when your talking about the antibody theory, you say the male becomes less masculinised? does this mean gay men are genetically less masculine? because i thought i was just a social thing. and if so, why are some gay men masculine? and some straight men feminine?
@brndnrckn Gay men do have a tendency to be feminine in the way they act, and to being calmer, and more non-violent, perhaps due to less testosterone than hetero males. It's implausible that "acting gay" is a cultural thing that spread around the world's gays. True though, that some gay men are masculine, but I find it rare. I've never seen a feminine lesbian. I always thought it was weird, because if you're homosexual, why act like the opposite sex? So it must be a hormone thing.
@Wotanraven actually the gay community has quite high crime rates compared to the heterosexuals. i think that the non-violence and calm you might see is a result of gay people being cast out of society, so therefore they become more aware of people and their feelings because they know what its like to be hurt. violence and masculinity have nothing to do with testosterone rates. in fact testosterone can actually make someone more feminine, depending on the circumstances.
@Wotanraven actually most gay men tend to be more masculine than feminine, its just that the masculine ones tend not to come out. the feminine ones tend to come out very early on in life as they are already branded as being gay because they act feminine. i can give you the links to some gay youtubers who are extremely masculine. also, this girl at my school is a lesbian, and every says she is the prettiest girl in school, and she is probably the most feminine girl ive ever met.
@Wotanraven and gay men tend to act like the opposite sex because when they try to form relationships with men, they often develop sexual feelings. which is why they develop better friendships with girls, and in turn they tend to get involved with things girls like to do. and women share a gay mans interest in men, so they relate better. also straight men often reject their gay friends for fear of being called gay themselves. there are lots of reasons why gays tend to act like the opposite sex.
good video on the subject of evolution and homosexuality, but definition of ad hominem is not right. It's true to say that attacking one's personality (as described) is a form of ad hominem, but that's not all that ad hominem is. Ad hominem happens when one attacks anything other than the argument.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
The idea that because there is homosexual behavior in some species so that homosexual is natural for humans is a bit flawed. Many species eat their young, it doesn't mean that eating babies is natural to humans, right?
@Sammerkona 'The idea that because there is homosexual behavior in some species so that homosexual is natural for humans is a bit flawed.' It proves that homosexuality itself is not unnatural.
And there is little reason to think it would be in humans.
Or do you really claim you can decide who you get attracted to or not?
@thomaseshuis No, I meant hypothetically. Even "if" we accept that it is true, it does not get the religious fundamentalist anywhere, since there are many things that ARE unnatural, and we do them happily, like surgery, or even building concrete houses for that matter.
"since there are many things that ARE unnatural, and we do them happily, like surgery, or even building concrete houses for that matter."
I would have to ask what "natural" means, and if these things are really unnatural. One definition is "caused by nature." Since humans are caused by nature, in a sense so is everything we do.
The points made in this video are scientifically and logically debatable:
1- animals have a different respective on sex, and how its done. you can already see this when animals try to hump other "THINGS" that has some sort of resemblance to them( try shoe+ turtle, rabbit + cat)
2- The idea of suppressed masculinity of the male fetus in the mother's womb would only affect the sex drive. thus only affecting the desire to have sex from time to time. some males are more active than others (fact!)
@amzraptor Well, the biological research on homosexuality has just started. So, we can look out for a lot of probably very interesting debates, studies & results in the future. However, it is a fact that the more sons a woman has, the more likely she is to havea homosexual son. However, it does not explain lesbians. Another theory is talking about the component parts of the amnionic fluids in the womb & their changing mixture proportions over time.
"1- animals have a different respective on sex, and how its done. you can already see this when animals try to hump other "THINGS" that has some sort of resemblance to them( try shoe+ turtle, rabbit + cat)"
@amzraptor '1- animals have a different respective on sex, and how its done. you can already see this when animals try to hump other "THINGS" that has some sort of resemblance to them( try shoe+ turtle, rabbit + cat)'
You mean like dildo's, vibrators, fruits etcetera, etcetera?
'The idea of suppressed masculinity of the male fetus in the mother's womb would only affect the sex drive' And you know this how? Because the scientists who did that study disagree with you, as do most other experts.
Eye and hair color is genetic, but no one actually knows which genes (or combination of genes) cause eye/hair color. Does that make eye color NOT GENETIC?
No, actually, they only have an idea of where those genes are located. And what they do know has been discovered through a long process of elimination. The process has barely begun in regards to traits such as orientation. NOT knowing where the genes are at this time does not prove anything. It would be unscientific AND ridiculous to suggest it does.
@mspammann hi there. Not all gay men have anal sex. And many heterosexual couples have anal sex - are they mentally ill too? Is your objection to gay people based on a religion?
'the animal is confused, overly horny, or displaying dominance' Sometimes, there have also been studies in which it was clear it was none of these things. The fact is both evidence and experts disagree with you.
I used to have an Old English Sheepdog bitch that was completely gay. She kept trying to molest our poodle/terrier cross, which always looked extremely embarrassed while it was happening. lol.
Homosexuality is a mental illness. If men started sticking knives in their eyes, would that be a mental illness? Yes, because the eyes are for seeing, and these people would be making themselves blind.
Let's us the example of the rectum. The rectum or anus, or butt hole, is used to release the waste from the human body. Homosexuals are putting penises and other foreign objects in the anus (butt hole), and then saying they are in love with the man who they are having sex with. That is sick!
the lispy fag that made this video is simply regurgitating fag propaganda. ANimals fag each other because they don't know any better, that's ALSO why they eat their own feces and eat their own young. You dipshit. Humans should KNOW better. Yet fags continue to lie to further destroy society.
@LionPanzer 1. As far as I know cigarettes and bundles of sticks don't have lisps. 2. Animals don't smoke. 3. 'fags continue to lie to further destroy society.' I agree that cigarettes are bad for society, but how are homosexuals actually destroying society?
@LionPanzer and what are you regurgitating? douche propaganda? If you actually listened to what the 'lispy fag' was saying, maybe you'd realize that his points are completely valid. Mentioning homosexuality in the animal kingdom was simply to show how it's present in nature bc douches like u love 2say it's unnatural. This video illustrates the biological & population advantages to the existence of homosexuality- so get it through your thick head that it's normal, natural & not destroying society
@benthemiester id argue partly is that for don to say 'the leading theory is.. im not sure that sounds like a theory more like a hypothesis. since it appears the body of evidence isnt really strong enough. to quite be a theory
whether its tought as a leading theory/ hpothesis determines the size of the grain of salt its to be taken with.
and aids appears to spread fine in africa, among non homosexuals.
You are in the twilght zone buddy you talk about comparing animals to humans you should not degrade yourself to an animal or justify gay metality with that of an animal.The day you give birth to a furry creature than compare yourself to one. God made mankind to rule the world with set laws and rules and based on those rules is how we should live life.Animals do not rule mankind.You are very confused and remember if you go scientist they too make mistakes they once thought the earth was square.
@lukemn12 they dont?? yes we can hunt and kill any animal we like, and technology means we can survive a wider varity of conditions we still rely largely on the rest of the biosphere FOR those technological boosts. we are apex predators and are vulnerable to shifts below us the more complex we become, if someone pulls our lynchpin for maintaining our population we're dead
earthwas square? which scientist and when. have NEVER heard that one as a competing hypothesis with round and flat earths
@lukemn12 You'd first have to proof your god exists, before you can bring him in as an authority on anything. 'scientist they too make mistakes they once thought the earth was square.' Religious people thought it was flat, your point?
My point is that you dont have proof of your claims i have history and a country that originally was founded with christian principles it is ashame to see how our country is rapidly is losing its heritage ,and belief in God .
The current economic crisis is an example of the result of simply not believing in anything .What was bad is now good and what was good is now bad .Its ashame people with your theories dont realise the ignorant generation your helping.
@lukemn12 'My point is that you dont have proof of your claims' There's literally a mountain of research that proves homosexuality in animals. As there is enough evidence we're part of the animal subgroup of all living organisms. Just because we have a higher intelligence and self awareness, does not eliminate our biological bonds.
@lukemn12 'a country that originally was founded with christian principles' I'm sorry to inform you but the U.S. was founded by Pilgrims who fled religous persecution and the Founding fathers who were in majority Deists who supported separation of church and state, so the 'founded with christian principles' is a myth.
'The current economic crisis is an example of the result of' Greed and recklessness of bankers and other financial institutions, many of which are religious.
@lukemn12 '.Its ashame people with your theories dont realise the ignorant generation your helping.' Apparently you do not know the difference between scientific theory and layman's theory. Please do some research on this before acting like it's something trivial.
The studies by Frederick et al. and Bailey & Pillard have been repeated by groups which did not come up with correlations anywhere near the ~66 or ~52 percent correlation. The methods used by the two studies are also lacking: both have too small of sample sizes and fail to control for environment (i.e. being brought up in similar conditions). If genes are the primary driver in human homosexual attraction, we should find closer to 100% correlation to aspects of their attraction/behavior.
I love your videos because of how they help add ammo to my intellectual repertoire against people who don't "believe" in science or evolution. However, in your video, while I agree with the facts and findings, I find myself cringing at the wording which correlates femininity to homosexuality, which is not always the case. I think it's more accurate to say that the fetus deviates more from heteronormative practices because masculinity & femininity are a socially determined behaviors.
