- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Evil Science explains the gay thing a little more
Evil Science explains the gay thing a little moreFollow
And appalled, bhodi. Can't forget appalled.
And shocked.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Or maybe its because they dress and talk like women and **** each other in the ***?
I'm glad you can lump large numbers of people into one group. Obviously, you haven't had much experience with anyone, gay or straight. People behave differently. Some people like chocolate ice cream, others like vanilla. If I weren't drunk, I would find a link, but studies have said that only about 50% of gay men engage in **** intercourse, either giving or receiving. Also, when you refer to (presumably) men dressing and talking like women, are you talking about drag queens, transgender people, or transvestites? Because, there are big differences between each of the groups.
As for the OP, how would the study explain lesbians? And, before you just say the opposite happens, you need to have proof. There is no information given about subject pool size, methods of study, result percentages, or any information that would let me see how valid this study might be.
Correlational studies are tricky. They cannot prove anything but what the person reading the study wants to prove. Is it possible that the lifestyle the person lives has altered his receptors? Maybe the mother looked up too many pictures of naked men on the internet while the child was in the womb.
Maybe, just maybe, it doesn't matter what causes homosexuality. We are who we are. We do not need your approval, but we will take your acceptance.
It's all just one more thing for me to blame my mother for.
Totem
Totem
Quote:
Once again the results of the article state that genetics only accounts for 30-50% of it while a variety of different hormonal imabalances and interactions lead to being "teh ghey" so your argument that if it was genetic it wouldnt add up is kind of flawed.
Also it doesnt take into account human beings and the fact that unlike most animal populations we choose where we live which would explain the variance in homosexuals in the population say in New York compared to say small town Idaho.
The scientific study of the dynamics of population feedbacks is not based on humans alone but rather on animal populations. Humans have been consitently shown to follow the same dynamics as other animals. The scientific research on animal populations is very in depth and especially with rats. It has been repeated many times. They take a set amount or rats without disease and put them in a limited space and give them unlimited food and water and watch and record and test what happens over time. They have shown that certain negative feedbacks including homosexuality increases geometrically with the population density. Homosexuality serves a purpose in nature in population control and it would defeat this purpose if it was genetic, and by genetic I mean a passed down trait. Instead it increases as a percentage of the population with the population density.
Quote:
So you boil it down to a little bit nature and a little bit nuture. Nuture in that conflicting social pressure and negative feedback can tip the balance in which particular set of genitals you are going to have a preference.
Actually what I was trying to say is that some people it might be nature and other people it might be nurture, not that all are a certain percentage, that’s why I stated I think it would be foolish to assume all homosexuals became that way due to the same reason.
Quote:
Oooh you call it a defect! I am outraged and morally offended.
LOL, it's just nomenclature, not an insult or a put down. Genetic means its a passed down trait, which is different from a deviation or "defect" from the original genetic predisposition. A genetic defect is not passed on to the offspring, a genetic trait is. That is all that is meant by it, if its PC nomenclature you need I would change it to deviation but that could mean something else and could be confusing.
Edited, Wed Jul 6 11:21:01 2005 by fhrugby
19 posts
Edited, Wed Jul 6 11:58:34 2005 by Ogloc
Ogloc wrote:
Can we all just agree, There gay! Nothing you can do and who cares how it happens.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
19 posts
Edited, Wed Jul 6 11:57:28 2005 by Ogloc
You do understand that the two lines of study are not exclusive, right? Some people study one thing, some another.
Most lines of inquiry concerning cancer are well staffed, if not overstaffed, anyway.
Most lines of inquiry concerning cancer are well staffed, if not overstaffed, anyway.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Well, we shouldn't consern our time on how it happened, but it did and theres nothing anyone can do about it. We should be more considered in other areas of science.
Like spelling and grammar?
Although I've heard there have been some considerable break-throughs in the Science of Cosmetology.
If only we had a real scientist to enlighten us....
Edited, Wed Jul 6 11:56:06 2005 by NephthysWanderer
Fhrugby just a couple things.
