no "gay genes" have even been identified. According to a newly released hypothesis, the explanation may not lie in DNA itself. Instead, as an embryo develops, sex-related genes are turned on and off in response to fluctuating levels of hormones in the womb, produced by both mother and child. This tug of war benefits the unborn child, keeping male or female development on a steady course even amid spikes in hormones. But if these so-called epigenetic changes persist once the child is born and has children of its own, some of those offspring may be homosexual, the study proposes."

^I like this hypothesis.
I thought gay should be inborn mostly but not depends on DNA directly.This hypothesis is applicable for my thought.The using of birth control pills ,environmental hormone and plant hormones using in farming should increase a large number of gay population.
Elites would like this.Population control.

a reply to: candlestick

It would make since to me that there must be a foreign chemical introduced that had an effect on the fetus. Hormones or synthetics seem like a place to start looking.

...seeing as how I am a brilliant geneticist and chemist, or not

I don't know about you, but of homosexuality being an influenced change just doesn't sit right. Candle, i know you are on the right track with hormonal changes during pregnancy, but to go and say that there are outside influences smacks of a bit of ignorance

Humans are not the only animals that show homosexual members...so why not compare how they develop like humans do in that department?

originally posted by: TheToastmanCometh
I don't know about you, but of homosexuality being an influenced change just doesn't sit right. Candle, i know you are on the right track with hormonal changes during pregnancy, but to go and say that there are outside influences smacks of a bit of ignorance

Humans are not the only animals that show homosexual members...so why not compare how they develop like humans do in that department?

I know environmental hormones can pass through placental barrier...

I'm just going to go ahead and come out on ATS as a lesbian. I never got into the politics of it, because I was just living my life and trying to be a part of LIFE. I've tried to understand why. I've tried to change. I am finally happy being me.

This is not a political statement. I do not subscribe to any of the propaganda.

Maybe my mom took a vaccine when I was in Utero.

Who knows.

Maybe nature is compensating.

It's definitely gotten weird with the flood of demands from gays and transgendered. I think it's food, vaccines, or residual effects of the parents. Less human population = less problems for the establishment.

Being one that was "born this way" and trying to just blend and live, the headlines lately are deafening.

And, I don't play softball. But I can write the # out of songs.

a reply to: candlestick

I've always thought it was humanities form of population control.


I we start to overpopulated an area. We inherently have some people born with their homosexual switch flipped. Now technology has beaten out this evolutionary switch. But when we were in small tribal bands. A few percent of the tribe being born gay could have effected the total population. Maybe that's why the population of gays in cities " seems" to be higher..... The more we group togather. The more gay people we will have.

a reply to: candlestick
old news .

people just dont like to read

or believe

belief is a big problem

start where i did 20 years or so ago

brain sex

William Rice isn't saying it's pollution, chemical fertilisers from farming or chemicals from technology. The only chemical he's looking at is testosterone and how its effects in the womb *might* be a factor in a baby (human or animal) becoming homosexual. He wonders if the spikes of testosterone in the placenta leads to adults who are more likely to have homosexual children.

The article goes on to point out that:

Furthermore, Rice notes, "homosexuality isn't just a human thing." Among California gulls, which he watches from his office window, about 14% of pairs are female-female. In Australian black swans, some 6% of pairs are male-male, and 8% of male sheep are attracted exclusively to male partners

originally posted by: Kandinsky
The article goes on to point out that:

Furthermore, Rice notes, "homosexuality isn't just a human thing." Among California gulls, which he watches from his office window, about 14% of pairs are female-female. In Australian black swans, some 6% of pairs are male-male, and 8% of male sheep are attracted exclusively to male partners

Already read ,so what ?Political correct?
I have no moral problem for gay.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: candlestick
old news .

people just dont like to read

or believe

belief is a big problem

start where i did 20 years or so ago

brain sex

What is the reason for "people just dont like to believe"?

Well this gene must be new because it seemingly is in more newborns now then 25 years ago or even when I was in school 10 years ago because there were no gays or talk about it back when I was in there.

a reply to: candlestick

Uhhhhh gay people have been around for far longer than there has been birth control. Humans are bisexual by nature, and have been engaging in homosexual, heterosexual, and all other kinds of sexual, activities since their inception some 200,000 years ago. Homosexuality has only really been frowned upon in the last few hundred years; before then if two dudes wanted to bang eachother, nobody batted an eye. In fact, in ancient Greece it was the norm for older, married men to have sex with, and somewhat "date," younger men.

Basically our culture is ass backwards, thanks to religion, and can't come to terms with its own sexuality.

Homosexuality is not a means of population control because homosexuals can still father and birth children; a gay man's penis is still a penis, as a gay woman's vagina is still a vagina. Do gay couples not want to have children? Do they not resort to adopting or arranging a surrogate, if men, and finding a sperm donor or arranging for sex with a male, if women?

Think it over.

a reply to: cass1dy09

That's likely because civil rights for homosexuals have gained a lot of ground in the last decade. Even in the 90's homosexuality was heavily frowned upon.

When society is willing to ostracize you for being different, you are much more likely to hide the fact that you are different. The reason you knew less gays 25 years ago is likely because they were afraid of coming out, not because they didn't exist.

originally posted by: cass1dy09
Well this gene must be new because it seemingly is in more newborns now then 25 years ago or even when I was in school 10 years ago because there were no gays or talk about it back when I was in there.

I believe epigenetics this time ...no new gay gene ,but environmental changes.

I don't think there is a higher incidence of gay people now than in the past. I think more gay people are coming forward and living open lives because slowly but surely it's becoming accepted. I also don't think it's about population control at all. Either scary TPTB agenda or Darwinian, gays have been gay for A LONG TIME.

This is something I have been pondering for a couple of days due to a question my friend asked. I am reading Valerio Massimo Manfredi's Alexander Trilogy, and on telling my friend, she asked whether I thought Alexander was gay. My answer was I don't know, he seems to have swinged both ways according to most sources, which is what, for me, prolonged the thought. In most martial cultures, going back to who knows when, pederasty and homosexuality is encouraged, but there is also an expectation to get married and sire an heir. Additionally, the most successful warriors, historically, could have multiple wives, as well as multiple mistresses. Since one's career prospects could be dependent on finding the right male lover, who could provide the best networking opportunities, combined with having the necessary aggression and intelligence to succeed on the battlefield, it would be an advantage to be homosexual but able to tolerate sexual relations with women. Therefore for a significant part of our history, the most successful male members of society were either homosexual or at least bisexual. This to me indicates a strong case towards there being some genetic basis for sexual orientation. Or at the very least, an epigenetic one. Those males who are able to form close, intimate bonds with other males, definately would have gained an advantage in the sexual selection stakes, due to their relative success.

Nope homosexuality starts after a few drinks the victim cant handle

originally posted by: aightism2
Nope homosexuality starts after a few drinks the victim cant handle

You forgot to put a winky face in to imply you were making a lighthearted joke? At least I 'hope' you forgot?? :-|

M'ehh, born this way or nurtured into existence. What does it really matter anyways?

Either way we're here we're queer and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I can't wait for the day homosexuality becomes as newsworthy as a cat stuck in a tree.

No, wait a cat stuck in a tree IS interesting lol

Oh and raedar, welcome to the fray my dear

I'm repeating what I heard while getting my psychology degree ...

Children born to mothers who were in high stress during pregnancy ... like the London Blitz ... have a higher percentage of homosexual children born to them then the general public.

It's a chemical thing during pregnancy.