KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

A different kind of abortion question

m4mpetcock · 4287

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

TinyDancer

  • Guest
Reply #20 on: July 08, 2013, 02:57:04 PM
Thank you Lady.  The person I love most in the world is gay.  I have known him since I was 8 years old.  If not for him I would have lost faith in mankind long time ago.  Makes me both angry and sad that because of all the labels we place on folks we miss out on becoming acquainted with incredible people.



Offline Well Behaved Lady

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 3,504
    • Woos/Boos: +535/-8
    • Gender: Female
Reply #21 on: July 08, 2013, 03:04:37 PM
Thank you Lady.  The person I love most in the world is gay.  I have known him since I was 8 years old.  If not for him I would have lost faith in mankind long time ago.  Makes me both angry and sad that because of all the labels we place on folks we miss out on becoming acquainted with incredible people.

I couldn't agree with you more, I've just got to know someone new and although they don't come under a label, if I had gone with what society expects of me I wouldn't have taken the time to get to know them and missed out greatly.



gomez38555

  • Guest
Reply #22 on: July 08, 2013, 03:38:20 PM

Either way, I couldn't agree to abort a child of mine.

Did you mean in only the gay vs straight scenario or in all scenarios?

All scenarios.



Offline Fish

  • Stranger Than Fiction
  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,870
    • Woos/Boos: +260/-2
    • Gender: Male
  • A taste is a waste of time.
Reply #23 on: July 08, 2013, 03:40:01 PM
An interesting premise, m4m.

It will take me awhile to find the research without my professor's help, but the most recent studies indicate it is hormone levels in the womb which determine sexuality, and some mothers are more disposed to this combination of hormone levels (hence, not exactly a gene). Environment does play a part, but it is rather limited, except in extreme circumstances.

Back to the question- hell no I wouldn't be okay with that as the deciding factor for parents. Then again, I'm not okay with religious bigotry of any kind...

I wouldn't ask why some woman wanted an abortion, nor would I test a fetus for homosexuality. It is irrelevant.

Don't sweat the petty stuff, pet the sweaty stuff.


Offline GEMINIGUY

  • "I'm Rockin' My Life Away..."
  • GG
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *****
    • Posts: 18,473
    • Woos/Boos: +512/-59
    • Gender: Male
Reply #24 on: July 08, 2013, 03:41:11 PM
Liz, insightful comment. I loved it. A big WOO to you!

"If it's good enough for the Gemini Guys
Then it's good enough for me" - Adam Ant


Offline m4mpetcock

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 625
    • Woos/Boos: +26/-15
Reply #25 on: July 08, 2013, 05:29:12 PM
An interesting premise, m4m.

It will take me awhile to find the research without my professor's help, but the most recent studies indicate it is hormone levels in the womb which determine sexuality, and some mothers are more disposed to this combination of hormone levels (hence, not exactly a gene). Environment does play a part, but it is rather limited, except in extreme circumstances.

Back to the question- hell no I wouldn't be okay with that as the deciding factor for parents. Then again, I'm not okay with religious bigotry of any kind...

I wouldn't ask why some woman wanted an abortion, nor would I test a fetus for homosexuality. It is irrelevant.

I actually did a paper for an Academic Writing Class titled,

Homosexuality:  

Is it caused by nature or nurture?

Being that it's 16 pages long, I'm certain it would go well past the post size limit (I think it's 500 KB).  It's not groundbreaking.  Basically, for the paper, you just chose argument/sources from both sides and pitted them against each other, then drew your own conclusion.  But there were some interesting therories.  

One source I found interesting was (copy & paste from my paper):


Dr. Anthony Bogaert (2006), a professor of Psychology at Brock University, Canada, theorized that male homosexuality can be traced to “fraternal birth order,” a theory which claims that it is more common for male homosexuals to be the youngest, or merely the younger, of the males having biological older brothers from the same birth mother.  The theory is that a mother’s immune system remembers prior male gestations and, in an immunological response, reacts to newer male gestations as foreign, producing anti-male antibodies.  The reason her immune system would not remember earlier female gestations is because she herself is female, thus any female gestations would not be reacted to as foreign.  

   Bogaert (2006) conducted a study using four samplings of homosexual and heterosexual men, three of which were from past studies, and one new study in which he recruited candidates himself in order to test and prove his theory.  The results of his study showed more instances of younger homosexual men that had older male siblings from the same birth mother.  The data did not show the same results for males raised in the same household with older nonbiological (step, half, and/or adopted) male siblings.  


Bogaert, A. (2006).  Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).  Retrieved May 9, 2007 from:  http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0511152103v1.pdf



Now, in my family, the two oldest (both male) are hetero.  Then my gay brother, my gay sister, then me.  So, we do fit into that theory.  But that doesn't explain instances when the oldest in the family is a gay male.  Interesting nonetheless. 

OK, I know we're veering off topic slightly, but a good discussion is still a good discussion.  
« Last Edit: July 08, 2013, 05:31:10 PM by m4mpetcock »

I can resist anything but temptation.  - Oscar Wilde


Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #26 on: July 08, 2013, 05:40:12 PM
I believe some study or another indicated that if a woman has had a son, oter sons have a higher probability of being gay. Remember that a woman's hoemones are different than those of a male and it wracks holy hell with her balance.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline Elizabeth

  • Life Is Short........Play Naked..!!!
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,768
    • Woos/Boos: +392/-9
    • Gender: Female
Reply #27 on: July 08, 2013, 05:59:58 PM
You can not transfer/transmit hormones from a female to a embryo.
You can transmit genetic material however.
In other words if you were a screaming bitch all your life, it's doubtful your offspring would be by genetics (maybe by enviroment, but that's outside stimulus not internal).
Simply put...if by some chance that a "homosexual" male got you pregnant, it's very very doubtful that your son/daughter would be "gay" just because he was.
Another thing to consider is this:  If two homosexual females adopt a child, only outside stimulus would affect the child (the way he/she is raised)..and then there is very little correlation that the child (adopted) would be gay at all, (short of forcing it upon him/her).

Love,
Liz
 



Janus

  • Guest
Reply #28 on: July 08, 2013, 06:09:27 PM
You can not transfer/transmit hormones from a female to a embryo.
You can transmit genetic material however.
In other words if you were a screaming bitch all your life, it's doubtful your offspring would be by genetics (maybe by enviroment, but that's outside stimulus not internal).
Simply put...if by some chance that a "homosexual" male got you pregnant, it's very very doubtful that your son/daughter would be "gay" just because he was.
Another thing to consider is this:  If two homosexual females adopt a child, only outside stimulus would affect the child (the way he/she is raised)..and then there is very little correlation that the child (adopted) would be gay at all, (short of forcing it upon him/her).

Love,
Liz
 

Ok, let us say that a gay couple does indeed adopt a child. The fact that this young person grows up observing same sex interaction, does it not lead one to believe that that young person may be more inclined to experiment with a same sex partner? Therefore it would seem that the environmental condition would play a roll in the sexual development of that young person.

It is my assertion, that a child of same sex couples might very well become bisexual as a result of the experimental process. As we grow and develop, do we not emulate our parents? Perhaps this person may find sex with a same sex partner enjoyable but still have the want of an opposite sex partner as well. I realize that hetro couples do indeed produce Bi and homosexual children. However, with the fact that the child is seeing the interactions of a same sex couple wouldn't they be more inclined to give same sex as well as hetro sex a try?



Offline Elizabeth

  • Life Is Short........Play Naked..!!!
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,768
    • Woos/Boos: +392/-9
    • Gender: Female
Reply #29 on: July 08, 2013, 06:18:56 PM
Janus!!!!
I said OUTSIDE stimulus.!!!
Environmental Factors.!!!.....Not Genetic.
LOL....Your repeating me, using different words.
However, as to your gay adoption....The real stimulus would not come from the parents (that's visual)..the real stimulus is from the peer's .....High School can have a lasting effect on a person. example child's parents are gay (visual) child in high school develops normal relationship with other sex simply due to being around them and in a more intimate contact position (walking to school, eating lunch, sports, class,..etc).
If the parents were gay, and they forcefully attempted to make the child gay....The state would step in right away.

Love,
Liz



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #30 on: July 08, 2013, 06:37:40 PM
I agree, you cannot transfer hormones, however the chemical mixture will influence the growth of the fetus. I'm sketchy on the science. I understood the study to mean that the chemical balance of the mother is altered when carrying a male child, in a way similar to what happens with a sperm from a male who has a different Rh-factor from the mother.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


gomez38555

  • Guest
Reply #31 on: July 08, 2013, 06:38:11 PM
Janus!!!!
I said OUTSIDE stimulus.!!!
Environmental Factors.!!!.....Not Genetic.
LOL....Your repeating me, using different words.


Love,
Liz


That way he sounds more intelligent :roll:



Offline Elizabeth

  • Life Is Short........Play Naked..!!!
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,768
    • Woos/Boos: +392/-9
    • Gender: Female
Reply #32 on: July 08, 2013, 07:06:43 PM
I feel like I'm in Sex Ed 101.
The female egg does not have the ability to decide sex.
The male sperm decides sex.
The female reproductive tract by virtue of PH allows or kills certain sperm.
the body system (sorry guys) is far more complicated in the female than in the male.
(in other words, females are superior to you guys).
Basic science....I apologize for being a snot about it.
Now, Chemical balance in a female is dependant on the outside factors (again environment)....Food/Exercise/Vitamins/Minerals....all are able to influence the womb.
Sickness is another factor that can have drastic effect on both mother and unborn child.the basic chemical make up does not change in the body of the womb,
PH will rise and fall, The embryo will take on which ever genetic (dominate) is for blood type ( O A B AB )...O being the most common (then there is + or - ). This is actually the most dangerous stage of unborn life (for both the mother and baby). Severe and life threatening reactions can and will do occur for non-matching blood types. (ie: Mother is B- and baby is A+ ) The cross transmission of blood can be fatal.
For some reason I think I'm way to deep into this.....sorry guys

Love,
Liz




Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #33 on: July 08, 2013, 07:14:10 PM
Oh just write up an article for publication in Science magazine

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline Elizabeth

  • Life Is Short........Play Naked..!!!
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,768
    • Woos/Boos: +392/-9
    • Gender: Female
Reply #34 on: July 08, 2013, 07:21:22 PM
Ughggggggg...............
I worte enough papers for college.
Never again will I do that.

Love,
Liz



snowm

  • Guest
Reply #35 on: July 08, 2013, 08:41:50 PM

Either way, I couldn't agree to abort a child of mine.

Did you mean in only the gay vs straight scenario or in all scenarios?

All scenarios.
I am not so sure I could agree to bringing to term my child if it had an exposed spinal cord, severely under developed brain, etc.

Now you hate snowm people, read what I said, 'agree with.' We all know in the end if momma aint happy aint no one happy.



Offline Elizabeth

  • Life Is Short........Play Naked..!!!
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,768
    • Woos/Boos: +392/-9
    • Gender: Female
Reply #36 on: July 08, 2013, 08:58:32 PM
Again Snow is bringing to light.
The "God" syndrome that science has created.
We have the ability to over ride what genetics would normally eliminate.
Fatal genetics are just that and nature does everything in it's power to eliminate that which is not beneficial to the species (human or Animal).

The God syndrome is just that....we can save what should have naturally died.
And in doing so (create an unnatural burden on society and parents for taking care of something that should not have lived to begin with).
Sorry about being so blunt/callous about it, but there is no nice way to explain natural selection, and science. 

Love,
Liz
 



Offline Gina Marie

  • So fucking done with it all.
  • Global Moderator
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 9,470
    • Woos/Boos: +1376/-70
    • Gender: Female
  • Rumors Of My Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
Reply #37 on: July 08, 2013, 11:41:46 PM
For some reason I think I'm way to deep into this.....sorry guys




snowm

  • Guest
Reply #38 on: July 09, 2013, 01:46:00 AM
Again Snow is bringing to light.
The "God" syndrome that science has created.
We have the ability to over ride what genetics would normally eliminate.
Fatal genetics are just that and nature does everything in it's power to eliminate that which is not beneficial to the species (human or Animal).

The God syndrome is just that....we can save what should have naturally died.
And in doing so (create an unnatural burden on society and parents for taking care of something that should not have lived to begin with).
Sorry about being so blunt/callous about it, but there is no nice way to explain natural selection, and science. 

Love,
Liz
 

Natural selection is only slowed down by saving more lives. The strongest of the species are still the most attractive and therefore the most likely to mate.

Doesn't really apply to humans anymore. There is no strength or reproductive efficacy found in the ability to artificially augment your body. Basing that of course on what we are told to be attracted to thanks to the media...



Offline Fish

  • Stranger Than Fiction
  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,870
    • Woos/Boos: +260/-2
    • Gender: Male
  • A taste is a waste of time.
Reply #39 on: July 09, 2013, 01:48:31 AM
I believe some study or another indicated that if a woman has had a son, oter sons have a higher probability of being gay.


Actually, it's the other way around.

Remember that a woman's hoemones are different than those of a male and it wracks holy hell with her balance.

Yep.

Don't sweat the petty stuff, pet the sweaty stuff.