nt250
Senior Member
- Jun 2, 2006
- 1,013
- 72
- 48
In my experience what you are saying here applies much more to lesbians than to male homosexuals.
That's definately my experience, too.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In my experience what you are saying here applies much more to lesbians than to male homosexuals.
Rreally? Why is that? Seems to me it kinda' shoots holes right through the bogus "hereditary" theory.
I was merely trying to interpret the article (here.) It was referring to women who are more fertile than others, and the effect that had on whether the offspring was homosexual.
Abstract:
The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first-born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality.
I was trying to not color the article with my own views. Sorry if that disinclined you to reading it.
From the article in question:
Do you notice a problem with the bolded?that homosexual males are more often later-born than first-born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality.
Edit/Delete Message
That's true, it hasn't been proven, but the study I linked to gives the indication that genetics plays some role, minor as it may be. More studies are needed, I think, before we can be more sure of that role.
I don't think any of us should be too hard and fast in our opinions about this unless we are medical or psychological professionals.
Anybody with working eyeballs can tell that some people are homosexual by genetic traits. k.d. lange. Lance Bass.
I've known two gay men in real life and both of them were raging queens. They couldn't have hid their homosexuality if they tried to.
I've also known many Lesbians and aside from two who were of the k.d lange mode (yes, it's obvious), they were all "life style Lesbians".
Anyone who has ever met a true homosexual cannot doubt that it's genetic. But it's also very, very rare. Much less than the 10% the gay rights lobby likes to spout. It's probably less than 1%.
But I'll leave that argument up to people with the patience to give a shit. I don't care if they're 90% of the population. Just keep it to yourself for cryin' out loud.
Do you notice a problem with the bolded?
All I contend is, that until it's been proven that genetics plays ANY role, why say it does?
I don't believe it is genetic. I believe it's a sickness, just like Polio, or cancer, and it should be treated. Even it was proven at some point to be genetic, it should still be treated as an illness. People are predisposed to have cancer by a cancer gene, and they're treated for that.
No, I don't notice a problem with the bolded part of your quote. Is there something I'm missing?
I wouldn't classify homosexuality as a sickness per se... the actions of a homosexual will determine whether or not they live to be 45 or 95, not the fact that they simply are a homosexual.
... Irregardless, ...
No, I don't notice a problem with the bolded part of your quote. Is there something I'm missing?
I wouldn't classify homosexuality as a sickness per se... the actions of a homosexual will determine whether or not they live to be 45 or 95, not the fact that they simply are a homosexual.
*Laughs* Oh my high-school English professor would kill me right now. I'd be smited right on the spot. Thanks for enlightening me about that.
I don't believe it is genetic. I believe it's a sickness, just like Polio, or cancer, and it should be treated. Even it was proven at some point to be genetic, it should still be treated as an illness. People are predisposed to have cancer by a cancer gene, and they're treated for that.
Could you please find that in the dictionary for me?
Do you notice a problem with the bolded?
Let me be more specific, "mental illness". For a man to be sexually attracted to another male is unnatural. 180 degrees out of phase if you will. And for this person to act out these attractions to actually engaging in physical sex with another man is a choice. They have made a conscious decision to carry out this behavior in spite of knowing it's wrong displaying a lack of will power, instead of seeking out help, of which there is more and more every year with continued and increasing records of success.
I believe it's saying that a higher percentage of homosexual males are the younger/youngest brother of several brothers as opposed to several sisters or as opposed to being the eldest of several siblings.