Who's to say that a baby can't have homosexual tendencies? Have you ever seen a queer-baby drink his bottle?
Printable View
Who's to say that a baby can't have homosexual tendencies? Have you ever seen a queer-baby drink his bottle?
A baby can't be gay because a baby can't be straight...Quote:
Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs
@ Stoned as Fuck
of coarse babies are not born sexualy active, just like no one is born able to speak. or walk. thats no excuse saying they will not be gay in the future.
Ok...you're right about that. Like I said, that doesn't mean you're "born" gay.
my god is not hateful, and only a hateful god would have a problem with such a thing. There is a differance between lust and love. Lust is supposedly a sin for hetrosexuals as well as homosexuals. LOVE cannot be wrong, no matter who it is you love. I think God created homosexuals for the same reason he created blacks, whites, browns, yellows and reds. We are all supposed to have differences so we can learn from eachother. I personally believe we are all here to learn. That is why we are here, we can't learn while in "heaven" because it is perfect. So we come here, like school.
Think about it. It is mostly in times of hardship that we grow. Yes, we also grow in good times, but that is only because we can appreciate them in the contrast of bad times.
Just my opinion. I accept all beliefs, I try to change nobody. We are all on our own paths, doing and believing excatly what we are supposed to be doing or believing.
Eva
I would like something to back that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsonmars
You are saying is that we are born with no preferences. That a baby can't tell the difference between it's Mother and Father. That we are emotionless robots when we enter existence.
I'm looking at changing the legal age to 16 months.
I kind of went off on a tangent, sorry. I was amusing myself. It has been scientifically proven that homosexuals have more spots on their (either) hypothalmus or hippocampus.
Whereas, men are born with less and women are born with more. It's been proven that people with homosexual tendencies are somewhere in between. I can't remember the study because it was done in the 90's and this is old news.
It's complete bullshit that you can pick and choose what sexuality you want to be.
Could you make a conscious decision to only be attracted to men? Do you really think you could control that? How about if you make a conscious decision to only be attracted to ugly people?
Just because you've decided you -ought- to act in a certain way, doesn't mean you can force yourself to really -feel- that way.
And what's this crap about comparing homosexuality to people who're addicted to eating? If you're addicted to anything then you can curb your addiction. You can work to become not-addicted. You can't work at becoming gay or straight, it's built into you. If you want to compare sexuality to food, then compare it to a need for food. You're engineered to be attracted to one sex or the other, or both, in the same way you're engineered to need food to survive. It's coded into you, there's nothing you can do that will change it.
Sure, you can pretend, but that's all it can ever be - a pretence. You can get married, and have children, and go through the motions every night, but you'll never feel the same as a straight man would performing those actions. In the same way, you can convince yourself that you don't need to eat, but your body knows differently.
Finally, why the fuck did a baby's lack of sexuality come into conversation? Of course babies don't have a sex drive - they're -babies- for crying out loud. That doesn't mean that they won't grow up to have a sex drive, and it doesn't mean that once that sex drive develops it won't be targeted at a particular sex. So yes, you can be born gay because you're born with it hard coded into who you are. The fact that you're not attracted to men from the instant your mother gives birth to you doesn't change a damn thing.
It is total crap when people say that being gay is a choice. For those who believe this, I ask you a question. What if you woke up tomarrow and the "majority" of the world was gay, and you were still hetro? How would you feel if everyone was telling you to just quite trying to get attention, or whatever. And say that you played along, and acted gay just to fit in. How would you feel about that? If the thought of being with the same sex makes you sick, then a rational person would agree that this goes the same for those who are gay.
And for those talking about the bible, there are about 30 different version, all of which have been translated about by 30 different people into 30 different languages. The bible is a book, not a manual. A book that is not complete, this is proven by the ommision of the book of enoch. Who decided the book of enoch shouldn't be in the bible? The authors of the bible, who were humans, not god. Humans are flawed, period.
I am not saying the bible doesn't have some truth to it, but it should be kept in perspective. Especially when it comes to things like being gay as a sin. This thought has ruined peoples lives, caused suicides. People who are born into hugely religious communities truly believe they are the devils spawn or something, over something that they have no contol over. Very sad :(
Eva
I think that, just as Buddha said, even if himself says somthing your own reason does not beleive, even if the Bible says it, even if everybody says so, do not beleive what you think is nonsense. I beleive in a god, but i think if everybody would have more judgment they could beleive in something intelligent, instead beleiving all what they read or whatever.
No fuckin christians have any arguments to be against homsexual. It is just so stupid. People need to beleive in themselves, not in what they have been told to think.