@NitramAnidem and is not implied that masculinity is the heteronormative practice of males. And his argument is for the trend of the mother producing males? So his wording is fine. But the problem then lies in the fact that his argument will fall apart when you apply this idea to a mother giving birth to several daughters. They shouldn't tend to become homosexual due to the mother lacking female proteins. But instead if you follow logically, the father then must have some influence for daughters
the truth is homosexuality is no different than htero.. just not as frequent. but probably more requent than most would thing.. oh and if anybody claims that its a choice.. well if you or anybody chose to be straight.. then your just in the closet.. and if your sexing up your wife everynight, then your so deep in the closet your finding christmas presents
it's funny because im familar with the theories that you're presenting throughout the video for the most part even agree with them, but you really do not do them any justice whatsoever. Did you write down what you were going to say throughout this video before you made it? or did you just randomly start talking about your understandings of the theories and hope that you would somehow pull it together midway?
To the OP Explain how having feminine traits results in homosexuality? Attraction has nothing to do with how you look or behave. It simply means that you prefer a certain sex.
Write what you know about bro. Don for once I'm going to have to just accept your opinion based on your years of pounding the research and diving in head first while cuming to your conclusions. Fabulousssss. Hey Don, based on your strengthening of the community hypothesis, why dont we just all have sex with our moms, dads, brothers and children? We''ll all be just one happy family. By the way, what Journal of science is this gay hypothesis published in? I know u wouldn't just be making it up.
@zzyzx0788 The link shows 4 studies. The last 2 of which conflict with each other & the first 2. None of them adress the evolution of homosexuality. The question of homos not being able to reproduce so therefore they should be removed from the gene pool is a Darwinian mindset, It is not mine. Furthermore Don's personel conclusion are not cited in links. If u have entire study please send it. I'm willing to critique it. In the meantime take the time to read the abstract first rather than assume.
@zzyzx0788 By the way I would strongly urge you to take a look at how these twins were recruited in study done by Frederick L. Whitam (who has made a long career out of writing about cross dressing transvestites, homosexuality and who has a personel vested interest in this subject) It was mandatory that at least one of these twins be gay in the first place in order to qualify for study. This is hardly what you would call a double blind study that only included 34 males & 4 recruited females.
@benthemiester Um yea, I know how twin studies work dude. If you're unaware, the point is to look at the concordance rates between monozygotic (identical) twins and dizygotic (fraternal) twins.Monozygotic twins (having 100% of the same genetic material) should have a high concordance in homosexuality between the twins than dizygotic twins (having ~50% the same genetic material) if there was a genetic basis to homosexuality (which is what many studies find) you dont necesarily need a double blind
cont...... and again people who were recruited because at least one was already homosexual? You left this out of one of your citations. "Neurological and various biochemical examinations failed to reveal differences between these identical twin pairs divergent for homosexuality and heterosexuality" Now please cite statement that empirically states that any of these citation provide objective, repeatable, falsify able, empirical evidence for a "genetic basis for homosexuality"
@benthemiester Alright well, let me just cite it out of an old textbook I wasnt able to sell back then, from Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, 3rd edition, 2008, Larsen, R.J. & Buss D. M. pg190: "Is homosexuality inherited? Psychologist Michael Bailey has constructed the most extensive studies of this issue. Bailey and his colleagues examined the twin brothers of a sample of homosexuals, as well as the adoptive borthers of another sample of homosexuals...."
@zzyzx0788 I didn't know that all studies on twins deal with homosexuality (which was my original point when speaking of recruitment after the fact) if that is what your implying when you say this "Um yea, I know how twin studies work dude" So you think basing this theorem or hypothesis (actually its not even referred that in study cited) can be regarded as proof based on less than 50 in thirty years,.........
@benthemiester I never said that all studies on twins deal with homosexuality (not sure why you thought I said that), I said that in terms of homosexuality thats how twin studies are done to find out if there is a genetic basis to homosexuality, which there has been griping over a few studies but most of seen show at least some significant influence from genes and biology. And as a recent grad of psychology I can tell you that is how they are teaching homosexuality in classes and textbooks.
@zzyzx0788 Like I said, it's like Don's just pulling this stuff out of his ass, this is how they are genuinely teaching things. There's no real 100% concrete cause of homosexuality (as is there with anything having to do with psychology). To say that genetics completely account for homosexuality is a bit of an overstatement, but to claim that it has no significant influence would be flat out wrong.
@zzyzx0788 "To say that genetics completely account for homosexuality is a bit of an overstatement, but to claim that it has no significant influence would be flat out wrong"
Many evolutionist like Will provine also believe in chemical predestination, and that we are slaves to our genes, and that free will is illusory and there is no real purpose in life. We live and die and sayonara. I do not share this view.
@benthemiester My main point to Don even though sarcastically put was about how he himself interprets homosexuality as an evolutionary construct." Well I don't believe he's too far off the bad, some evolutionary psychologists think homosexuality may be a form of population controls or bisexuality as a form of practice (though I'm going off memory, to quote me). But like I said, virtually every psychological trait you have is a mishmash of genes, biology, society, and conscious thought
@zzyzx0788 I can appreciate a philosophical aspect or conjecture among psychologist, but the question u raised was one of bio chemical causation which is a question of biology. I maintain that until I see empirical evidence that the cause of homosexuality is a result of biochemistry then the question will remain remain a mystery. Who knows maybe someday we will find overwhelming empirical evidence but what was cited before is far from it. When I have some time I will check out your citation.
@benthemiester " I maintain that until I see empirical evidence that the cause of homosexuality is a result of biochemistry then the question will remain remain a mystery" Well I mean, I did just send ya some but yea. Thing is though, I think you overlook the biggest argument in psychology: Nature vs. Nuture. Its forever debated, but the thing is most things pertaining to human behavior and thought are a result of some combination of both. I can't really think of any trait thats 100% genetic
@zzyzx0788 Also keep in mind that what you say about psychologist who maintain that homosexuality is some kind of population control mechanism not only conflicts with Dons statement, where he says just the opposite, but also strongly indicates a sense of planning by nature wich fits in more with intelligent design than a blind and unguided Darwinian mechanism which is not supposed to be able to plan ahead.
@benthemiester "what you say about psychologist....." I actually had a massive typo in that statment, instead of "to quote me" I meant to say "don't quote me on that", not sure how I fucked it up that epicly. I'm faaaar less sure to the evolutionary aspects of homosexuality, and as of now I think (*think*) evolutionary psychology is around the same boat. Though I dont see how population control would suggest intelligent design? An overcrowded population would have less resources...
@benthemiester its guided but it doesnt have scentral planning and is in a sense blind, my understanding is that its guided by its envronment, the environmental conditions determine which niches can occur and what traits will be best at filling those niches and competing those that are less visible to preadtors will, as the environment changes one tof two or more competing species wins out. often driving the others to extinction.
@zzyzx0788 (contin...) ...thus it would be advantageous to have members of a species that would feel no attraction to the sex that would help them reproduce.
Though, let me stress that I'm really not trying to argue this particular point as hard because I just don't know as much about evolution and have doubts about that idea myself.
@zzyzx0788 I do admit I like to bust Dons balls once in a while. I'm just a little more straight forward. Like I said before, the Darwinian paradigm is that anything that doesn't propagate the blood line will eventually be excluded by natural selection. If your interested in the new extended evo synthesis, which is one of the least talked about subjects (unfortunately because of politics). I would urge you to take a look at my video entitled "Will the real theory of Evolution Please Stand Up"
@benthemiester I may actually look that up, sounds interesting. I get you're trying to give Don a little shit, but like I said, this is not like he just read a couple articles and made this all up, this is actually genuinely what I've been taught in universities, and apparently what friends and family of mine have been taught too (in universities).
@zzyzx0788 If u have been taught that homosexuality is some kind of evolutionary construct without any empirical evidence, then maybe u should do a lot more questioning among your professors and or possibly change universities. If your speaking of a biological cause then this should remain an open question as of now.
Again, the citations he provides do not even share his conclusions. You yourself offered citation of a professor that actually contradicts his assessment. Psychology is not biology.
@benthemiester Talking as a biological psychologist, you are talking out of your ass. Look at the citations, and tell me EXACTLY what doesn't fit with his conclusions?
@zzyzx0788 Though I dont see how population control would suggest intelligent design? An overcrowded population would have less resources...
Are u sure about that? Maybe u should rethink that one. The renaissance came about because the plague wiped out half of Europe. This actually turned out to be a good thing for science, art, culture etc. Less people, more resources. Another thing about homosexuality is aids which is a international problem. Unlike cancer it is a hundred percent preventable.
@zzyzx0788 cont.... Animals also rape and kill. Lions often kill offspring that don't belong to them. Does this mean we should do the same, or do we pick and choose what is mimicked in nature? Animals do not have our intelligence or the ability for abstract thought e.g, good and evil, right and wrong or morality even on a subjective level etc. There is a great and neutral article in the NewYork Times about this subject and also cites peer review studies.
@benthemiester cont.."Heritability estimates from all studies" (heritability being the amount of a trait that can be attributed to inherited genes) "depending on various assumptions, ranged from 30 percent to a strikingly high 70 perecent. Similar heritabilities were found in a sample of lesbians and their adoptive sisters (Bailey et al., 1993)" However it does go on to say that more recent studies place hertiability estimates lower than that study. Its really beside the point though ....
@zzyzx0788 cont... I pointed out that one of the studies you cited said conclusion was an interpretation of researchers. Interpretations are not the same as empirical evidence. Fishing for evidence is often frowned upon by many in the scientific community, as in recruiting after the fact. As for the 2nd study on twins, it made absolutely no biochemical correlation. My main point to Don even though sarcastically put was about how he himself interprets homosexuality as an evolutionary construct.
@benthemiester cont...I'm frankly not sure what you're trying to argue for. Are you trying to argue homosexuality is a choice? Or just nitpicking? Because if there's one thing I can very easily tell that virtually everything in psychology has a genetic aspect to it and an environmental one (the old nurture vs. nature debate). Like I said before, homosexuality is being taught in universities not as a choice and definitely have genetic influence, Don is not talking out of his ass here.
@zzyzx0788 I already told you what I was arguing about originally concerning animal behavior and Dons attempt at making a correlation. It was you who called be derpy because you assumed that the citations in link validated Dons personel conclusions and that I had not considered them. I maintain that they don't reflect his conclusions as far as the abstracts are concerned, and since he doesn't quote from study directly in regards to his conclusions, I have to assume they dont exist.
@benthemiester " It was you who called be derpy because you assumed that the citations.." Nah I called you derpy because your original comment was pretty random and nonsensical and you just started rambling about fuckhaving sex w/ our relatives, though I do apologize for that now that I see you're not just some asshole. Like I said before though, EVERYTHING Don said in this video is what I've been taught in one class or another, as in various text books, he's not just jumping to conclusion.
Actually it’s not that bi/homosexuality is present in 500 species, but there are 500 species where its well documented. Furthermore it is observed until today in more than 1.500 species. The number is so low because of homophobic bias in researchers in the past or sometimes because of their ignorance. Today we know, that it is most probably present in all species, thus supporting the theory of universal bisexuality.
@eldadevata "Most probably present in all species" except anglerfish, jellyfish, and haplodiploid species, I'd presume? 'Cause it's hard to attach to the side of something equally as small as you are, or to be gay with no brain, or when your only purpose in life is to force your sperm into a single, gigantic queen.
@arachnophile01 who are YOU to say what purpose in life belongs to a jellyfish? i can guarantee that a jellyfish would see no purpose in your life as you see in it
@TheKingHowardStern I agree, monotonous voice..extremely difficult to follow along. I was expecting him to include research, but instead all I heard was possible speculation.
@TheKingHowardStern I found it interesting. Not as entertaining as an intense videogame, but it exercised my mind a little, so I found what he had to say to be fascinating.
It could be said; That the two genders of a species, are in actual fact two different organisms - spermatozoa and ovum. That sperm reproduce like a virus, burdening the ovum with its own reproductive function and that this reproductive symbioses was originally forged in predation!
Religion is believing that the earth is flat and that you will fall off the edge, if you ever were to go look for the truth, but you know what? That is exactly what happens...
So you are saying people's sexual behavior doesn't always match their orientation...And? So?
I think everybody is quite aware that there's quite a few guys stuck in a marriage who are secretly dreaming of coKk. What is your statement purporting to prove?
And then you conclude: "Your parents make you gay just as much as they make you tall", just to make it sound assertive & conclusive.
So sorry, but half of what you said was plain wrong, the other half were disconnected banalities.
Unfortunately, the public typically remembers ONLY the initial sensational mediatic shows, and FAILS to check up, read the peer review etc.
Then you say: "Sexual behavior and sexual orientation while often similar are not mutually exclusive."
Did you read your own words?
The first part of the sentence up to "similar" is ill-phrased but we still understand what you're trying to say. But then you add "are not mutually exclusive", which is really a bit much.
Meaning EVEN IF anatomical differences were found in gay brains, this showcases nothing for a supposed genetic basis of homosexuality.
As so often happens, researchers have INVESTMENTS in the results they "find". Levay and Swaab WANTED to find a biological cause. So they take a bad, unrepresentative sample, did some willful thinking, skewed the results, tried to push them through anyway in the mainstream, and in the end their work was exposed.
...provide some sources please? And I do hope you're not gonna bring up Swaab or perhaps even worse: Levay, who studied the brains of deceased AIDS-patients in the early nineties, and claimed basically by massively mediatized press conference that differences found were imputable to homosexuality, thus "revealing" a biological substrate for the orientation.
His quackery was of course completely untenable, but it tended to stick with the public. Is this what you're referring to and...
I'm not a religious individual, and I think it's perfectly legit to exercise our critical thinking skills and check facts and data and analyze things for ourselves. Most people can't do this. They can just regurgitate what they were
told by some authority.
Your argument is incoherent and flawed.
First of all, you say:
"the fact remains that there are structural difference between the brains of straights and gays"
@suddenlyitsobvious You obviously know very little about behavioral neuroscience, while there are certainly environmental factors in determining sexual behavior the fact remains that there are structural difference between the brains of straights and gays. No amount of environment can alter the size/density of glands, ganglia, lobes, cells, etc.. Sexual behavior and sexual orientation while often similar are not mutually exclusive. Your parents make you gay about as much as they make you tall.
Hi. Sorry, it looked like I had been blocked from this thread & I was going to PM you, but it turned out everything functions correctly after all. You have received to extra posts that can be ignored.
So:
""You obviously know very little about behavioral neuroscience"
Right, the "you're so ignorant -argument".
Did it occur to you that perhaps unlike you I simply don't just BELIEVE & ingest everything I hear from "the experts" or a talking head on a TV show, or...
@suddenlyitsobvious Granted my source is from "the experts" but then again pretty much any scholastic reading or study you do in grad school is guided by or directly from "the experts." I wasn't so much implying that you are ignorant but rather that your opinion cannot be asserted as fact unless you can provide proof of your claim. It will be an uphill battle for you, as the genetic and neurological differences are well understood and regularly documented; and have been so since the early 90's.
" as the genetic and neurological differences are well understood and regularly documented; and have been so since the early 90's"
So you reiterate this and I shall now INSIST you support your claim. Genetic & neurological differences (between straights and homosexuals) well understood?!!?
Please just give some sources and evidence for your outrageous statement, especially since you were already asked for it in my previous post.
I assumed you were talking about Swaab and Levay and made a few points about them but I must note that you remain unspecific, producing a vague, general claim (and false) without any kind of support.
Many people think it suffices to argue a "case" using phrases such as "science says", or "WE now know", "science has established" etc. It's not.
My question is: WHO says? Based on WHAT EVIDENCE? Specifics please.
Obviously, EVERY MALE can typically be brought to ejaculation by another male. The reasons the preference becomes fact and permanent has to do with many factors, not least of all the highly unnatural and toxic society we live in.
Just think of this: SEX in society, in general. Do you think heterosexuality as it is practised is natural? Do you think it's natural the majority is completely OBSESSED with sex, that society is FLOODED in sex?
...or nurture causing it, the interplay of individuality and society is a lot more complex.
Be mindful of the A vs B scenario, science vs religion, nature vs nurture: these are manipulative programs designed to control a debate.
I see homosexuality as a behavioural option that can become hardwired, and consequently having a major impact on our identity for tons of reasons, many having to do with transgression of social taboos and societal paradigms etc.
...all siblings of homosexuals were equally homosexual. You see: your cousin's situation could just as well be considered evidence AGAINST a genetic basis.
Keep in mind that homosexuality could fi result from a REACTION to fundamental aspects of nurture/society, a reaction only experienced by a certain type of individuals, for instance individuals with a stronger sense of individuality.
See?
It doesn't have to be genes coding for a trait, ...
...originate from? From the parents? Shouldn't we then see increased incidence of homosexuality in the lineage, even if the gene is recessive?
When you say about your cousin: "He is the 2nd oldest boy in his family (of 6 boys). None of his brothers or sisters are gay", you conclude that nurture therefore can't account for homosexuality.
Again very hasty. We could just as easily say that the case for a genetic basis would be A LOT STRONGER if...
It's not a question of either you're born that way, or otherwise you made a conscious choice to be gay, or your parents turned you gay. It's not A or B.
To state that AT BIRTH infants are predisposed towards a sexual orientation is really QUITE A CLAIM. Such a claim must be broken down in all its aspects and thoroughly analyzed, which isn't being done at all.
Also, if you say it's genetic, meaning a gene or collection of genes code for homosexuality, where then do these genes...
Do you know it was announced to the world years ago, somewhere in the mid-nineties that the human genome had been sequenced, and it now turns out they've completely changed the definition of what a gene even is? It's just a narrative, an esoteric concoction. And the public believes...never knows, always believes. "We've now found the gene bla bla bla..."
Anyway, people approach this WAY TOO SIMPLISTICALLY.
...immediately interpreted in a way favourable to the case, by biased observers projecting their hangups.
I'd put to you that wildlife footage of two male mammals penetrating each other and ejaculating is EXTREMELY RARE and I haven't seen any. Feel free to direct me to some WILDLIFE footage showing this.
Dolphins rubbing noses, or rubbing sex against blowhole is not what I'm talking about. ACTUAL PENETRATION
If you delve into this genetic stuff, which I've done a bit although I'm certainly not an expert, you'd be AMAZED at how shaky it all is, how esoteric, concocted...
If you look at the mainstream media, they will take it COMPLETELY FOR GRANTED that homosexual behaviour is rampant in the animal kingdom. Much of the "evidence" though comes from zoos, where obviously the animals live in highly unnatural circumstances.
