Or a shortage of people procreating, for that matter.

 

I wasn't born gay nor chose to be gay, but rather the porn addiction blasé has lead me to start using men just because regular porns have lost their taboo. Also I'm not gay, just my taste in porn is.

 

This "problem" is in all likelihood a very small difference in the hormones present in the mothers womb. All humans are female at first, but DNA activated hormones at specific times separate the XY genetic into male. In males, the clitoris becomes the penis and hormones also cause other cells to differentiate into gonads, either ovaries or testicles. Any minor change to the timing, amount and effectiveness of the various hormones can be expressed in many combinations of gender preference, being born as the "wrong" sex, etc. etc.

Perhaps a little study of the biochemistry of humans should replace the Pseudo-science of religion and supposition in this discussion.

 

Then there's the "It's my mother's fault" theory. I kid you not. (In a manner of speaking.)

I came across this when I was writing a paper for an Academic Writing class a few years ago.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.full.pdf

(Here's a summary of that theory from my paper).

Dr. Anthony Bogaert (2006), a professor of Psychology at Brock University, Canada, theorized that male homosexuality can be traced to “fraternal birth order,” a theory which claims that it is more common for male homosexuals to be the youngest, or merely the younger, of the males having biological older brothers from the same birth mother. The theory is that a mother’s immune system remembers prior male gestations and, in an immunological response, reacts to newer male gestations as foreign, producing anti-male antibodies. The reason her immune system would not remember earlier female gestations is because she herself is female, thus any female gestations would not be reacted to as foreign.

Bogaert (2006) conducted a study using four samplings of homosexual and heterosexual men, three of which were from past studies, and one new study in which he recruited candidates himself in order to test and prove his theory. The results of his study showed more instances of younger homosexual men that had older male siblings from the same birth mother. The data did not show the same results for males raised in the same household with older nonbiological (step, half, and/or adopted) male siblings.
------------
Bogaert (2006) suggested a strong prenatal origin to the fraternal birth order effect. In his research, he demonstrated that the number of biological older brothers, regardless of whether raised together or not, increased the probability that younger male siblings would be born homosexual. This is compelling to the extent there is a direct correlation between Bogaert’s theories and the familial situation of myself, the author of this research paper. In my family, the two oldest are heterosexual males, and the three youngest include one lesbian and two homosexual males. Bogaert (2007) confirmed that this family makeup “fits in with his findings” in a reply to my email regarding my family description. (Yes, I did contact him.)

--------------------------------------------



For the paper, I just had to take different theories and pit them against each other. I upped it in case anyone needs fresh bathroom reading material. (PII removed, of course.)

View attachment Homosexuality - Nature or Nurture.pdf

 

lets look at that thought
my mom is one of 5
2 are gay 3 are not
1 married a black person
all are females
i am one of 5
all are males and none are gay
my dad was one of 14
2 gay 1 female 1 male
the rest hetero and non interracial mixing
my oldest brother has 3 kids 2 are gay 1 male 1 female/male
the other brother is attracted to transgenders only
i have 5 kids 3 girls 2 boys and so far none show signs of same sex tendencies
hhhmmmmm what can we conclude?
nature does what it fucking wants when it wants

 

That's the truth. Unless you've lived it you wouldn't know.

 

i don't think it's either a born with it or a choice.
i think it's a mix of psychological and environmental variables that happens during early childhood
most people born in heterosexual environment are more likely to grow up to be hetero
most people born in homosexual environment are more likely to grow up to be homosexuals
and some times some of these psychological and environmental factors happen and the child turns to be homosexual

for example
no kid choose to be shy and introvert, and it's not a berth thing, but if you live in an abusive or in an over protective family, the kid is more likely to be one

 

What would be an example of "a homosexual environment" that someone would be born in?

 

Umpire is not retarded. He is dogmatic.

You have tried to explain that you agree choice is not a factor in the homosexual lifestyle, but he cannot listen to it and will not listen to it.

His faith runs much deeper.

In Eastern Massachusetts (from whence he claims to hail), it is a matter of faith that sexual preferences of every type are determined at conception and immutable.

This determinism is very strong as a belief, and there is no latitude whatsoever. People in Massachusetts are not allowed to debate it. They are vilified if they call it into question.

Personally I don't understand why the objection is so strong. I think (and this is just a theory) that if they concede the possibility of environment as having a role in sexual preference, then the position "gives ground" in a sense, by also allowing the possibility that by making adjustments to environment, home life, and formative experience, the "selection" of a homosexual lifestyle might be attenuated or even avoided.

This rigidity-- this stubborn unwillingness to reason-- is implicit in the main argument that people of this sort have. They are always quick to challenge, "Heterosexuals do not 'choose' to be that way." There are several problems with this challenge. The first, of course, is that no reasonable person suggests that homosexuals have a choice about it. The second problem with the challenge is that no reasonable person is making a judgment. (Reasonable people simply wish to live and let live). The third and biggest problem is that heterosexuality is a baseline. It is the default state, in all of nature, since the one role of DNA is to perpetuate itself.

That gets to my other theory: the dogmatists will not allow this debate-- they reduce to ad hominem attacks and smears if you so much as try-- because what they are really trying to avoid is the inevitable reality of the baseline, the default state. The word that they most fear and are most insistent on avoiding is: normalcy.

 

I don't know if you are born gay, or not, but I do believe that some people feel much more comfortable with a person of the same sex. I also believe that there are people who are naturally bi-sexual, possibly even needing relations with men and women at the same time to reach a true orgasm.

 

I think one factor that may add to that belief is the inaccurate (and outdated) terminology of "sexual preference" (versus "sexual orientation) since preference would indicate a choice. Although they are commonly used interchangeably, (I've even caught myself doing it on occasion) "orientation" accurately removes the "doubt" factor. (Although some people say "preference" does come into play with bi-sexuals, I've heard the term "sexual persuasion" used in instances where an attraction is stronger toward a particular gender.)

 

I think religion is often misused by people who wish to use their faith to justify their views. Certainly, the origins of Christianity were an acceptance of persons preferences when they were used to work with, not against, someone. I think the ancient Greeks had a far better greater awareness of the value of ethics than we are currently subject to.

 

What I get a kick out of is how people use that one quote from Leviticus (one of the most bizarre books in the bible) about "if a man lie with man". "The bible says so...." The rest of Leviticus?

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Deuteronomy was a little over the top as well.

Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)


But those are easily ignored when it comes to the "it's in the bible" babble.

 

Absolutely.

I've read most of this thread, and most of the objections that you are receiving are just plain offensive. One lingering prejudice is the notion that people can be "turned gay," by something like hazing in the shower, and hence (I believe) the resistance to adoption by gay and lesbian couples.

Although I do think that environment plays a role in the formation of homosexual tendencies, I suspect we will find that the causation is much more subtle and happens quite soon (perhaps even prenatally, as you suggest above in your citation of a relevant study). Hasn't Freud posited that people are essentially formed by the age of five? He might be off by a month or a year, but he is essentially correct that we are what we are.

By the way, MM, on another recent gay/lesbian rant thread I have made a case against gay marriage, but I'll grant your side one big concession in that regard: I've been skeptical that the benefits of gay marriage would outweigh the negatives and the damage that it would cause, and for the past few years I've been able to convince myself that I'm right about the balance of pros and cons; but recent events have motivated me to think again, and now I am revising that assessment. It seems that South Boston is going to allow LGBT representation in its St. Patrick's Day Parade this year. That is definitely welcome, positive news, and it could only have been possible by the gradually increasing tolerance that has come with the advances in gay/lesbian rights, including gay marriage. So I think I stand corrected. It is having positive effects, after all.

 

Remember, the Bible was translated by many people, most of whom were not so much translating, as prosylatizing. I certainly don't see the Bible as a true reflection of how we should live our lives. I prefer to believe that there were some people who we assume actually lived and actually were quite open to letting people live their lives in ways which worked for them and which benefitted the people they interacted with.

Relying on the Bible, as translated, may be the truth, but if it is I am not interested in ending up in THAT heaven - if there is one!

 

deviousdave, your comments are usually fact based and rational. I wish there were more posters on XNXX like you. You are one of my few adversaries here who merits the debating skills of the Master of Facts.

The others are embarrassing. Their shortcomings feel like a reflection against me. When I think about how inadequate they are I blush on their behalfs.

I deserve so much better. Even their insults are vacuous and unequal to the target.

 

A lot of Muslims take the rest of the book pretty seriously.

 

Good to hear, Clarise. It's also nice to hear when someone is willing to reexamine a prior opinion. Too often nowadays, people form an opinion, lock onto it like a pitbull's jaw, and won't let go no matter what.

I did read about the South Boston parade. Mayor Marty Walsh was instrumental, as well as the head of OutVets, a gay veterans group. (I think they're the only LGBT group allowed, but it's a step.) And it was nice to hear one of the parade organizers state it as simiply as "‘You guys are veterans. End of story,’ ”

 

Wow! Look at Mr. Educated Grammarian with his behalfsssssssss.

http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/04/behalf-time.html

In modern usage, “behalf” is an invariable noun and has no plural form. The old plural “behalves” is considered obsolete and has been for some time.
It’s labeled “obsolete,” for example, in my 1956 copy of Webster’s New International Dictionary (the unabridged second edition).

If your friend and his siblings wanted to use such an expression, they should have written “on our behalf” instead of “on all of our behalves.” But in fact, no such phrase was necessary.

--------------------

Don't cry for ME, ArdentWiener!