You repeat that if it was strictly genetic it would increase geometrically with population density not arithmetically. It was clearly stated in the article that it is not entirely genetic. Genetics only account for 30-50% of the cases. The remaining cases are caused by a number of different hormonal imbalances during gestation that can be caused by a number of different factors. Therefore saying that genetics doesnt account for it because it doesnt meet the numbers we would expect is a flawed and illogical statement because it is ignoring the hormonal issue.
Secondly applying population studies done on rats and other species to humans is good and all if you are trying to figure out a base curve but once again you leave out that humans breed different (more choosy about who they do), have less kids, and have a preference of where to live as with my example of why you would find more homosexuals in a city such as San Fran compared to small town bible belt america.
To boil it down population studies done on animal populations are good and all but obviously ignore or cant account for a variety of human actions and traits and therefore you shouldnt be surprised when the numbers dont add up in the way that you expected. I know its fun to come in and spout something you read in a text book or heard in a class so you can feel like a smarty pants, ive done the university thing myself. However I fail to see how locking a number of rats in a closed environment with none leaving, no new ones coming in and all of them exposed to the same food and water is supposed to be representative of humanity be it a city or town.
You repeat that if it was strictly genetic it would increase geometrically with population density not arithmetically. It was clearly stated in the article that it is not entirely genetic. Genetics only account for 30-50% of the cases. The remaining cases are caused by a number of different hormonal imbalances during gestation that can be caused by a number of different factors. Therefore saying that genetics doesnt account for it because it doesnt meet the numbers we would expect is a flawed and illogical statement because it is ignoring the hormonal issue.
Secondly applying population studies done on rats and other species to humans is good and all if you are trying to figure out a base curve but once again you leave out that humans breed different (more choosy about who they do), have less kids, and have a preference of where to live as with my example of why you would find more homosexuals in a city such as San Fran compared to small town bible belt america.
To boil it down population studies done on animal populations are good and all but obviously ignore or cant account for a variety of human actions and traits and therefore you shouldnt be surprised when the numbers dont add up in the way that you expected. I know its fun to come in and spout something you read in a text book or heard in a class so you can feel like a smarty pants, ive done the university thing myself. However I fail to see how locking a number of rats in a closed environment with none leaving, no new ones coming in and all of them exposed to the same food and water is supposed to be representative of humanity be it a city or town.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Lecan wrote:
Quote:
Or maybe its because they dress and talk like women and **** each other in the ***?
He was joking, stupid.
10 posts
Reason I'm gay?
I like men :)
nature v nurture doesn't really matter.
All these studies can't solve the problem because there isn't one.
As to why there is suddenly so many more gays is no other reason than acceptance. Honestly it's easier to be out of the closet in a nice accepting place like San Fran rather than Bible Belt (to use example used elsewhere).
And the reason for the higher population density in cities is fairly simple.
It's easier to get a shag if there are more of you around.
I think that says it all :)
I like men :)
nature v nurture doesn't really matter.
All these studies can't solve the problem because there isn't one.
As to why there is suddenly so many more gays is no other reason than acceptance. Honestly it's easier to be out of the closet in a nice accepting place like San Fran rather than Bible Belt (to use example used elsewhere).
And the reason for the higher population density in cities is fairly simple.
It's easier to get a shag if there are more of you around.
I think that says it all :)
Some homophobic ***[/i wrote:
hole]...That gives homosexuals the [i]excuse that they are not at fault for their orientation, but nature is, and they are not to blame.
First off; excuse, fault, blame? What the fu[/i]ck? What do we have to excuse? What are we at fault for? What fu[i]cking blame? Believe it or not, homosexual tendencies are natural. Case in point, the animal kingdom. Male animals will hump other male animals to prove dominance. However, humans do it for pleasure.
After that, the ***[/i wrote:
hole]I can give you many studies shown on how sexually abused children are more predisposed to being gay. Or certain family conditions produce children with a higher probability of being gay. Like I said, some people are in a constant pursuit of discovering evidence to prove that homosexuals are gay by nature, not through their own conscious actions.
Yeah that happens. Not every gay man is gay because of genetics. Believe it or not, some men choose to be gay. There are a ton of men out there who have [i]never had any luck with women. So, imagine if you will, you're 30-something, and never even had a girlfriend, much less a woman give you a second look, yet there is this guy willing to sleep with you, and care about you. Yes, some men choose to be gay.