... before one can accept it as fact. It hasn't been proved and God and the Bible have got NOTHING to do with this.
It is simply for granted that it's a genetic issue. Note that in this video, the guy says something to the effect that it's a "polygenic trait" if I remember correctly.
You know why? Because science hasn't found a "gene" "coding for" homosexuality, so it is then automatically assumed there must be various genes working together to make it happen.
"What else is left to account for homosexuality? "
You have fallen, like the majority, for the A versus B scheme: If it's not A, then it's got to be B, if it's not B, then it's got to be A. Really? Are you sure the issue couldn't be more subtle?
Why constantly bring religion into the debate? Not only you, but society at large?
The claim "homosexuality is genetically based" is simply a statement that must be supported by evidence and proved...
The statement about the more male children a woman has the more antibodies she produces against a male growing inside her (something like that) is wrong. The sperm is what's attacked. A baby is protected, male or female. I know a few large families with many males and females, the older one(s) being homosexual and his/her siblings being heterosexual.
yeah but that effect plays on genetic susceptibilities and the probability rises by 1/3 of a percent point for every little brother. By the way this video also does little to give an evolutionary function to homosexuality
this is a stupid video, idiot mentions 20 different topics in the first 3 minutes and doesn't prove anything. Animal homosexuality? Really? NO you moron, they are animals. Just because a female ape licks the fleas off of another female's butt doesn't make her gay. Gay gene not reproducing? Really? That's right, they DON"T reproduce so faggot genes would have been gone long ago. It's a SINFUL CHOICE. That is the ONLY LOGICAL REALITY.
Natural selection/evolution acts on genes, not on populations/groups. Also you cannot say that because female relatives of gay men have more children that their fitness is being increased BECAUSE of having gay sons. Correlation does not mean causation. Maybe women who have more children are simply more likely to produce gay sons (perhaps because of the 'more sons = increased chance of being gay' link that you mention)? Thus it may actually be gay sons BECAUSE of more children, not vice-versa.
"It should also be noted that identical twins have an enormous possibility to both be gay (76% iirc)" Inaccurate statement ! the most positive research showed about 50 percent chance .
and others (there werent many made) have gone even lower , especially with females . that means it's partly environmental . a 50\50 chance actually . meaning enviiorment plays a BIG role in deteminating that . how can you ignore this ?
So at what age do you choose to be heterosexual? I just woke up one day and said hey mom i'm gay. Thats for all that believe that one. Check out your biology, fill up with some knowledge. Not only do we not just suddenly choose to be straight or gay, we do not get a choice of who are parents are, hair & eye color, how tall we'll be. So many things in life we do not get to choose. Did anyone choose to be ugly or pretty? Did anyone choose their parents? Did anyone choose their eye color, It's fate
Unfortunately few people are in a position to approach these things CRITICALLY, OBJECTIVELY. Emotive pleas & blackmail, intimidation and social pressures to make people conform to an unproven dogma are not real science...
In reality, science has simply failed miserably to provide an explanation, just as it failed to explain schizophrenia, AIDS, cancer, the origins of life etc etc.
Science is a deceptive cult, programming BELIEVERS.
@suddenlyitsobvious Most genetics exists as compromise between what's ideal and what doesn't work. It's entirely possible that if you removed every trace of impetuous to go gay, you'd necessarily also remove all traces of sex drive from humankind. Similarly to how your immune system can work against you evolution doesn't care about perfect, merely whether genes life your fail to bring genes LIKE yours to the next generation. (Hint: that is NOT always done through SELF reproduction)
We know each other from an atheist thread where I've spent quite some time, as have you.
I've recently left that thread for good, and find it very bizarre that you and several of your companions have taken the trouble to FOLLOW me over the internet, stalking me.
Please understand that I left that thread for good reasons & have no inclination to talk to you again, especially since you've shown to be profoundly intellectually dishonest.
@suddenlyitsobvious I go wherever I please. I do not stalk anyone. That you lie about me being dishonest is itself the height of dishonesty. Shame on you. I've never ONCE been dishonest with you. If you can't met the challenge posted then just say so. I'm not surprised you try to find a way out of it. You're a weasel through and through.
BTW, how the fuck would I 'follow' you? Can you tell me where I'm gonna post next?
when your talking about the antibody theory, you say the male becomes less masculinised? does this mean gay men are genetically less masculine? because i thought i was just a social thing. and if so, why are some gay men masculine? and some straight men feminine?
brndnrckn 2 weeks ago
@brndnrckn Gay men do have a tendency to be feminine in the way they act, and to being calmer, and more non-violent, perhaps due to less testosterone than hetero males. It's implausible that "acting gay" is a cultural thing that spread around the world's gays. True though, that some gay men are masculine, but I find it rare. I've never seen a feminine lesbian. I always thought it was weird, because if you're homosexual, why act like the opposite sex? So it must be a hormone thing.
Wotanraven 2 weeks ago
@Wotanraven actually the gay community has quite high crime rates compared to the heterosexuals. i think that the non-violence and calm you might see is a result of gay people being cast out of society, so therefore they become more aware of people and their feelings because they know what its like to be hurt. violence and masculinity have nothing to do with testosterone rates. in fact testosterone can actually make someone more feminine, depending on the circumstances.
brndnrckn 2 weeks ago
@Wotanraven actually most gay men tend to be more masculine than feminine, its just that the masculine ones tend not to come out. the feminine ones tend to come out very early on in life as they are already branded as being gay because they act feminine. i can give you the links to some gay youtubers who are extremely masculine. also, this girl at my school is a lesbian, and every says she is the prettiest girl in school, and she is probably the most feminine girl ive ever met.
brndnrckn 2 weeks ago
@Wotanraven and gay men tend to act like the opposite sex because when they try to form relationships with men, they often develop sexual feelings. which is why they develop better friendships with girls, and in turn they tend to get involved with things girls like to do. and women share a gay mans interest in men, so they relate better. also straight men often reject their gay friends for fear of being called gay themselves. there are lots of reasons why gays tend to act like the opposite sex.
brndnrckn 2 weeks ago
is there any link between homosexuality and left-handedness? they seem to work in a similar way.
brndnrckn 2 weeks ago
@brndnrckn
Not that I've noticed, except that I believe they're both polygenetic traits.
infideluxe 1 week ago
Dude you allways have the best cartoons and motivationals^^
MrHiller 2 weeks ago
im a twin......
imation879 1 month ago
Thank you that is very clearly explained so that maybe maybe my uptight relatives might understand. :)
ItIsBadForYa 1 month ago
good video on the subject of evolution and homosexuality, but definition of ad hominem is not right. It's true to say that attacking one's personality (as described) is a form of ad hominem, but that's not all that ad hominem is. Ad hominem happens when one attacks anything other than the argument.
truthfulheretic 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
The idea that because there is homosexual behavior in some species so that homosexual is natural for humans is a bit flawed. Many species eat their young, it doesn't mean that eating babies is natural to humans, right?
Sammerkona 3 months ago
@Sammerkona
So if a behavior is "nice" in your opinion, it's natural?
Do some research on the Donner party and it may change your definition of "natural".
rodgierad 3 months ago
@Sammerkona
Google:
NKorean Prison Camp Survivor: Starving Women Cooked & Ate Their Own Children
YOU started it.
What is "natural"?
rodgierad 3 months ago
@Sammerkona your comparing apples and oranges
scorand 3 months ago
@Sammerkona 'The idea that because there is homosexual behavior in some species so that homosexual is natural for humans is a bit flawed.' It proves that homosexuality itself is not unnatural.
And there is little reason to think it would be in humans.
Or do you really claim you can decide who you get attracted to or not?
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis Let's say that we accept homosexuality is unnatural, so what?
truthfulheretic 2 months ago
@truthfulheretic It changes nothing, other than that we accept something which is not true.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis No, I meant hypothetically. Even "if" we accept that it is true, it does not get the religious fundamentalist anywhere, since there are many things that ARE unnatural, and we do them happily, like surgery, or even building concrete houses for that matter.
truthfulheretic 2 months ago
@truthfulheretic I completely agree. As I said it would change nothing.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@truthfulheretic
"since there are many things that ARE unnatural, and we do them happily, like surgery, or even building concrete houses for that matter."
I would have to ask what "natural" means, and if these things are really unnatural. One definition is "caused by nature." Since humans are caused by nature, in a sense so is everything we do.
infideluxe 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thomaseshuis "other than that we accept something which is not true."
That's kinda the basis for the entire Christian religion.....and they enjoy guaranteed const. freedom.
The existence of Christianity validates the existence of homosexuals....I like it!
clubindiana4 1 month ago
5:00 says "Click for free cake". As far as i know, one old saying goes something like this - a cake is a lie! muhahahaha!
cyberdaemon 4 months ago
The points made in this video are scientifically and logically debatable:
1- animals have a different respective on sex, and how its done. you can already see this when animals try to hump other "THINGS" that has some sort of resemblance to them( try shoe+ turtle, rabbit + cat)
2- The idea of suppressed masculinity of the male fetus in the mother's womb would only affect the sex drive. thus only affecting the desire to have sex from time to time. some males are more active than others (fact!)
amzraptor 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@amzraptor Well, the biological research on homosexuality has just started. So, we can look out for a lot of probably very interesting debates, studies & results in the future. However, it is a fact that the more sons a woman has, the more likely she is to havea homosexual son. However, it does not explain lesbians. Another theory is talking about the component parts of the amnionic fluids in the womb & their changing mixture proportions over time.
GaolisVideoLog 3 months ago
@amzraptor
"1- animals have a different respective on sex, and how its done. you can already see this when animals try to hump other "THINGS" that has some sort of resemblance to them( try shoe+ turtle, rabbit + cat)"
Or, you know, fleshlights...
segmentationfault 3 months ago
@segmentationfault My left hand WINS! XD
amzraptor 3 months ago
@amzraptor '1- animals have a different respective on sex, and how its done. you can already see this when animals try to hump other "THINGS" that has some sort of resemblance to them( try shoe+ turtle, rabbit + cat)'
You mean like dildo's, vibrators, fruits etcetera, etcetera?
'The idea of suppressed masculinity of the male fetus in the mother's womb would only affect the sex drive' And you know this how? Because the scientists who did that study disagree with you, as do most other experts.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
So.....the Butler did it with the candlestick in the library?
Pazma1 5 months ago
So you are saying homosexuality is caused by a chemical reaction and that there is statistical evidence to back up your claim.
leveni111 5 months ago
If homosexuality is genetic and it's impossible to know which genes cause homosexuality then homosexuality is not genetic.
leveni111 5 months ago
@leveni111
Eye and hair color is genetic, but no one actually knows which genes (or combination of genes) cause eye/hair color. Does that make eye color NOT GENETIC?
rodgierad 5 months ago
@rodgierad Pretty sure they know on which locus they are.
smallfellow 4 months ago
@smallfellow
No, actually, they only have an idea of where those genes are located. And what they do know has been discovered through a long process of elimination. The process has barely begun in regards to traits such as orientation. NOT knowing where the genes are at this time does not prove anything. It would be unscientific AND ridiculous to suggest it does.
rodgierad 3 months ago
@rodgierad I was talking about Eye and hair color... And i never said anything about homosexuality/orientation not having genetic roots..
smallfellow 3 months ago
where did you find the 'atheist eye" image ? it's awesome !
ThinkerResearcher 5 months ago
watch?v=pFCSgRULEkk
"Logical evidences for Islam"
Why is there A Creator? Why is there a religion? Why Islam is the true religion?
shncsr 5 months ago
@shncsr The 'logic' in that video is the same that's been tried to use as evidence of the christian god.
It's completely fallicious. The argument everything must have had a creator is just as applicable to god as to the rest of the cosmos.
Furthermore the creator of the video has a flawed understanding of biology in general and evolution specifically.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
@mspammann hi there. Not all gay men have anal sex. And many heterosexual couples have anal sex - are they mentally ill too? Is your objection to gay people based on a religion?
bagospannerz 5 months ago
no penetration occurs
its just humping
the animal is confused, overly horny, or displaying dominance
as fas as the sheepdog, GID is more likely
a female dog would want to be mounted
prayforthegaycure 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prayforthegaycure
'no penetration occurs' It does.
'its just humping' So is human sex.
'the animal is confused, overly horny, or displaying dominance' Sometimes, there have also been studies in which it was clear it was none of these things. The fact is both evidence and experts disagree with you.
thomaseshuis 5 months ago
I used to have an Old English Sheepdog bitch that was completely gay. She kept trying to molest our poodle/terrier cross, which always looked extremely embarrassed while it was happening. lol.
ralph17p 5 months ago
@LordSauceness and/or the fact that they live in family groups, don't leave their territory, and keep others off
ChooksLoverCC 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexuality is a mental illness. If men started sticking knives in their eyes, would that be a mental illness? Yes, because the eyes are for seeing, and these people would be making themselves blind.
Let's us the example of the rectum. The rectum or anus, or butt hole, is used to release the waste from the human body. Homosexuals are putting penises and other foreign objects in the anus (butt hole), and then saying they are in love with the man who they are having sex with. That is sick!
MsPamAnn 5 months ago
no offence but this guy loves the sound of his own voice
zapryan99 6 months ago
From what I understand, homosexual behavior has been documented in every sexual species ever studied by science, every last one.
cyphonyx 6 months ago
I often get accused of committing an ad hominem when in fact I'm just straight up insulting somebody. Thanks for clearing that up
devourerofbabies 6 months ago
the lispy fag that made this video is simply regurgitating fag propaganda. ANimals fag each other because they don't know any better, that's ALSO why they eat their own feces and eat their own young. You dipshit. Humans should KNOW better. Yet fags continue to lie to further destroy society.
LionPanzer 6 months ago
@LionPanzer 1. As far as I know cigarettes and bundles of sticks don't have lisps. 2. Animals don't smoke. 3. 'fags continue to lie to further destroy society.' I agree that cigarettes are bad for society, but how are homosexuals actually destroying society?
thomaseshuis 6 months ago
@LionPanzer and what are you regurgitating? douche propaganda? If you actually listened to what the 'lispy fag' was saying, maybe you'd realize that his points are completely valid. Mentioning homosexuality in the animal kingdom was simply to show how it's present in nature bc douches like u love 2say it's unnatural. This video illustrates the biological & population advantages to the existence of homosexuality- so get it through your thick head that it's normal, natural & not destroying society
fauxindigo 6 months ago
@benthemiester id argue partly is that for don to say 'the leading theory is.. im not sure that sounds like a theory more like a hypothesis. since it appears the body of evidence isnt really strong enough. to quite be a theory
whether its tought as a leading theory/ hpothesis determines the size of the grain of salt its to be taken with.
and aids appears to spread fine in africa, among non homosexuals.
elgostine 6 months ago
You are in the twilght zone buddy you talk about comparing animals to humans you should not degrade yourself to an animal or justify gay metality with that of an animal.The day you give birth to a furry creature than compare yourself to one. God made mankind to rule the world with set laws and rules and based on those rules is how we should live life.Animals do not rule mankind.You are very confused and remember if you go scientist they too make mistakes they once thought the earth was square.
lukemn12 6 months ago
@lukemn12 they dont?? yes we can hunt and kill any animal we like, and technology means we can survive a wider varity of conditions we still rely largely on the rest of the biosphere FOR those technological boosts. we are apex predators and are vulnerable to shifts below us the more complex we become, if someone pulls our lynchpin for maintaining our population we're dead
earthwas square? which scientist and when. have NEVER heard that one as a competing hypothesis with round and flat earths
elgostine 6 months ago
@lukemn12 You'd first have to proof your god exists, before you can bring him in as an authority on anything. 'scientist they too make mistakes they once thought the earth was square.' Religious people thought it was flat, your point?
thomaseshuis 6 months ago
My point is that you dont have proof of your claims i have history and a country that originally was founded with christian principles it is ashame to see how our country is rapidly is losing its heritage ,and belief in God .
The current economic crisis is an example of the result of simply not believing in anything .What was bad is now good and what was good is now bad .Its ashame people with your theories dont realise the ignorant generation your helping.
lukemn12 6 months ago
@lukemn12 'My point is that you dont have proof of your claims' There's literally a mountain of research that proves homosexuality in animals. As there is enough evidence we're part of the animal subgroup of all living organisms. Just because we have a higher intelligence and self awareness, does not eliminate our biological bonds.
thomaseshuis 6 months ago
@lukemn12 'a country that originally was founded with christian principles' I'm sorry to inform you but the U.S. was founded by Pilgrims who fled religous persecution and the Founding fathers who were in majority Deists who supported separation of church and state, so the 'founded with christian principles' is a myth.
'The current economic crisis is an example of the result of' Greed and recklessness of bankers and other financial institutions, many of which are religious.
thomaseshuis 6 months ago
@lukemn12 '.Its ashame people with your theories dont realise the ignorant generation your helping.' Apparently you do not know the difference between scientific theory and layman's theory. Please do some research on this before acting like it's something trivial.
thomaseshuis 6 months ago
@lukemn12
Actually, they thought the world was flat...and the CHURCH supported and enforced that view because it found that information in the bible.
The Covenant People's Church in CA has "scientifically proven" that the earth is actually flat.
Religion is SO superior when it comes to scientific matters.
rodgierad 5 months ago
(Monozygotic twins starting with 100% of the same genetic makeup, excepting for gene copies and mutations).
WxsOnline 7 months ago
The studies by Frederick et al. and Bailey & Pillard have been repeated by groups which did not come up with correlations anywhere near the ~66 or ~52 percent correlation. The methods used by the two studies are also lacking: both have too small of sample sizes and fail to control for environment (i.e. being brought up in similar conditions). If genes are the primary driver in human homosexual attraction, we should find closer to 100% correlation to aspects of their attraction/behavior.
WxsOnline 7 months ago
@benthemiester There are some parts of the bible belt buckle where incest IS practiced. This probably owes to the bible's mixed, pro-incest stance.
WxsOnline 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The words 'Homosexual' AND 'Evolution' in the same scentence.
Religeous people shit their pants at this video. lol
umwha 7 months ago
The words 'Homosexual' AND 'Evolution' in the same scentence.
Religeous people shit their pants at this video. lol
umwha 7 months ago 2
@umwha Just add rock music and abortion maybe we can get them to piss their pants too.
Warmsprite1w 7 months ago
I love your videos because of how they help add ammo to my intellectual repertoire against people who don't "believe" in science or evolution. However, in your video, while I agree with the facts and findings, I find myself cringing at the wording which correlates femininity to homosexuality, which is not always the case. I think it's more accurate to say that the fetus deviates more from heteronormative practices because masculinity & femininity are a socially determined behaviors.
NitramAnidem 8 months ago
@NitramAnidem and is not implied that masculinity is the heteronormative practice of males. And his argument is for the trend of the mother producing males? So his wording is fine. But the problem then lies in the fact that his argument will fall apart when you apply this idea to a mother giving birth to several daughters. They shouldn't tend to become homosexual due to the mother lacking female proteins. But instead if you follow logically, the father then must have some influence for daughters
kh0t9 7 months ago
the truth is homosexuality is no different than htero.. just not as frequent. but probably more requent than most would thing.. oh and if anybody claims that its a choice.. well if you or anybody chose to be straight.. then your just in the closet.. and if your sexing up your wife everynight, then your so deep in the closet your finding christmas presents
scorand 9 months ago
it's funny because im familar with the theories that you're presenting throughout the video for the most part even agree with them, but you really do not do them any justice whatsoever. Did you write down what you were going to say throughout this video before you made it? or did you just randomly start talking about your understandings of the theories and hope that you would somehow pull it together midway?
danidtach 9 months ago
To the OP Explain how having feminine traits results in homosexuality? Attraction has nothing to do with how you look or behave. It simply means that you prefer a certain sex.
sprites 9 months ago
Write what you know about bro. Don for once I'm going to have to just accept your opinion based on your years of pounding the research and diving in head first while cuming to your conclusions. Fabulousssss. Hey Don, based on your strengthening of the community hypothesis, why dont we just all have sex with our moms, dads, brothers and children? We''ll all be just one happy family. By the way, what Journal of science is this gay hypothesis published in? I know u wouldn't just be making it up.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester "why dont we just all have sex with our moms, dads, brothers and children?"
....because we are Human, not Bonobo. Bigger brains. (some of us anyway)
LordSauceness 10 months ago 22
@LordSauceness LOOOL
manfrommoon 7 months ago
@benthemiester Look at the links in the description Derpy
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 The link shows 4 studies. The last 2 of which conflict with each other & the first 2. None of them adress the evolution of homosexuality. The question of homos not being able to reproduce so therefore they should be removed from the gene pool is a Darwinian mindset, It is not mine. Furthermore Don's personel conclusion are not cited in links. If u have entire study please send it. I'm willing to critique it. In the meantime take the time to read the abstract first rather than assume.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 By the way I would strongly urge you to take a look at how these twins were recruited in study done by Frederick L. Whitam (who has made a long career out of writing about cross dressing transvestites, homosexuality and who has a personel vested interest in this subject) It was mandatory that at least one of these twins be gay in the first place in order to qualify for study. This is hardly what you would call a double blind study that only included 34 males & 4 recruited females.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester Um yea, I know how twin studies work dude. If you're unaware, the point is to look at the concordance rates between monozygotic (identical) twins and dizygotic (fraternal) twins.Monozygotic twins (having 100% of the same genetic material) should have a high concordance in homosexuality between the twins than dizygotic twins (having ~50% the same genetic material) if there was a genetic basis to homosexuality (which is what many studies find) you dont necesarily need a double blind
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788
cont...... and again people who were recruited because at least one was already homosexual? You left this out of one of your citations. "Neurological and various biochemical examinations failed to reveal differences between these identical twin pairs divergent for homosexuality and heterosexuality" Now please cite statement that empirically states that any of these citation provide objective, repeatable, falsify able, empirical evidence for a "genetic basis for homosexuality"
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester Alright well, let me just cite it out of an old textbook I wasnt able to sell back then, from Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, 3rd edition, 2008, Larsen, R.J. & Buss D. M. pg190: "Is homosexuality inherited? Psychologist Michael Bailey has constructed the most extensive studies of this issue. Bailey and his colleagues examined the twin brothers of a sample of homosexuals, as well as the adoptive borthers of another sample of homosexuals...."
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 I didn't know that all studies on twins deal with homosexuality (which was my original point when speaking of recruitment after the fact) if that is what your implying when you say this "Um yea, I know how twin studies work dude" So you think basing this theorem or hypothesis (actually its not even referred that in study cited) can be regarded as proof based on less than 50 in thirty years,.........
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester I never said that all studies on twins deal with homosexuality (not sure why you thought I said that), I said that in terms of homosexuality thats how twin studies are done to find out if there is a genetic basis to homosexuality, which there has been griping over a few studies but most of seen show at least some significant influence from genes and biology. And as a recent grad of psychology I can tell you that is how they are teaching homosexuality in classes and textbooks.
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 Like I said, it's like Don's just pulling this stuff out of his ass, this is how they are genuinely teaching things. There's no real 100% concrete cause of homosexuality (as is there with anything having to do with psychology). To say that genetics completely account for homosexuality is a bit of an overstatement, but to claim that it has no significant influence would be flat out wrong.
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 "To say that genetics completely account for homosexuality is a bit of an overstatement, but to claim that it has no significant influence would be flat out wrong"
Many evolutionist like Will provine also believe in chemical predestination, and that we are slaves to our genes, and that free will is illusory and there is no real purpose in life. We live and die and sayonara. I do not share this view.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester My main point to Don even though sarcastically put was about how he himself interprets homosexuality as an evolutionary construct." Well I don't believe he's too far off the bad, some evolutionary psychologists think homosexuality may be a form of population controls or bisexuality as a form of practice (though I'm going off memory, to quote me). But like I said, virtually every psychological trait you have is a mishmash of genes, biology, society, and conscious thought
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 I can appreciate a philosophical aspect or conjecture among psychologist, but the question u raised was one of bio chemical causation which is a question of biology. I maintain that until I see empirical evidence that the cause of homosexuality is a result of biochemistry then the question will remain remain a mystery. Who knows maybe someday we will find overwhelming empirical evidence but what was cited before is far from it. When I have some time I will check out your citation.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester " I maintain that until I see empirical evidence that the cause of homosexuality is a result of biochemistry then the question will remain remain a mystery" Well I mean, I did just send ya some but yea. Thing is though, I think you overlook the biggest argument in psychology: Nature vs. Nuture. Its forever debated, but the thing is most things pertaining to human behavior and thought are a result of some combination of both. I can't really think of any trait thats 100% genetic
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 Also keep in mind that what you say about psychologist who maintain that homosexuality is some kind of population control mechanism not only conflicts with Dons statement, where he says just the opposite, but also strongly indicates a sense of planning by nature wich fits in more with intelligent design than a blind and unguided Darwinian mechanism which is not supposed to be able to plan ahead.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester "what you say about psychologist....." I actually had a massive typo in that statment, instead of "to quote me" I meant to say "don't quote me on that", not sure how I fucked it up that epicly. I'm faaaar less sure to the evolutionary aspects of homosexuality, and as of now I think (*think*) evolutionary psychology is around the same boat. Though I dont see how population control would suggest intelligent design? An overcrowded population would have less resources...
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@benthemiester its guided but it doesnt have scentral planning and is in a sense blind, my understanding is that its guided by its envronment, the environmental conditions determine which niches can occur and what traits will be best at filling those niches and competing those that are less visible to preadtors will, as the environment changes one tof two or more competing species wins out. often driving the others to extinction.
elgostine 6 months ago
@zzyzx0788 (contin...) ...thus it would be advantageous to have members of a species that would feel no attraction to the sex that would help them reproduce.
Though, let me stress that I'm really not trying to argue this particular point as hard because I just don't know as much about evolution and have doubts about that idea myself.
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 I do admit I like to bust Dons balls once in a while. I'm just a little more straight forward. Like I said before, the Darwinian paradigm is that anything that doesn't propagate the blood line will eventually be excluded by natural selection. If your interested in the new extended evo synthesis, which is one of the least talked about subjects (unfortunately because of politics). I would urge you to take a look at my video entitled "Will the real theory of Evolution Please Stand Up"
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester I may actually look that up, sounds interesting. I get you're trying to give Don a little shit, but like I said, this is not like he just read a couple articles and made this all up, this is actually genuinely what I've been taught in universities, and apparently what friends and family of mine have been taught too (in universities).
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 If u have been taught that homosexuality is some kind of evolutionary construct without any empirical evidence, then maybe u should do a lot more questioning among your professors and or possibly change universities. If your speaking of a biological cause then this should remain an open question as of now.
Again, the citations he provides do not even share his conclusions. You yourself offered citation of a professor that actually contradicts his assessment. Psychology is not biology.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester Talking as a biological psychologist, you are talking out of your ass. Look at the citations, and tell me EXACTLY what doesn't fit with his conclusions?
haikuattack 8 months ago
@zzyzx0788 Though I dont see how population control would suggest intelligent design? An overcrowded population would have less resources...
Are u sure about that? Maybe u should rethink that one. The renaissance came about because the plague wiped out half of Europe. This actually turned out to be a good thing for science, art, culture etc. Less people, more resources. Another thing about homosexuality is aids which is a international problem. Unlike cancer it is a hundred percent preventable.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester Lol like I said bro, the least of my points im trying to argue. Thats something I'm on the fence on.
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 cont.... Animals also rape and kill. Lions often kill offspring that don't belong to them. Does this mean we should do the same, or do we pick and choose what is mimicked in nature? Animals do not have our intelligence or the ability for abstract thought e.g, good and evil, right and wrong or morality even on a subjective level etc. There is a great and neutral article in the NewYork Times about this subject and also cites peer review studies.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester cont.."Heritability estimates from all studies" (heritability being the amount of a trait that can be attributed to inherited genes) "depending on various assumptions, ranged from 30 percent to a strikingly high 70 perecent. Similar heritabilities were found in a sample of lesbians and their adoptive sisters (Bailey et al., 1993)" However it does go on to say that more recent studies place hertiability estimates lower than that study. Its really beside the point though ....
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 cont... I pointed out that one of the studies you cited said conclusion was an interpretation of researchers. Interpretations are not the same as empirical evidence. Fishing for evidence is often frowned upon by many in the scientific community, as in recruiting after the fact. As for the 2nd study on twins, it made absolutely no biochemical correlation. My main point to Don even though sarcastically put was about how he himself interprets homosexuality as an evolutionary construct.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester cont...I'm frankly not sure what you're trying to argue for. Are you trying to argue homosexuality is a choice? Or just nitpicking? Because if there's one thing I can very easily tell that virtually everything in psychology has a genetic aspect to it and an environmental one (the old nurture vs. nature debate). Like I said before, homosexuality is being taught in universities not as a choice and definitely have genetic influence, Don is not talking out of his ass here.
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 I already told you what I was arguing about originally concerning animal behavior and Dons attempt at making a correlation. It was you who called be derpy because you assumed that the citations in link validated Dons personel conclusions and that I had not considered them. I maintain that they don't reflect his conclusions as far as the abstracts are concerned, and since he doesn't quote from study directly in regards to his conclusions, I have to assume they dont exist.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester " It was you who called be derpy because you assumed that the citations.." Nah I called you derpy because your original comment was pretty random and nonsensical and you just started rambling about fuckhaving sex w/ our relatives, though I do apologize for that now that I see you're not just some asshole. Like I said before though, EVERYTHING Don said in this video is what I've been taught in one class or another, as in various text books, he's not just jumping to conclusion.
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
@zzyzx0788 "there has been griping over a few studies but most of seen show at least some significant influence from genes and biology"
Fair enough, If you which to cite studies that demonstrate empirical evidence then please do so, however......
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester "Fair enough, If you which to cite studies that demonstrate empirical evidence then please do so, however......"
I still have a psych textbook from last year which clearly states info on that, if you would like me to quote that
zzyzx0788 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benthemiester You ask: "why dont we just all have sex with our moms, dads, brothers and children?"
Because mom said no.
pburto 6 months ago
I wonder why bisexuality is not more common. Evolutionarily speaking, everyone should be bisexual. It must have something to do with monogamy.
7lllll 11 months ago
@7lllll
Giacameau 10 months ago
wheres my cake??!!!!
oogalypoogalyman 11 months ago
Shit shovers
powerspade 11 months ago
Actually it’s not that bi/homosexuality is present in 500 species, but there are 500 species where its well documented. Furthermore it is observed until today in more than 1.500 species. The number is so low because of homophobic bias in researchers in the past or sometimes because of their ignorance. Today we know, that it is most probably present in all species, thus supporting the theory of universal bisexuality.
eldadevata 11 months ago 29
@eldadevata "Most probably present in all species" except anglerfish, jellyfish, and haplodiploid species, I'd presume? 'Cause it's hard to attach to the side of something equally as small as you are, or to be gay with no brain, or when your only purpose in life is to force your sperm into a single, gigantic queen.
arachnophile01 8 months ago
@arachnophile01 who are YOU to say what purpose in life belongs to a jellyfish? i can guarantee that a jellyfish would see no purpose in your life as you see in it
SnakeSalmon8izback 8 months ago
@SnakeSalmon8izback Sea anenomes are narcicists.
arachnophile01 8 months ago
@arachnophile01 cool
SnakeSalmon8izback 8 months ago
BORING!
TheKingHowardStern 11 months ago
@TheKingHowardStern I agree, monotonous voice..extremely difficult to follow along. I was expecting him to include research, but instead all I heard was possible speculation.
ncPsychosis 11 months ago
@ncPsychosis He does his research allright.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@TheKingHowardStern I found it interesting. Not as entertaining as an intense videogame, but it exercised my mind a little, so I found what he had to say to be fascinating.
Cindercheth 10 months ago
3:06 L O L high percentage of gayness! xD sounds so funny :)
Yahweigh 11 months ago
Such an awesome video, lots of great info!
Another thing that makes you gay: ecstacy... or maybe it just opens inhibitions.,.
SuperAntiZionist 11 months ago
It could be said; That the two genders of a species, are in actual fact two different organisms - spermatozoa and ovum. That sperm reproduce like a virus, burdening the ovum with its own reproductive function and that this reproductive symbioses was originally forged in predation!
Religion is believing that the earth is flat and that you will fall off the edge, if you ever were to go look for the truth, but you know what? That is exactly what happens...
thenatureinme 11 months ago
very intelligent assessment
uclaxlhuang 1 year ago
(7)
So you are saying people's sexual behavior doesn't always match their orientation...And? So?
I think everybody is quite aware that there's quite a few guys stuck in a marriage who are secretly dreaming of coKk. What is your statement purporting to prove?
And then you conclude: "Your parents make you gay just as much as they make you tall", just to make it sound assertive & conclusive.
So sorry, but half of what you said was plain wrong, the other half were disconnected banalities.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(6)
Unfortunately, the public typically remembers ONLY the initial sensational mediatic shows, and FAILS to check up, read the peer review etc.
Then you say: "Sexual behavior and sexual orientation while often similar are not mutually exclusive."
Did you read your own words?
The first part of the sentence up to "similar" is ill-phrased but we still understand what you're trying to say. But then you add "are not mutually exclusive", which is really a bit much.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(5)
...environmental factors.
Meaning EVEN IF anatomical differences were found in gay brains, this showcases nothing for a supposed genetic basis of homosexuality.
As so often happens, researchers have INVESTMENTS in the results they "find". Levay and Swaab WANTED to find a biological cause. So they take a bad, unrepresentative sample, did some willful thinking, skewed the results, tried to push them through anyway in the mainstream, and in the end their work was exposed.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(4)
...what I "know so little of"?
Levay himself said later, after storms of criticism over his super biased and truly incredibly sloppy work:
"Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later."
So you see, you are WRONG AGAIN:
you state: " No amount of environment can alter the size/density of glands, ganglia, lobes, cells".
This statement is false.
Brain structures can OBVIOUSLY be altered by all kinds of...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(3)
...provide some sources please? And I do hope you're not gonna bring up Swaab or perhaps even worse: Levay, who studied the brains of deceased AIDS-patients in the early nineties, and claimed basically by massively mediatized press conference that differences found were imputable to homosexuality, thus "revealing" a biological substrate for the orientation.
His quackery was of course completely untenable, but it tended to stick with the public. Is this what you're referring to and...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(2)
...because it says so in a school textbook?
I'm not a religious individual, and I think it's perfectly legit to exercise our critical thinking skills and check facts and data and analyze things for ourselves. Most people can't do this. They can just regurgitate what they were
told by some authority.
Your argument is incoherent and flawed.
First of all, you say:
"the fact remains that there are structural difference between the brains of straights and gays"
Could you...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(13)
of certain individuals in an unnatural society in order to attain balance -to balance the equation.
To me homosexuality as it exists in our society is CERTAINLY NOT natural, but neither is heterosexual marriage, most heterosexual sex...
It would be good if more people discussing homosexuality would take the moral bias out of the debate.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious You obviously know very little about behavioral neuroscience, while there are certainly environmental factors in determining sexual behavior the fact remains that there are structural difference between the brains of straights and gays. No amount of environment can alter the size/density of glands, ganglia, lobes, cells, etc.. Sexual behavior and sexual orientation while often similar are not mutually exclusive. Your parents make you gay about as much as they make you tall.
Drathora 1 year ago
Comment removed
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
Comment removed
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@Drathora
Hi. Sorry, it looked like I had been blocked from this thread & I was going to PM you, but it turned out everything functions correctly after all. You have received to extra posts that can be ignored.
So:
""You obviously know very little about behavioral neuroscience"
Right, the "you're so ignorant -argument".
Did it occur to you that perhaps unlike you I simply don't just BELIEVE & ingest everything I hear from "the experts" or a talking head on a TV show, or...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Granted my source is from "the experts" but then again pretty much any scholastic reading or study you do in grad school is guided by or directly from "the experts." I wasn't so much implying that you are ignorant but rather that your opinion cannot be asserted as fact unless you can provide proof of your claim. It will be an uphill battle for you, as the genetic and neurological differences are well understood and regularly documented; and have been so since the early 90's.
Drathora 11 months ago
@Drathora
" as the genetic and neurological differences are well understood and regularly documented; and have been so since the early 90's"
So you reiterate this and I shall now INSIST you support your claim. Genetic & neurological differences (between straights and homosexuals) well understood?!!?
Please just give some sources and evidence for your outrageous statement, especially since you were already asked for it in my previous post.
suddenlyitsobvious 11 months ago
@Drathora
I assumed you were talking about Swaab and Levay and made a few points about them but I must note that you remain unspecific, producing a vague, general claim (and false) without any kind of support.
Many people think it suffices to argue a "case" using phrases such as "science says", or "WE now know", "science has established" etc. It's not.
My question is: WHO says? Based on WHAT EVIDENCE? Specifics please.
suddenlyitsobvious 11 months ago
(12)
Do you think it's natural women behave like prostitutes in order to seduce males, and that 13 year old girls dress like sluts?
(Note: in nature it's the males that are colourful and dressed up, not the females).
My point is that this issue is very much more complex than it's made out to be, and NOTHING is natural in society.
Although I can't get into here, homosexuality to me is basically a strategy, that was NOT consciously formulated, ...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(11)
Obviously, EVERY MALE can typically be brought to ejaculation by another male. The reasons the preference becomes fact and permanent has to do with many factors, not least of all the highly unnatural and toxic society we live in.
Just think of this: SEX in society, in general. Do you think heterosexuality as it is practised is natural? Do you think it's natural the majority is completely OBSESSED with sex, that society is FLOODED in sex?
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(10)
...or nurture causing it, the interplay of individuality and society is a lot more complex.
Be mindful of the A vs B scenario, science vs religion, nature vs nurture: these are manipulative programs designed to control a debate.
I see homosexuality as a behavioural option that can become hardwired, and consequently having a major impact on our identity for tons of reasons, many having to do with transgression of social taboos and societal paradigms etc.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(9)
...all siblings of homosexuals were equally homosexual. You see: your cousin's situation could just as well be considered evidence AGAINST a genetic basis.
Keep in mind that homosexuality could fi result from a REACTION to fundamental aspects of nurture/society, a reaction only experienced by a certain type of individuals, for instance individuals with a stronger sense of individuality.
See?
It doesn't have to be genes coding for a trait, ...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(8)
...originate from? From the parents? Shouldn't we then see increased incidence of homosexuality in the lineage, even if the gene is recessive?
When you say about your cousin: "He is the 2nd oldest boy in his family (of 6 boys). None of his brothers or sisters are gay", you conclude that nurture therefore can't account for homosexuality.
Again very hasty. We could just as easily say that the case for a genetic basis would be A LOT STRONGER if...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(7)
It's not a question of either you're born that way, or otherwise you made a conscious choice to be gay, or your parents turned you gay. It's not A or B.
To state that AT BIRTH infants are predisposed towards a sexual orientation is really QUITE A CLAIM. Such a claim must be broken down in all its aspects and thoroughly analyzed, which isn't being done at all.
Also, if you say it's genetic, meaning a gene or collection of genes code for homosexuality, where then do these genes...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(6)
Do you know it was announced to the world years ago, somewhere in the mid-nineties that the human genome had been sequenced, and it now turns out they've completely changed the definition of what a gene even is? It's just a narrative, an esoteric concoction. And the public believes...never knows, always believes. "We've now found the gene bla bla bla..."
Anyway, people approach this WAY TOO SIMPLISTICALLY.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(5)
Not articles saying it happens & has been observed, not some young males fooling around, no: footage of penetration.
Any on youtube? Surely with all the interest this subject raises and the countless posters on youtube, there must be SOME wildlife footage?
And even if there are a few video's, why so few? Why isn't it captured on tape ALL THE TIME?
If I know what a gene is? Do you? Does anybody? I doubt it...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(4)
...immediately interpreted in a way favourable to the case, by biased observers projecting their hangups.
I'd put to you that wildlife footage of two male mammals penetrating each other and ejaculating is EXTREMELY RARE and I haven't seen any. Feel free to direct me to some WILDLIFE footage showing this.
Dolphins rubbing noses, or rubbing sex against blowhole is not what I'm talking about. ACTUAL PENETRATION
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(3)
If you delve into this genetic stuff, which I've done a bit although I'm certainly not an expert, you'd be AMAZED at how shaky it all is, how esoteric, concocted...
If you look at the mainstream media, they will take it COMPLETELY FOR GRANTED that homosexual behaviour is rampant in the animal kingdom. Much of the "evidence" though comes from zoos, where obviously the animals live in highly unnatural circumstances.
Everything even hinting of homosexuality is ...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
(2)
... before one can accept it as fact. It hasn't been proved and God and the Bible have got NOTHING to do with this.
It is simply for granted that it's a genetic issue. Note that in this video, the guy says something to the effect that it's a "polygenic trait" if I remember correctly.
You know why? Because science hasn't found a "gene" "coding for" homosexuality, so it is then automatically assumed there must be various genes working together to make it happen.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
"What else is left to account for homosexuality? "
You have fallen, like the majority, for the A versus B scheme: If it's not A, then it's got to be B, if it's not B, then it's got to be A. Really? Are you sure the issue couldn't be more subtle?
Why constantly bring religion into the debate? Not only you, but society at large?
The claim "homosexuality is genetically based" is simply a statement that must be supported by evidence and proved...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
*simplistic
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
The statement about the more male children a woman has the more antibodies she produces against a male growing inside her (something like that) is wrong. The sperm is what's attacked. A baby is protected, male or female. I know a few large families with many males and females, the older one(s) being homosexual and his/her siblings being heterosexual.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
yeah but that effect plays on genetic susceptibilities and the probability rises by 1/3 of a percent point for every little brother. By the way this video also does little to give an evolutionary function to homosexuality
partilov1 1 year ago
this is a stupid video, idiot mentions 20 different topics in the first 3 minutes and doesn't prove anything. Animal homosexuality? Really? NO you moron, they are animals. Just because a female ape licks the fleas off of another female's butt doesn't make her gay. Gay gene not reproducing? Really? That's right, they DON"T reproduce so faggot genes would have been gone long ago. It's a SINFUL CHOICE. That is the ONLY LOGICAL REALITY.
LionPanzer 1 year ago
Natural selection/evolution acts on genes, not on populations/groups. Also you cannot say that because female relatives of gay men have more children that their fitness is being increased BECAUSE of having gay sons. Correlation does not mean causation. Maybe women who have more children are simply more likely to produce gay sons (perhaps because of the 'more sons = increased chance of being gay' link that you mention)? Thus it may actually be gay sons BECAUSE of more children, not vice-versa.
Hakucho 1 year ago
"It should also be noted that identical twins have an enormous possibility to both be gay (76% iirc)" Inaccurate statement ! the most positive research showed about 50 percent chance .
and others (there werent many made) have gone even lower , especially with females . that means it's partly environmental . a 50\50 chance actually . meaning enviiorment plays a BIG role in deteminating that . how can you ignore this ?
MoonknightX9 1 year ago
@thequeerboyiam hi there. Excellent comment my friend - respect to you.
bagospannerz 1 year ago
I just subscribed... and I want my free cake ;)
good vid.
Duo1 1 year ago
Easy, Justin Bieber got born.
Freetardo 1 year ago
So at what age do you choose to be heterosexual? I just woke up one day and said hey mom i'm gay. Thats for all that believe that one. Check out your biology, fill up with some knowledge. Not only do we not just suddenly choose to be straight or gay, we do not get a choice of who are parents are, hair & eye color, how tall we'll be. So many things in life we do not get to choose. Did anyone choose to be ugly or pretty? Did anyone choose their parents? Did anyone choose their eye color, It's fate
theQueerboyiam 1 year ago
Unfortunately few people are in a position to approach these things CRITICALLY, OBJECTIVELY. Emotive pleas & blackmail, intimidation and social pressures to make people conform to an unproven dogma are not real science...
In reality, science has simply failed miserably to provide an explanation, just as it failed to explain schizophrenia, AIDS, cancer, the origins of life etc etc.
Science is a deceptive cult, programming BELIEVERS.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious failed to explain AIDS? What backwater are you from?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
1. No evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality exists.
2. The fact that no conscious choice is involved says NOTHING about a genetic basis for the phenomenon by default.
Fortunately reality is more complex.
If you're an anglophone, do you remember having learned english?
If you're an anglophone, does that mean "genes" "CODE FOR ENGLISH EXPRESSION"?
Hmm?
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
... it is automatically PRESUMED it must then result from biological make-up.
Note the maker of this video simply goes: "it's a polygenic trait".
WHY does he say this?
Because if a responsible gene isn't found, then it is AUTOMATICALLY PRESUMED that multiple genes must control the trait.
So either science comes up with a gene, and goes: "It's genetic".
OR science does NOT come up with a gene but STILL goes "It's genetic".
Keep in mind:
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Most genetics exists as compromise between what's ideal and what doesn't work. It's entirely possible that if you removed every trace of impetuous to go gay, you'd necessarily also remove all traces of sex drive from humankind. Similarly to how your immune system can work against you evolution doesn't care about perfect, merely whether genes life your fail to bring genes LIKE yours to the next generation. (Hint: that is NOT always done through SELF reproduction)
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo
We know each other from an atheist thread where I've spent quite some time, as have you.
I've recently left that thread for good, and find it very bizarre that you and several of your companions have taken the trouble to FOLLOW me over the internet, stalking me.
Please understand that I left that thread for good reasons & have no inclination to talk to you again, especially since you've shown to be profoundly intellectually dishonest.
DON'T STALK ME TROLL! Get a life!
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious I go wherever I please. I do not stalk anyone. That you lie about me being dishonest is itself the height of dishonesty. Shame on you. I've never ONCE been dishonest with you. If you can't met the challenge posted then just say so. I'm not surprised you try to find a way out of it. You're a weasel through and through.
BTW, how the fuck would I 'follow' you? Can you tell me where I'm gonna post next?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo
"BTW, how the fuck would I 'follow' you? "
Really says it all! Nothing is easier than following people over the net & you know it.
Bye Mr. Plagiarist, this is THE LAST FOOD you get out of me.
I don't feed trolls anymore.
DON'T STALK ME!
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago