I am not saying that most homosexuals are genetically backwards as a whole or anything of the sort. That is not true. What I am saying is that parts of the brain that influence sexual preference can develop in a way that is contrary to genetic sex. That can be biological and permanent yet not genetic or the result of nurture. There are specific critical periods in brain development that can follow the opposite sex pattern when the rest of the body doesn’t. If you want me to be really specific, I can tell you how and why that can happen and what the results are. I used the androgen insensitivity disorder examples to show conclusively why genetic sex doesn’t always equal phenotypical sex at all but there are many more subtle variations of the same idea.
And yet you still haven’t learned about the difference between Great Debates and The Pit?
Yo, your comment was not appropriate for this forum. I don’t see anything wrong with Shagnasty’s tone, and if you just have to tell someone to suck it, post in the Pit or you’ll start getting formal warnings.
Other posters are strongly encouraged not to junior-moderate.
This is interesting, but what I’m getting from it is: “if everything goes right, you get straight, and if something screws up, you get gay, or some form of transgender.”
Is that approximately what you’re saying?
I’m guessing at some point in the future we’re going to develop artificial wombs and free women from that particular burden should they choose, but that also means we’ll have complete control over hormonal critical periods and will be able to quickly and easily eradicate defects like being gay.
“Particular burden”? :smack:
It’s only a burden if you’re anti-gay. Also, whether it will be possible, at least any time soon, to actually diagnose a child as gay in the womb is questionable at best.
Lastly, something being “different” doesn’t necessarily make it a defect. Like, again, being left handed, having blue eyes, and we can go further. Different is does not=defect. There is nothing wrong in being gay.
Hope that helped.
Basically, to put it in terms where people will actually understand instead of continuously asking you the same questions annoying, some male individuals’ brains are more feminized and females’ more masculine, based on biological/hormonal factors, and having the BODY of a “normal” man doesn’t mean you have the MIND of “normal” man.
Honestly, it’s simple to understand, but yeah, I can see why people would be ignorant. Schools these days…
I do have to say, though, saying “most people don’t have same-sex tendencies” is a completely incorrect statement. As far as I know, over half of women have had a same-sex encounter. If you look at the animal closest to humans biologically, they are a primarily bisexual species. Men, obviously with societal bigotry, are not going to be as receptive, but supposedly men are more likely to be gay than women, which isn’t surprising. Lastly, the rate of people who are gay is not rising, it’s just that more people are honest about it. I mean, in the Middle East, homosexuality is EXTREMELY rampant even with their anti-gay laws, and their ways about women basically being procreation tools, so yeah. Think outside the box a bit people.
This isn’t a troll thread? You should have said it was. Putting this statement in the form of an actual question really is a bad look for you.
Not everyone on the planet is gay nor will ever be totally gay, so the question is completely nonsensical. Gay doesn’t=sterile, so humanity obviously would not end. Gay/lesbian folks’ basic instinct…is to be gay! OMG, that was so hard to figure out :o
Also, if EVERYONE on the planet had a baby, that would be a scenario MUCH worse than everyone being gay. So, limits on who procreates is actually beneficial to humanity.
So yeah, you may not be anti-gay, but you definitely made an anti-intelligence thread here. That actually is, dare I say…anti-gay in nature.
Do straight people choose their sexuality subconsciously?
Homosexual orientation is as much of a choice as heterosexual orientation is. Homosexual behavior is not the same as homosexual orientation. Heterosexual behavior is not the same as heterosexual orientation. You can be gay and not have sex with men, or have sex with women. You can be straight and be celibate or have sex with men. Sex doesn’t=sexuality.
You should get it now.
Also, I don’t like these threads that debate the livelihoods of LGBT folk. Like they’re freaks and suspicious. They are just human beings living lives, like everyone else. I don’t understand why they have this huge spotlight on them. I also don’t understand why people always go the not straight/different=deviant disorder route. That gay is bad, because gay isn’t straight. It’s just different, like a lot of things, are different. But then I remind myself that many people are threatened by differences.
Homosexuality makes perfect sense to me. Both males and females probably have the gene that makes us attracted to one sex or the other (or both). It would be quite logical for that gene to sometimes have us attracted to the same sex.
There is also epigenetics which shows that genes can change based on environment, which would explain why males who are isolated with other men for long periods might grow attracted to them. Or perhaps we are all bisexual and it’s only the roles we are given in society that make us attracted to one sex more than others.
Anyway you look at it, you can’t really say that homosexuality is unnatural since it clearly exists in nature. It even exists in other species.
By “burden,” I meant having to carry a kid inside you for 9 months, then squeeze it out. Some women find this an enjoyable experience. Others find it a pain in the ass - well, not the ass specifically. 
For some women it’s just not particularly safe to bear a child, but they still would like to make their own. Same sex couples would also benefit from artificial wombs. That’s what I meant by “burden.”
Regarding the androgen insensitivity disorder, are there any signs that indicate one might have it, or is it only discovered through a medical test, and why would people get tested? Fertility issues?
That is basically what I am saying although I don’t think it is automatically a bad thing and may have some benefits. Being left handed is also abnormal in the true sense of the word and yet there is a disproportionate amount of left handed U.S. presidents for example. That is also a developmental fluke. It is easy to disrupt biological sexual differentiation for males so that the internal biological software so to speak defaults back to the female pattern for certain aspects. That can happen for females for different reasons but it isn’t quite as clear.
The following is just my personal belief but backed up by current science. Being a gay male in particular is a an early developmental fluke that has no overall reason in the grand scheme of nature yet can still be beneficial for certain things and is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. There are countless other developmental accidents that can also happen and aren’t beneficial at all.
Or for another example I like, there’s a genetically caused syndrome where the mother’s body exposes a daughter to high testosterone levels at a particular point in pregnancy, and as a result the daughter tends to end up with the personality of q stereotypical “tomboy”, with more stereotypically male tastes in certain areas. Is that a defect? I think not, any more than being homosexual is; it’s a quirk, a variance in behavior that is well within healthy parameters. Transgenderism on the other hand is a defect, which is why they want and require medical intervention, and are consistently happier when they get it. Transgenderism IMHO is the exception to the rule that such brain variations are just quirks because it isn’t just a mismatch between the brain and the standard tastes or behavior expected of your gender; it’s a mismatch between brain and body.
As an aside, are there any known cases of identical twins with different physiological gender? I’d expect that it’s probably happened, but it’d be hard to notice, since (absent genetic testing) most folks would just assume they were fraternal twins.
This guy I knew in highschool had a fraternal twin sister. They looked like identical twins in the face except for their hair style.
That’s not to say that she looked masculine or he looked effeminate, but their facial features were very similar. We always joked that if the girl cut her hair she could impersonate her brother without anyone being the wiser.