Still on that fu[/i wrote:
cked up train of thought, that same ***[i]hole]Most people just move on and forget about it, and say to themselves "where the hell did THAT thought come from." But other people choose to not forget about it and continue to dwell on it. THOSE people are the people that are more predisposed to becoming gay.
So what makes them predisposed to becoming gay? Do you think, that at some level, it could be....oh, I don't know...GENETIC!?
My Sistah wrote:
Reason I'm gay?
I like men :)
I like men :)
Couldn't have said it better myself.
BTW, for future notice, all forum **** must first get clearance from Sabs or myself first. kkthx~
Quote:
BTW, for future notice, all forum **** must first get clearance from Sabs or myself first. kkthx~
What about Zadiel? Or was he just kidding or doesn't count anymore?
Zadiel got mad about something and in a queenly huff he flounced out of the forum. Although I think I've seen him around once or twice.
Really weird stuff.
But really, at the end of the day what good has research like this accomplished? Paranoid parents?
But really, at the end of the day what good has research like this accomplished? Paranoid parents?
Quote:
Case in point, the animal kingdom. Male animals will hump other male animals to prove dominance.
Oh, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Some breeds of primates have their entire social structure based around sex, and not just het sex, and not just to establish dominance. There have been observations made about both males and females both in the wild and in captivity who, at first glance, appeared to be grooming each other, but upon closer inspection were actually stroking each other sexually. When this was observed in captivity, they hooked the ladies (in the particular instance I am thinking of) up to the old electrodes and basically their brain activity patterns were the same as when mating.
There's a marine bird, some sort of heron if I recall properly, that quite frequently demonstrates a tendency toward lesbianism. The females will conduct a courtship and mating dance, build a nest together, and lay (unfertilized) eggs.
I would be more specific, but it was years ago when I read about these instances, and I can't even begin to recall where for documentation purposes. But I thought I would throw that out there for the idiots of like to fall back on the "homosexuality isn't natural because it's not seen in nature" myth.
First hit on google. BOOYA!
Here's another.
And this.
The last one has a good point. Just because it happens in the animal kingdom donesn't mean 100% that it's natural. Just that it DOES happen.
Edited, Sun Jul 10 08:24:16 2005 by PsychoJester
Here's another.
And this.
The last one has a good point. Just because it happens in the animal kingdom donesn't mean 100% that it's natural. Just that it DOES happen.
Edited, Sun Jul 10 08:24:16 2005 by PsychoJester
Mistress PsychoJester wrote:
BTW, for future notice, all forum **** must first get clearance from Sabs or myself first. kkthx~
Motion seconded. =D
Ambrya wrote:
There's a marine bird, some sort of heron if I recall properly, that quite frequently demonstrates a tendency toward lesbianism. The females will conduct a courtship and mating dance, build a nest together, and lay (unfertilized) eggs
Soaring over cliffs
And gently floating down to land
She proudly lifts her voice
To sound her mating call
And soon her mate responds by singing
Caw.. caw.. caw..
Come with me, lesbian seagull
Settle down and rest with me
Fly with me, lesbian seagull
To my little nest by the sea
With me that's where you belong with me
I know I can be strong when you're with me
She skims the water
At the new time to seek
Her fish and she emerges
With one squirming in her beak
She plays among the waves
And hides between the swells
She walks the beach at twilight
Searching for some shells
Come with me, lesbian seagull
Settle down and rest with me
Oh fly with me, lesbian seagull
To my little nest by the sea
With me that's where you belong with me
I know I can be strong when you're...
You're with me
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
::sniff::
That song makes me wax so nostalgic for my own lesbyne days.
That song makes me wax so nostalgic for my own lesbyne days.
Thanks for the links. It actually didn't occur to me to Google because the two specific sources I was recalling were a documentary I had seen on PBS or the Animal channel or somesuch, and a book I had read in the early 90s, and I couldn't remember the name of either. The idea of a more general search escaped me...Apparently it was my brain's day off and no one notified me.
Recent Visitors: 269
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (269)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Evil Science explains the gay thing a little more
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC