People who question whether God exists, should also question whether people are born gay - Elliot Page Discussion

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

There were two dudes in my elementary school when I was a kid who played with the girls on the playground (skipping rope, jacks, etc.) and who slapped instead of punched when pushed to fight another boy. Both grew up to be gay. People are born that way, just like some people are born with large ears or taller or shorter than average. Just a roll of the genetic dice.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 4 years ago

It sure is a roll of the genetic dice to be raised by soft betas. Raised. Not born.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

There could be something to that today. Might have more to do with parents not being allowed to discipline their own children. The state raises children nowadays through schools and media.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 4 years ago

Well that’s no fun. On Twitter you would’ve derailed into literal death threats by now, at the same time as telling me how righteous you are.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I'm not a liberal. Nor am I a conservative. I am, however, old enough to listen to others and consider other points of view.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 4 years ago

In 2021, that makes you a literal Nazi.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I know. People are are intentionally dense and stupid, or just naturally stupid. It certainly belittles the suffering of those who lived when actual nazis walked the earth.

reply

[–] Martoto (5024) 4 years ago

You don't know what you're talking about.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Profound response. You should write fortune cookie messages for a living.

reply

[–] Martoto (5024) 4 years ago

If you agree that gay people are only raised by "soft beta" parents then you don't know what you're talking about.

Nothing more needs to be said than that.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I didn't agree with that. Some simple reading skills should have made that obvious.

reply

[–] Jimmyt11111 (137) 4 years ago

Ok gays are born. But to go and chop bits off yourself and or stitch bits on and say that makes you a different gender is mental.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

That all may be the result of a highly affluent society with too much free time.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 4 years ago

It may also be masochistic.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

That's possible as well. Middle and upper class Americans do seem to hate themselves.

reply

[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 4 years ago

Two of my three brothers are gay and we were army brats to an overbearing Evangelical couple, so it definitely wasn't a raised-that-way issue.

Trouble is the definition is based on glitzy, campy, easy-to-categorise mannerisms and the expectation a gay man won't be masculine. Both my brothers' gay friends/partners are pretty regular guys with very few tells who spend more time in the gym than any straight guys I know.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 4 years ago

This is kind of a funny inversion that culture does. Growing up in the 90s, it was pretty much only the gay guys (and pro athletes) that went to the gym.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 4 years ago

Nah, you can't be born gay because the hormones that secrete the neurotransmitters that allow humans to perceive sexuality is a postnatal development.

In other words, it's physiologically impossible for a human to be born gay since gonadotropin isn't secreted until puberty, or unless there is some kind of prepubescent stimulation to trigger the neurotransmitters early. You can read more about it here:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27300173/

And here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323479127000020

That is why no matter how Liberals, Leftists, and Progressives try to promote all of their loony conspiracies, it still doesn't change hard, irrefutable scientific data. They even eventually had to concede that there was no gay gene, because there never was and never will be.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

Sexual expression is based on environmental stimuli. Your sex organs without stimulation are just organs. They require some form of external stimulation to function as biology intended. The neurotransmitters they produce also require external stimuli, which is impossible in a prenatal state.

As an aside, a hazardous guess might be that your two brothers may have been molested or sexually abused when they were young, which is why they turned out gay. Many studies indicate that most homosexual men have had same-sex childhood experiences, usually due to rape or molestation.

reply

[–] Terez (236) 4 years ago

Oh? Please explain how homosexual children keep popping up in the households of conservative families then. Please explain why gay conversion camps never worked. If people aren't born gay then why would they be gay in countries where it is a death sentence to be gay?

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 4 years ago

Indoctrinated gay camps at school and penis power everywhere on tv

reply

[–] Terez (236) 4 years ago

Then please explain where the first gay came from, and how in a world without television gay people have always existed?

Homosexuality isn't a recent phenomena, it's been around so long that it is even mentioned in your bible.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 4 years ago

Of course the bible mentions homosexuality, it explicitly denounces it. Although Christians should keep in mind that it denounces the act, not the person.

Regarding your question, I interpreted the context of it in relation to the increasing frequency of gay sexuality, or as you put it “homosexual children keep popping up”. It’s the approval and acceptance of it that is a recent phenomenon.

Where as really it should be treated just like any other sin, such as cheating spouses, alcoholism, etc. Only when a problem is diagnosed can someone get help.

reply

[–] Terez (236) 4 years ago

Homosexuality isn't increasing in frequency, it's always been there. The difference is that you were never aware of it because homosexuals had to hide from bigots like you who would murder them for daring to have sex the "wrong way."

There has never been a successful "treatment" for homosexuality, because there is nothing to cure. People don't need to be diagnosed as homosexual and be forced to conform to your version of reality, you are the one who should be diagnosed as homophobic and be forced to conform to the reality you actually live in.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 4 years ago

Who’s the bigot? You’re the one putting words into my mouth. Pretty ironic considering raging homophobes like yourself are the most vocal.

People aren’t born gay. Therefore it’s treatable. 100%! You’d rather give a drug addict more heroin until they overdose. Your position is hateful and toxic.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

I don't see any evidence a person is born gay and it makes no sense biologically.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 4 years ago

Correct.

reply

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 4 years ago

I don't see any evidence a person is born gay...

Well you would have to actually look for it before you could see it.

...and it makes no sense biologically.

Why doesn't it make sense biologically ? Are you saying that people aren't born heterosexual ?

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

Show me the evidence. There must a gay gene. Right?

It doesn't make sense biologically because a gay man would still have to procreate with a woman. He can't do it with another man.

Being gay is quite obviously a product of a person's surroundings. As we grow up we are inundated with all kinds of stimuli that lead us to our likes and dislikes. That includes sexually. Some of us, a very small percentage, become attracted to the same sex. Most of us are drawn to the opposite sex.

Liberals want to sell the world people are born that way, part of their pandering program. So much for their devotion to 'science'. The same way they sell climate change. It's settled!

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 4 years ago

There's at least some indication that the sisters of gay males have more children than sisters of heterosexual males.

There's no cultural or ethnic distinction in this regard.

So it's scientifically possible that the same gene expresses itself differently in males and females, yet still produces enough of itself to remain in the gene pool.

Saying "it doesn't make sense biologically" just shows a failure of imagination. Nothing more.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

No, it states a fact. An island of all gay men will die out. An island of lesbians will die out. Biologically, they NEED the opposite sex to survive and perpetuate the species, which is at loggerheads with the idea people are born gay. The truth is people want to think people are born gay because it is politically correct. How about liberals display a honesty for once, a little humility, and admit homosexuality is much more likely a product of their surroundings than some innate desire to procreate with the same sex.

reply

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 4 years ago

Learn something about genetics and stop making a fool of yourself.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

I took a class on genetics. There is no such gay gene. Why is that so hard to accept? It's obvious.

reply

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 4 years ago

Genetics for Dummies doesn't count.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

Does it make sense to you, from a biological perspective, that a person is born gay and yet can only procreate with someone of the opposite sex, whom they would naturally not be attracted to? Use your common sense.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 years ago

I don't know if there is or is not a gay gene, but your reasoning is nonsense. If you really took a class on genetics you'd realize that.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

At our most basic level, we are engineered to perpetuate the species. A gay man cannot do so without a woman. Which puts a serious damper on the idea a person is born gay. Just because you want to believe something doesn't make it so. Liberals constantly berate the rest of the world for their love of science and yet constantly ignore it when it doesn't support their agenda.
At the very least you could admit there is no proof a person is born gay. Rather than saying it's decided. Much like climate change. Do you honestly believe in science? Doesn't seem like it.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 years ago

This has nothing to do with what I want to believe. I don't want to believe anything. I want to know the truth. It also has nothing to do with politics.

No one knows why some people are homosexual, but it could certainly be based on genetics. Not all genes express themselves, and there's no reason that a gay gene couldn't be passed on by a straight person. Consider eye color. Two blue-eyed people can have a brown-eyed child. Realize also that not all genes work in so direct a fashion. Sometimes it takes a combination of genes to produce an outcome. Other times, it takes the presence of a gene in combination with an environmental factor to produce an outcome. Perhaps there is a gene that creates the possibility of homosexuality, with the outcome dependent on life events.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

I agree. So why do liberals bring politics into everything?
I am asking the most basic logical question. If it is natural for a person to be born gay then why would it not then be possible for a man to reproduce with another man? All living things are encoded to survive. Not to die out immediately.
Will you admit it is pure politics that compels you to believe people are born gay?
We all have likes/dislikes we develop over the years without really understanding the millions of stimuli that forged them.
Liberal science is like religions you love to mock for their 'faith'. Except Muslims, of course. What is it but blind faith when you say a person is born gay without a shred of evidence?

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 years ago

I don't believe people are born gay, nor do I believe they are not born gay. I don't know. I think it's possible, and I would not be at all surprised if we discover a genetic cause, but none of that has anything to do with politics.

And why are you making all these suppositions about me? Who have I mocked for having faith? When have I mentioned Muslims in any context?

If a person is born with a gene that makes him gay, he can still reproduce with a woman. Many gay men do have children, either because they live in denial about their true feelings due to societal pressure, or because they don't realize until later in life what those feelings are.

A person can be born with a gene that causes homosexuality, but not become homosexual. Perhaps it's like eye color, as I mentioned, or something even more complex in that external forces are require to turn on that gene.

None of that has anything to do with my political leanings.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

But it has everything to do with liberals and their agenda. Without any proof they declare people are born gay. It's settled. This is the ideology of science we are talking about. They mention science at least 10 times a day to back up their claims. Without any real data, of course.
Liberals pander to certain groups and they are scared to death to offend them. That's why they say people are born gay or any other sexual deviancy. They are likewise scared to offend black people. Or Muslims. It's the most bizarre ideology. They call it an 'umbrella'. I call it insanity. What else do you call pandering to Muslims who hate homosexuals so much it is legal in many of their countries to kill them just for being gay? They are totally at odds with one another but liberals pander to them both.
The shooter in Colorado. When he was 'white', they blame him and white people. When they found out he was from Syria, they immediately went to blaming the gun. That should sound familiar. The Orlando night club massacre?
Liberals are insane.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 4 years ago

If you took a genetics class you would know there is no gay gene:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

Never has been, never will be.

It's also physiologically impossible for a person to be born gay because the hormones that are secreted that allow humans to neurologically perceive sexuality (viz., taste, touch, sound, smell, sight) don't develop until pubescent years.

The hormone secreted from the gonads is called gonadotropin, and you can't be born with those hormones active since the organ that secretes those hormones requires proteins and nutrients through somatic maturation in order to eventually secrete said hormones. Again, that's a postnatal development, not a prenatal development. Ergo, you cannot be born gay.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 years ago

If you are arguing that an infant does not have sexual urges, then sure, no one is born sexually active, with preferences set. However, a person's sexual orientation are quite possibly determined, either partially or entirely, by genetics, even if those desires don't manifest until later in life.

In other words, you're making a nonsense, semantical argument. "Born gay" or "born with the combination of genes that leads one to become gay" are the same thing. The point is not if a baby pops out looking to hit the gay clubs, the point is that when the baby grows up, his sexual preference will be based on genetic factors.

There is likely a genetic cause of schizophrenia, but no baby is born already schizophrenic, as it typically manifests in the teenage years, sometimes later. In exactly the same way, no baby is born already gay anymore than a baby is born already straight, even though the genes that will determine their future sexual orientation are already in place.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 years ago

Also worth pointing out: the conclusion of the study you linked is that "sexual preferences have a genetic component." The study you shared to "prove" there is no genetic component to homosexuality states that there is. You misunderstood the study, likely because the study determined that there is not one, singular gene that determines sexual preference, but rather it is determined, like most things, by many genes working in tandem.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 4 years ago

No, the study offers (false) hope to people like you who don't have a clue how physiology actually works. It's why you can't point to one peer reviewed study about prenatal allele strands indicating homosexuality.

You (and Leftists are) essentially arguing a presupposition and hoping to find evidence to back it up, that's not how science works.

There is no single nor multiple gay genetic allele strand because gay expression is an epigenetic occurrence that requires a very specific hormonal component + environmental stimuli that allows people to neurally perceive sexual stimuli.

Specifically this component is called gonadotropin, and it only secretes as a neurotransmitter during puberty (or prepubescent promiscuity). It is only affected by environmental stimuli. Ergo, it is a postnatal development based on somatic maturation. You can briefly get the gist of it here:
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P01953

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780323479127000020

In other words you CANNOT, under any circumstances be born gay. That preference is based on an impetus that CANNOT exist in humans until postnatal development (viz., you need to be able to smell, taste, touch, or hear to experience said stimuli).

Scientifically, physiologically, biologically it's literally just not possible to be born with a preference that requires external stimulation.

You can argue semantics, opinions, and postulations all you want, but you can't change biological science; and the biological science says that such a physiological development only occurs during postnatal maturation.

Even your claim that preferences are set is wrong. Preference is a psychophenomenological trait that develops by environmental stimuli, again, this is based on the maturation of the senses, and gametes that help influence neurological development from gonadal secretions during puberty. Psychologically, everyone is born asexual -- but humans are biologically sexually dimorphic, so puberty usually orients people into heterosexuals, but environment and influence can alter that orientation, usually through molestation or rape.

In fact, most adult homosexuals note that they suffered some kind of abuse as a child, which can affect the orientation of an individual:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11501300/

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 4 years ago

I just explained how it COULD make sense biologically, at a genetic level.

Once again, the same gene could express itself differently based on the gender of its host, propagating disproportionately through one gender while not propagating at all through the other gender.

If you REALLY took a class on genetics, you'd be able to address the possibility at that level. It's your burden, since you're the one claiming "it doesn't make sense."

Instead you play ignorant and shift the scope from genetics (which you claim to understand) to "an island of all men" which is an absurd example that has nothing to do with genetics. No one's saying an island of all men could reproduce. Stop running away from the actual discussion and address the actual subject.

Address the genetic possibiilty set forth. Anything else is obvious evasion and de facto admission that you're wrong.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

Can two gay men have sex and reproduce? Yes or no?

reply

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 4 years ago

Don't feed the troll.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 4 years ago

And thus do you admit you're wrong with this obvious evasion.

But just for fun:

Can genes express themselves differently based on the host's gender? yes or no?

Are you assiduously avoiding this point? yes or no?

Oh, and the answer to your evasion is "yes." Gay men have sex AND do reproduce, as long as they are not the only two humans in existence.

They can reproduce and pass their genes along with the assistance of any of about 3.5billion other humans on the planet.

Didn't think of that, did you? Boo!

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

I am not evading anything. I am cutting to the chase and addressing the most important fact which is two men cannot reproduce with one another. That is backed up by thousands of years of data. We are talking millions of times engaged in sex and not a single instance where a man impregnated another man.
People are not born gay but they are certainly influenced by their surroundings as they develop and a small percentage of people develop an attraction to the same sex. Some of them later on develop an attraction to both sexes. It happens. The mind really controls our likes and desires even more powerfully than our inborn biological urges. That is much more likely than a gay gene, which has never once been discovered despite almost desperate attempts.
What does it matter? Well, only the truth, not that liberals care about the truth.
But whether a person is born gay or not shouldn't diminish the fact they are gay. But liberals seem to think it does. That's why liberals so utterly unhinged.

reply

[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 4 years ago

This question is outdated - is sex *only* for reproduction?

No. Plenty of people - and animals - enjoy recreational sex. Male giraffes have been observed to more commonly engage in 'recreational' sex with one another than female giraffes.

You talk about liberal agendas and the like, but the assertion that sex can only be about procreation as some sort of proof that biology doesn't throw in some curveballs now and then is conservative crap, otherwise there would be as much pushback against people who can't have children for other reasons, but seemingly as long as those people are heterosexual, right wingers conveniently forget this narrative.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

Yes, that is learned behavior. It's not innate.

reply

[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 4 years ago

Suggest you interview some giraffes and get their point of view on it rather than decide you know best.

Convenient that your reply only addressed a part of what I wrote also.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

Why is it so difficult for liberals to accept people aren't born gay? It's like a religion with you.

reply

[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 4 years ago

Why is it so difficult for you to read? Nowhere did I state I believed people were born gay.

Your eagerness to 'own' liberals seems to short out the rest of your cognitive functions, such as randomly bringing in Muslims and shooters to an entirely unrelated discussion - yet you have the gaul to say it's liberals who are unhinged.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

Liberals are unhinged. They want to boycott a whole state because they expanded voting.

reply

[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 4 years ago

Uh-huh.

You've gone from your whole science-based approach about biology to a rant about politics. Tell me again you're not the unhinged one.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

The whole idea people are born gay, case closed, the science is settled, is entirely politically motivated so the left can pander to the LGBTQ.

reply

[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 4 years ago

Your agenda is starting to show through the cracks.

Just own your prejudices and move on.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 4 years ago

As others pointed out, there is no gay gene, never has been one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

But to address your points on a scientific level...

Once again, the same gene could express itself differently based on the gender of its host, propagating disproportionately through one gender while not propagating at all through the other gender.

What you're referring to is called epigenetics, or the expression of genes through the propagation of environmental stimuli via phenotype mutation.

But said expression requires -- as mentioned -- external stimuli.

However, what you're more specifically referring to related to homosexuality is based on gametes from gonadotropin, which is attached to the development of the gonads. In turn, these hormones allow humans to perceive what we call sexual attraction and/or stimulation.

If you do any research on gonadal development, you'll understand that biologically they don't secrete gonadoropin until pubescent years (normally).

It is, however, possible for the hormones to active in prepubescent formative years due to early epigenetic stimulation. This usually only occurs through early childhood promiscuity, molestation, abuse, or rape.

That's usually why in studies it notes that many homosexuals were abused by the same sex when they were younger:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11501300/

This can completely disorient the natural progression of someone's sexual orientation, hence why they may turn out gay.

reply

[–] Roguemail (1614) 4 years ago

But nature does not make everyone gay. So the notion that our species would die out is plain silly.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

It's a fact. Do you mean to say an island of nothing but gay men would be able to survive? How?

reply

[–] Roguemail (1614) 4 years ago

Not the point. The point is not ALL people are born gay.

And why would you populate an island with only gay men?

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 4 years ago

No one is born gay. That is the point. Do you have proof to the contrary? And someone saying they knew all their lives they were gay is not proof.

reply

[–] Rishik (44) 4 years ago

It's been unequivocally proven that there is no "gay gene". How do you ask? Identical twin studies don't result in people with the same sexual orientation. If sexuality was genetic, then identical twins would express the genes in the same way, they don't because it isn't genetic.

https://www.hollanddavis.com/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 4 years ago

You're 100% correct.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14381) 4 years ago

They aren't. The only reason they're more noticeable today is because the kids are getting more and more influence from school and tv. There used to be way less of them 30 years ago. I have yet to meet gay children, they usually "realize" their orientation when they're teenagers and have hit puberty, and they're more likely to go in that direction if someone they like or respect is telling them that it's a good thing.

Evidence to also support the "choice" theory, is that there are people who grew up with gay parents who grew up straight. So despite having all that influence, they chose to remain straight.

Being gay is a choice, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Those that claim one is born that way are not wanting to take responsibility for their actions and behavior.

Expect some nuclear explosions after this posting. And keep in mind I'm just one of millions of people who think this way, don't think of me as an outlier. I'm just one of the few willing to speak about it.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75523) 4 years ago

"I have yet to meet gay children, they usually "realize" their orientation when they're teenagers and have hit puberty,"

YUP...JUST LIKE STRAIGHT KIDS REALIZE HOW AWESOME THE OPPOSITE SEX IS...AFTER THEY HIT PUBERTY.

"Evidence to also support the "choice" theory, is that there are people who grew up with gay parents who grew up straight. So despite having all that influence, they chose to remain straight."

ARE YOU DENSE...TWO GAY PARENTS MEAN NOTHING IF YOU WERE BORN STRAIGHT...AND VISE VERSA.

"Expect some nuclear explosions after this posting. And keep in mind I'm just one of millions of people who think this way, don't think of me as an outlier. I'm just one of the few willing to speak about it"

SO INCORRECT AND WILLING TO HIGHLIGHT IT....COOL.

reply

[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 4 years ago

There are loads of obvious kids around, go to a theater class. Just because they're not consciously aware of it yet, doesn't mean it's not the next stop on the train to Gaysville.

"and they're more likely to go in that direction if someone they like or respect is telling them that it's a good thing."

Possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.

There weren't "way less" gay folks around, social circumstance has changed to the point where they're not hiding out in dingy back alley bars anymore.

Even if nobody is born gay, they certainly have no conscious control over the 'choice' and anybody that thinks they do is, frankly, a simpleton.

What we need less of is heterosexual experts on the homosexual experience.

"Being gay is a choice, don't let anyone tell you otherwise."

I also recall you in another thread once saying you had "Scientific evidence to back it up" and, when asked, you never replied, so ante up.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 4 years ago

There’s no evidence that being gay isn’t a choice, just like how atheists claim there’s no evidence of God.

So why place faith in one and not the other?

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 years ago

You're comparing two completely different things. Believing that a supernatural being exists, despite any evidence, is a pure leap of faith. Trying to surmise the origins of homosexual urges in a person has nothing to do with faith. It's no different than trying to find a cure for cancer, or any other scientific endeavor.

Also, I don't think choice is the correct word, unless you actually believe people choose their sexual orientation. If you do, then there is overwhelming evidence that it isn't chosen. I believe you are unsure if a person is homosexual because of genetics or because of some thing or things that happen to him when during his formative years, or if it's a combination of both. No one knows the answer to that, but it has nothing to do with faith.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 4 years ago

No, cancer is scientifically proven to exist. Being "born gay" is impossible to prove, therefore 100% depends on a leap of faith.

Logic, use it.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 years ago

Being born gay is absolutely something that can be proven scientifically. If a gene exists that causes a person to be gay, it can be isolated and understood in the same way that other genes are being identified. Just because we don't know *now* whether such a gene exists in no way means it is impossible ever to know.

reply

[–] Pete314 (3003) 4 years ago

Sorry, but that's stupid. First you write it CAN be proven, then you have to admit that there is so far NO WAY to do it. That's not science but wishful thinking.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 years ago

Are you really this dense, or is this an act? Let me try again, as if I am speaking to a 9-year-old.

You: Being gay is impossible to prove

Me: Just because we have not yet proven or disproven it does not mean it is impossible to do. It was not impossible to go to the Moon in 1968, it just hadn't been done yet.

You: I am confused. You say it can someday be proven or disproven but it has not been proven yet? That sounds like wish magic!

Me: **explains as if you are 9**

You: Still doesn't get it.

Me: **explains as if you are 5**

Just because you don't know how to do something today does not mean you cannot learn to do it tomorrow.

reply

[–] Pete314 (3003) 4 years ago

Yeah, I am really that dense, genius.
If it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove something then you can wait until hell freezes over and no science will deliver ever what you are looking for. There will be for example never ever a lightsaber, no matter how science evolves. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE.
You got it, genius?

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 years ago

You're either a troll or too uneducated to continue this conversation. Believe what you want.

reply

[–] asom (6824) 4 years ago

A lot of times science proves things empirically.

A guy in a catholic family, going to a catholic church, told since he is a child that gay sex is a sin and will burn in hell, has no contact cu other gay guys, feels deeply ashamed for being attracted to man.

And still turns out ... gay.

Empiric proof.

Or, you can prove me wrong and prove to me at what moment and how was he perverted.

reply

[–] Pete314 (3003) 4 years ago

It's so funny that everybody is looking for scientific proof when and how sexual orientation happens. But nobody doubts that EP felt like a man from the moment SHE was born. I can easily picture a desperate person, who was never able to satisfy the needs of her father because he always wanted a son, not a daughter. What might be the final solution to make daddy happy in the end?

reply

[–] asom (6824) 4 years ago

Well, that's a different thing. Because it's not attraction.

First of all: I'm a man. Do I even feel like I'm a ... man? Nope, i have NO idea how would i need to feel to validate that I'm a man.

For sure liking or not color pink, playing with guns or whatever you think it is doesn't make me less man than I'm, or more. Whatever i like to do has NOTHING to do with my gender or sex. Those are traditional gender roles and are quite fluid.

But I can see the point about the father - but that makes being transgender a social driven purpose, not being gay ... although Mulan didn't turn gay nor trans, at least not in the original story.

Let's face it, specially in the old times any father finding that the son was gay would rather disavow him, or even kill him (muslim style) - and you can still find gay people in all the times and areas, although based on your theory there should be NO gay people in those environments .

reply

[–] ChoovieMatt (148) 4 years ago

If you care to read what I wrote again, you'll see I didn't claim it wasn't a choice - I said it's not a conscious choice.

Ask any gay person about their realisation they'll likely tell you about the angst and fear of the situation, hardly the type of emotions connected to a free 'choice' someone would make.

Dickheads like AmeriGirl have clearly never even spoken to a gay person, let alone asked them about their experience.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 4 years ago

You're 100% correct.

The science also backs you up, especially neurophysiology.

If you want to actually shut down opposing arguments in the future, you can link people to a few irrefutable studies that coincide with your point.

No gay gene:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

Sexual expression comes from a hormone secretion via the gonads, which is a postnatal development. Viz., you can't be born sexually attracted to anyone because those hormones only develop during puberty:
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P01953

Gays can't procreate, they indoctrinate, usually recruiting those suffered childhood abuse, rape, or molestation:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11501300/

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14381) 4 years ago

Thank you very much cyguration :)

I remember talking over a hypothetical scenario with others about what would happen if everyone in the world was suddenly gay. The human race would basically die out, because nobody would want to have sex with the opposite gender and produce offspring. The only reason the gay community has lasted as long as it has is because they have a large pool of straight people to provide babies for them. If they didn't have that, they'd die off in just 2-3 decades. They basically need us normal people more than we need them. I think I've read of a creature that does that in nature....usually they go under the label of "parasite."

And here's irony for you; I was so shocked when I read that Alan Turing actually suggested that members of the LGBT community attempt to procreate at least once per person, so that they can produce more intelligent gay people for the future! Otherwise they will never be able to increase their numbers beyond recruiting teenagers and adults.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7146) 4 years ago

I think that if you believe someone is born with their sexual preference pre-determined, then there's no reason to expect that predetermination to equal heterosexual every time.

reply

[–] Tomiggo (186) 4 years ago

Why? We have proof that gay people exists but no one have proven that any gods exist. If people are born gay or not doesn't have anyting to do with god(s).

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 4 years ago

No one’s denying that gay people exist. You’re the only one to say that.

The premise is that gay people claim that they’re born gay. But they aren’t, they’re perverted to gayness.

reply

[–] asom (6824) 4 years ago

Any proof to your claim? (the conversion).

And no, god doesn't exist.

reply

[–] RichardBlaine (303) 4 years ago

Here, I believe I can settle this:

Let's put a man into a situation in which there's really no choice. We take this hypothetical man and we ask him if he'd rather have sex with another man or, say, Keira Knightley. We offer both options in the flesh. A gay man will move toward the former. But, as we can see, this cannot be of his own volition. I mean, it's Keira Knightley for God's sake.

You're welcome.

reply

[–] asom (6824) 4 years ago

Well, with a bit of imagination a gay man could f.. Keira. I mean, no tits no ass ...

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 4 years ago

Unfair example - I’m willing to bet a lot of gay men would cave in for Keira Knightly.

But maybe I’m exposing my bias - I’d shag Melissa McCarthy over The Rock, were I given the choice

reply