Whoa, let's back up for one second. There's a huge difference between human sexuality, and general knowledge. Boys and girls are the same until they are about hmm...I'd say 4-6, becauase that's when they start to realise there is a difference. That DOESN'T have to mean that they would be born emotionless robots! Our human sexuality doesn't kick in as an instinct until puberty! This is common sense people.Quote:
Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs
But anyway, think about people who "claim" to fall in love with animals. Do you think they're born this way? If not, than what would convince someone they had nothing but animals to be attracted to? Those people are very real btw
Could you make the concious decision NOT to eat cake? I'll bet you could, but someone who's crumbled under the temptation time and time again might not be able to say no. THe reason sex and food are so similar in context is because both are instincts we have, involving an appetite.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychopixi
[/QUOTE]
If you're addicted to anything then you can curb your addiction. You can work to become not-addicted..[/QUOTE]
right :)
.[/QUOTE]
You can't work at becoming gay or straight, it's built into you. If you want to compare sexuality to food, then compare it to a need for food. You're engineered to be attracted to one sex or the other, or both, in the same way you're engineered to need food to survive. It's coded into you, there's nothing you can do that will change it..[/QUOTE]
Ok, we're engineered to procreate with the opposite sex, if you want to talk "design". Nothing else.
Attraction is purly a spiritual/intellectual situation. There's no difference between a gay man's body and a straight man's body.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, you can pretend, but that's all it can ever be - a pretence. You can get married, and have children, and go through the motions every night, but you'll never feel the same as a straight man would performing those actions. In the same way, you can convince yourself that you don't need to eat, but your body knows differently..[/QUOTE]
That's what I'm talking about. You're body knows you need to eat as well as it knows you're built for sex. The problem lies with OUR use of eating/sex. We eat more and more until what USED to be a lot to us is now a regular meal. The same goes with sex. There is no formidible argument for homosexuality. Not one...that doesn't mean it's not widely defended by people who won't see it for what it is. That's not to say that gay people are any worse than you or I. It's important you know I mean THAT as well.
[/QUOTE]
Finally, why the fuck did a baby's lack of sexuality come into conversation? Of course babies don't have a sex drive - they're -babies- for crying out loud. That doesn't mean that they won't grow up to have a sex drive, and it doesn't mean that once that sex drive develops it won't be targeted at a particular sex. So yes, you can be born gay because you're born with it hard coded into who you are. The fact that you're not attracted to men from the instant your mother gives birth to you doesn't change a damn thing.[/QUOTE]
Babies arn't born with sex drives - dismisses that anyone's "born" gay.
Now you're arguing that it could be written in us like some fatefull coding about what we're supposed to like...but that would serve no logical explanation (nor do you have any proof) as to WHY nature would've given us this quality. It's NOT abundant in the animal world, despite over populations of animals, so it's no method of pop-controll either.
What I'm doing is asking questions as to WHAT homosexuality is. So far I've found nothing other than answers telling me it's what sex becomes when left in the hands of humanity for too long.
Think about this; if sex is a divine creation with a perfect purpose, than it will niether be exploited, nor idolized (much like it is now)...I believe humanity has yet to see it's true sexuality
That's all bullshit, I had a girlfriend the year before I started Kindergarten. She was a schooler. Smart girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsonmars
They're born different.
I'm sorry, I was eating ice cream.
I was only kidding about gay babies drinking bottles.
I understand that coming into the world is a tough thing, and sex is the last thing on our mind. No matter what, their hypothalmus has a certain number of spots on it, women have more and men have very little. Well, in the 90's, they proved that homosexuals, and even bisexuals, have more spots than straight men.
I did a little research on that, and I think you should provide a link to back up your claim. What I read seemed a lot different. They said that gay men and women react differently than straight men to certain smells. Unfortunatly they have to use some evolutionairy grounds for something that could be as simple as the testosterone levels in gay men, compared to straight men.Quote:
Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs
I think it's legit because I learned that in psychology, that women have a hypothalamus 2x bigger than mens, and homosexual men have one about 90% the size of a womans, sometimes equal.
"Today, due to scientific advances, we have a better understanding of homosexuality. Because of new insight into the genes that determine sexual orientation some believe that homosexuality is a genetic trait. A National Cancer Institute researcher reported that many homosexual men appear to inherit a gene from their mothers that influences their sexual orientation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsonmars
"Research also shows that the genes are present within families and that relatives of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexual. Being gay is not simply a choice or purely a decision.
"There is a part of the gay community that fears that the discovery of a gay gene will be misconstrued as something that should be cured."
http://webpages.marshall.edu/%7Ewood...osexuality.htm
In the search for biological correlations with homosexuality, the hypothalamus, a small lobe that hangs down at the base of the brain has been found to play a significant role. There are two different areas of the hypothalamus that have been found in rats to correspond with male typical and female typical sexual behavior. For example, the medial preoptic area (more towards the front of the hypothalamus) seems to underlie many male sexual behaviors and sexual behaviors typical to females have been linked with the ventromedial nucleus (more towards the back of the hypothalamus). (A. Soulairac and M.L. Soulairac, 1956) Critics of these studies argue that the hypothalamus plays a very insignificant role in sexuality. When the medial preoptic area is decommissioned in male rats, they are still sexual beings. The express interest in female rats, but appear to be unable to express their interest. It doesn't seem to occur to these rats to mount the female. The case is somewhat similar with primates. Male rhesus monkeys will masturbate, showing an interest in pleasurable stimulation. However, having lost the medial preoptic area, they completely lose interest in femalesā??seemingly forgetting that females can provide a means to the same end. (Slimp, Hart and Goy, 1978)
The hypothalamuses of mammals (rats, gerbils, macaque monkeys and others) have been found to be sexually dimorphic, more specifically in the medial preoptic area. The difference in size has been directly correlated with hormone levels in utero and directly following birth. If testosterone is given to a female rat just prior to and following birth, the size of the medial preoptic area of her hypothalamus will fall within the range of that found in non-treated male rats. (R.A. Gorski, J. H. Gordon, J. E. Shryne, and A. M. Southam, 1978) When female adult rats were given testosterone, there was no change in the size of this area of their brains.
This region is also different in humans, but the research involving hormone levels has not been done on humans (for obvious reasons). However, research, upon death, has delved into the sexually dimorphic regions of the brain. In 1980, Roger Gorski found that the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH), numbers 2 and 3 (there are four of these nuclei, were sexually dimorphic. The size differential between males and females was most apparent in INAH 3. In males, this nucleus can be from two to three times larger than it is in females. This difference spans all age groups, meaning that the differentiation must occur at some time before birth.
http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/Sr...hristiana.html
(1) From Dr. Dean Hamer, the "gay gene" researcher, and himself a gay man:
"Genes are hardware...the data of life's experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what's installed at the factory and what's added by the user."
--P. Copeland and D. Hamer (1994) The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and Schuster.
(2) From psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.:
"Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development."
--J. Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Q. When you refer to the ā??gay gene theory,ā? what do you mean?
A. We refer to two ideas: one, that one gene has been found or will be found that controls the expression of homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) attractions and two, that a gene or genes has been or will be found that directly determines the direction of oneā??s sexual affections.
These temperamental traits will predispose children to prefer activities that are either gender conforming or gender non-conforming. Those children who prefer gender non-conforming activities develop feelings of difference from same sex peers and come to view those of the same sex as being other than them, akin to being the opposite sex.
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=129
ā?¢ The researchers found 3 locations in the genome where self-identified gay and bisexual brothers share DNA sequences between 8-12.5% greater than expected by chance.
ā?¢ In one location, 7q36, the gene sharing was great enough to be considered suggestive that the DNA sequence might be close to a gene that controls or influences sexual orientation.
Okay, how about this analogy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsonmars
Cake and sex are both things you can have an appetite for. But it's only an appetite for the food, or the sex. Your preference may be only for cake, or a specific gender though. Generally, you can't consciously decide to enjoy the taste of something. Your body decides that for you. Same for sexual preference.
We're designed that when a male and female have sex, there is a chance of creating a baby. But what about oral sex? Is oral sex between a man and woman wrong, because there is no chance of a baby being made? What about anal sex between a man and a woman?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsonmars
And, yes there is a physical difference - not on the outside, but on the inside, in the genetics - beachguy in thongs has given you evidence for that.
No, it doesn't. They are born one way or another, because it's part of their genetics. When they develop a sex drive it will be aimed at one sex or another, or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsonmars
Think of it like height. We obviously aren't born at the height we will eventually grow to be, but we will eventually reach that height.
Sex left in the hands of humanity? What do you mean by that? They've recently discovered evidence of the first gay kiss - as an Egyptian wall mural. It's not something that's happened recently because we've become bored with hetero sex!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsonmars
But it isn't a divine creation. It's just a simple fact of life. It's the way we procreate. There is no perfect purpose, there is no right way to get your happies! It's an animal instinct, not something we do because God thinks we should. I'm not Christian, and I enjoy a healthy sex life, nothing to do with a higher power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsonmars
Cake and sex are both things you can have an appetite for. But it's only an appetite for the food, or the sex. Your preference may be only for cake, or a specific gender though. Generally, you can't consciously decide to enjoy the taste of something. Your body decides that for you. Same for sexual preference.
We have healthy food, and unhealthy food. In general, someone who is addicted to food is addicted to unhealthy food...I haven't heard of a case where someone was addicted to fruits and vegtables.
Sex is along the same lines. It's something that the human race needs, in order to continue, and at the same time it's pleasurable. It's only human nature to exploit it into something also unhealthy.
We're designed that when a male and female have sex, there is a chance of creating a baby. But what about oral sex? Is oral sex between a man and woman wrong, because there is no chance of a baby being made? What about anal sex between a man and a woman?
The bible talks about sex in a physical, AND spiritual way. Sex between a husband and wife is pleasurable and brings them closer together on a spiritual level. Any sexual activity, if it's between two married people is not only "allowed" (provided it's a positive use) by God, it's also "blessed". The bible clearly says that men and women were built for one another in not only physical ways, but emotional, and spiritual ones as well. Two men would never share the same "spiritual" closeness that a husband and wife could have during sex.
And, yes there is a physical difference - not on the outside, but on the inside, in the genetics - beachguy in thongs has given you evidence for that.
He has given me evidence supporting a theory. The evidence is there alright, but keep in mind we hardly know anything about the brain, let alone how the mind might manipulate it.
No, it doesn't. They are born one way or another, because it's part of their genetics. When they develop a sex drive it will be aimed at one sex or another, or both.
That's an assumption based on whether or not the above is correct. You're saying that when a baby is born, it's "programmed" to either be gay, straight, or bisexual when it hits puperty (roughly the age when girls and boys become attracted to another)...the thing is that there's an 8-12 year window of opportunity for that childs mind to develope either one way or the other, and we hardly have any idea of how experiences and psychological trauma/manipulation might affect this child...
Think of it like height. We obviously aren't born at the height we will eventually grow to be, but we will eventually reach that height.
But there's no limit to the heights we could grow (to an extent). There are so many things like nutrition, excersise, and posture that change these things. With sexual orientation, it would be like saying that we're either born to be 5ft6, 6ft5, or both ;)
Sex left in the hands of humanity? What do you mean by that? They've recently discovered evidence of the first gay kiss - as an Egyptian wall mural. It's not something that's happened recently because we've become bored with hetero sex!
The bible has a story about a place called Sodom, where the people there had become so sexually corrupted that the whole town turned to homosexuality. Homosexuality is a very old thing indeed. It's not something that's ever had to evolve, because it's always been there. It takes time to grow, but it's ever present. I'm not arguing that homosexuality is a new thing, but I AM arguing that it's only NOW started to become a globally accepted thing. It's because as humanity is starting to gather itself together (which on the outset would be a good thing) it also uses this "unity" to corrupt itself on a much larger scale. Instead of multiple divided groups making multiple small mistakes, we're starting to have one large group making one large mistake.
But it isn't a divine creation. It's just a simple fact of life. It's the way we procreate. There is no perfect purpose, there is no right way to get your happies! It's an animal instinct, not something we do because God thinks we should. I'm not Christian, and I enjoy a healthy sex life, nothing to do with a higher power.
Sex is a simple fact of life because it is a divine creation. It is something that is only pleasurable because God has given us that pleasure to share with our spouse. Unlike animals, we actually fall inlove with our mates, therefor sex could hardly be JUST a physical thing. Sex is physically pleasurable, but it's also spiritually/mentally pleasureable, and it's ONLY fullfilling its full use when it's in a married situation.
To throw more scientific research in: a few years ago the University of MN psychology dept. did a "twins reared-apart" study. The results? In cases where one IDENTICAL twin is gay (and, 'reared-apart, ie. never had any contact with straight identical twin, or their parents - often they were reared on opposite corners of the globe), approximately 48% of the time SO IS THE OTHER TWIN. This is from a sample of, if I remember right, roughly 50 identical twin sets in which at least one twin is gay (again, reared-apart).
Basically, this study proved that the odds are definitely in favor of there being at least SOME genetic link, if not cause for homosexuality (I am in no way trying to make homosexuality sound like a disease or something) - in much the same way that there is a genetic link for intelligence, personality, etc. (all of which were also studied and proved in the same U of MN study, by the way).
so who here is pro christian-anti-gay? i'd like to know if there's really a reason for this thread, and weather there's a reason for me to post.
Maybe God never condemned homosexuality. Maybe the people who wrote the bible were anti homosexual and wrote anti gay stuff cause they knew theyre work would be highly read and respected.
I go to catholic school and my theology teacher always says that God did not write the bible. The bible was inspired by God. God did not dictate to someone and say write this down.
So its probably the authors putting their own beliefs in it and also back then there were far less people and maybe more people meant more people to work the farms and therefore more food.
No one knows the thoughts of God. The only thing God ever dictated to man was the 10 commandments
ahhh but how do you KNOW the ten commandments are, in fact, god's dictations? how do you know they did not do like you said, and make that up, but SAY god said it?Quote:
Originally Posted by halo