There are no straight Englishmen

[Majesty]

Explain how.

Never heared of Mendel, eh? There are recessive and dominant genes. Parents with blue eyes can give birth to a child with brown eyes, too, for instance. So what?

No,two blue-eyed parents can´t get brown-eyed offspring
that was all it just annoyed me

 

[NeverIsForever]

Hey, no need to get angry. I thought that only someone with no basic knowledge in genetics would ask how can two straight parents give birth to a gay child because it's obvious when you take the issue of dominant and recessive genes into consideration.

As Silent Song already pointed out, you missed the key phrase "no family history of homosexuality" that was part of my original statement. Perhaps it's still possible, if all the person's ancestors happened to be (non-expressing) carriers of a recessive gene that leads to homosexuality, but it's highly unlikely.

You should also remember that in the past gay people probably pretended to be straight because society was not as liberal as it is today. So there were many people who were gay but nobody knew it, and I'm guess there are many gays in the closet who marry to women these days and hide the fact they are gay.

Agreed 100%, but I don't see how this ties in with what we've been discussing. Are you suggesting that gay children of heterosexual couples may have a parent who is secretly gay and that's where their homosexuality comes from?

Yes, obesity is partly the result of fast food and the American lifestyle, it was not as a widespread disease in the past as it is now. However it must be genetic (again to a certain degree). If you let two different people eat the same food every day it is entirely possible that one would gain weight and one would lose weight (assuming they are of the same sex, height etc.). It has to do with your metabolism and stuff like that. I know someone who eats junk all the time but his stomach looks like a fucking chess board.

It IS entirely possible that in the situation you have described, one would gain weight and one would lose weight. However, I don't think anyone can become obese per se by eating the same amount as someone else of the same sex and height does to maintain a normal weight, unless you're talking extremes here. If one of them is, say, a marathon runner--yeah, their caloric requirements might make someone who never gets off the couch obese, even if the two are the same age, sex, and height. I believe being overweight can run in families, but morbid obesity wasn't a problem until recently. Our ancestors simply didn't get around to weighing 500 and 600 pounds, let alone 1000-some lbs. like the guy I just saw on the news. So unless obesity's the result of a fairly new genetic mutation, I believe society today is just experiencing the result of our own excess.

Yeah, it seems odd, but that's the way it is.

How? Evidence please...you have to understand that what you're saying is basically like trying to tell someone religious that God doesn't exist. It's a conflict of beliefs and I don't see hard evidence either way, therefore it's a matter of opinion. Do you have anything supporting this?

Don't you think Tom Cruise is more attractive than an old, fat, ugly woman?

Yes. And your point is? I'm female and I've already told you I'm straight. Incidentally I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise, but of course I'm going to find him more attractive than someone of my own gender. Especially when that individual is, as you put it, "old," "fat," and "ugly." So, should I assume you thought I was a guy?

Not that you'd make any of them out, yeah, but still... Everyone is attracted to both males and females, the question is how much.

Again...evidence please?

 

[kmik]

As Silent Song already pointed out, you missed the key phrase "no family history of homosexuality" that was part of my original statement. Perhaps it's still possible, if all the person's ancestors happened to be (non-expressing) carriers of a recessive gene that leads to homosexuality, but it's highly unlikely.


Agreed 100%, but I don't see how this ties in with what we've been discussing. Are you suggesting that gay children of heterosexual couples may have a parent who is secretly gay and that's where their homosexuality comes from?

I believe that even in the pre WW2 days there were many closet gays. It's not necessarily their parents but it could be their grandfathers or something, yep. In second thought I really don't know. See it's the observation of homosexuality in animals that makes me think it's genetic... I mean what social events could make a male duck fuck another? (and it could very well be a 'strong' duck)

It IS entirely possible that in the situation you have described, one would gain weight and one would lose weight. However, I don't think anyone can become obese per se by eating the same amount as someone else of the same sex and height does to maintain a normal weight, unless you're talking extremes here. If one of them is, say, a marathon runner--yeah, their caloric requirements might make someone who never gets off the couch obese, even if the two are the same age, sex, and height. I believe being overweight can run in families, but morbid obesity wasn't a problem until recently. Our ancestors simply didn't get around to weighing 500 and 600 pounds, let alone 1000-some lbs. like the guy I just saw on the news. So unless obesity's the result of a fairly new genetic mutation, I believe society today is just experiencing the result of our own excess.

Indeed morbid obesity is only a very recent problem caused only by the new American lifestyle. But if you compare two identical twins who grew in different houses you'll see that they weight just about the same, even if their nutrition wasn't all that similar. Brothers in the same family often don't weight the same even though they eat very similar foods. So it should be genetic.

How? Evidence please...you have to understand that what you're saying is basically like trying to tell someone religious that God doesn't exist. It's a conflict of beliefs and I don't see hard evidence either way, therefore it's a matter of opinion. Do you have anything supporting this?

Err... I'm guessing the way we grasp beauty is far too complex to be defined by a single gene. Also, some teenagers sometimes 'do' stuff with their own gender to have experience for the future (not fulltime but kissing etc.). Others are completely disgusted by that.

Yes. And your point is? I'm female and I've already told you I'm straight. Incidentally I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise, but of course I'm going to find him more attractive than someone of my own gender. Especially when that individual is, as you put it, "old," "fat," and "ugly." So, should I assume you thought I was a guy?

Yup I thought you were a guy

 

[kmik]

No,two blue-eyed parents can´t get brown-eyed offspring
that was all it just annoyed me

You are right. But brown eyed parents can get a blue eyed offspring.

 

[NeverIsForever]

I believe that even in the pre WW2 days there were many closet gays. It's not necessarily their parents but it could be their grandfathers or something, yep. In second thought I really don't know. See it's the observation of homosexuality in animals that makes me think it's genetic... I mean what social events could make a male duck fuck another? (and it could very well be a 'strong' duck)

Well I don't know about ducks. But in bonobos, for instance (unless I'm confusing ape species, which is entirely possible) lesser males engage in homosexual behavior with dominant or "alpha" males as a way to curry favor and show submission. I'm pretty sure this came up in a National Geographic article a while back...I'll see if I still have that issue lying around somewhere.

And I personally observed it in guinea pigs, where it was again a question of dominance. Dominant males, in addition to biting and fighting with lesser males, often attempted to mate with them. This always seemed to be a method of reinforcing their places in the social hierarchy--another way of letting their rivals know who was boss. Messed up, to be sure, but true.

Indeed morbid obesity is only a very recent problem caused only by the new American lifestyle. But if you compare two identical twins who grew in different houses you'll see that they weight just about the same, even if their nutrition wasn't all that similar. Brothers in the same family often don't weight the same even though they eat very similar foods. So it should be genetic.

If all other factors were constant then I'd have to agree with you, but the fact is that's often not the case. For example, some people are naturally more inclined to be active than others. Exercise (and the lack thereof) is a major factor in whether or not a person gains weight. So if one brother exercises and the other doesn't, they're going to have different weights regardless of genetics.

I think that a person can be genetically predisposed toward being overweight (i.e. it's easier to get that way and harder to change it once they are) but in the end it is one's own lifestyle and eating habits that must ultimately be held accountable for their weight.

Err... I'm guessing the way we grasp beauty is far too complex to be defined by a single gene. Also, some teenagers sometimes 'do' stuff with their own gender to have experience for the future (not fulltime but kissing etc.). Others are completely disgusted by that.

Exactly. Others are "completely" disgusted by that, as in they have no attraction whatsoever to people of their own gender. Reconcile that last statement with your previous statement that everyone is "gay to a certain degree."

 

[kmik]

Well I don't know about ducks. But in bonobos, for instance (unless I'm confusing ape species, which is entirely possible) lesser males engage in homosexual behavior with dominant or "alpha" males as a way to curry favor and show submission. I'm pretty sure this came up in a National Geographic article a while back...I'll see if I still have that issue lying around somewhere.

And I personally observed it in guinea pigs, where it was again a question of dominance. Dominant males, in addition to biting and fighting with lesser males, often attempted to mate with them. This always seemed to be a method of reinforcing their places in the social hierarchy--another way of letting their rivals know who was boss. Messed up, to be sure, but true.

Dunno. But what would possibly actually make them think of the idea?

If all other factors were constant then I'd have to agree with you, but the fact is that's often not the case. For example, some people are naturally more inclined to be active than others. Exercise (and the lack thereof) is a major factor in whether or not a person gains weight. So if one brother exercises and the other doesn't, they're going to have different weights regardless of genetics.

I think that a person can be genetically predisposed toward being overweight (i.e. it's easier to get that way and harder to change it once they are) but in the end it is one's own lifestyle and eating habits that must ultimately be held accountable for their weight.

Sports alone have very little impact on your weight in comparison to nutrition. People have different bodytypes regardless of what they eat (mesomorph, endomorph etc.) It's their metabolism, mainly... but we also burn a lot of energy when doing stupid stuff such as moving the legs while sitting, and some people tend to move their muscles more during the day even while not doing sports.

Exactly. Others are "completely" disgusted by that, as in they have no attraction whatsoever to people of their own gender. Reconcile that last statement with your previous statement that everyone is "gay to a certain degree."

No, I mean other straight teenagers. There's a difference between disgusted and not attracted, and you can be disgusted to... different degrees. You know I've read somewhere that in the past, Japanese warriors would carry a boy with them to battle to serve as a sex slave. Maybe society actually makes us disgusted of homosexuality even more while simultaneously promoting it - for instance we don't eat many foods in the west that they like in the east.

 

[Kenneth R.]

that's so funny it made me laugh. first you claim no one is totally A or B, and now you define people by A and B.

 

[kmik]

Sorry but I don't get you.

 

[NeverIsForever]

I apologize for not being able to let go of this and leave things well enough alone, but I truly can't resist. Sorry...

Dunno. But what would possibly actually make them think of the idea?

Boredom? Annoyance? Because they can? All it takes is one individual to conceive the idea for others to observe and potentially copy it. What made humans think of starting fire, or cooking food? Was that genetic too? Their ancestors didn't do it...

Sports alone have very little impact on your weight in comparison to nutrition. People have different bodytypes regardless of what they eat (mesomorph, endomorph etc.) It's their metabolism, mainly...

I agree that people have inherently different body types. No contest there. But I can't believe you're honestly trying to tell me that sports have very little impact on a person's weight. Ha! I ran cross-country in high school, and I ought to know. There's a big difference between running five to seven miles a day, every day, and not running at all. Trust me.

but we also burn a lot of energy when doing stupid stuff such as moving the legs while sitting, and some people tend to move their muscles more during the day even while not doing sports.

Okay, so? You've just supported the point that you were trying to contradict. I said that ultimately it's one's lifestyle and eating habits that determine his or her weight. I cited exercise as a factor, but exercise isn't limited to sports--it's anything that involves use of one's muscles. And as you have just pointed out, some people are more active than others. Those people are generally going to be thinner. Again, as a result of what they do and not what's in their DNA.

No, I mean other straight teenagers.

Who did you think I was talking about?

There's a difference between disgusted and not attracted, and you can be disgusted to... different degrees.

Yes, disgusted is a stronger word than "not attracted." "Not attracted" connotes disinterest; "disgusted" connotes revulsion. By acknowledging that certain people are "disgusted" by homosexuality, you've essentially concurred with my point that there are cases where no attraction to members of the same sex exists. Thus there is such a thing as a straight Englishman

You know I've read somewhere that in the past, Japanese warriors would carry a boy with them to battle to serve as a sex slave. Maybe society actually makes us disgusted of homosexuality even more while simultaneously promoting it - for instance we don't eat many foods in the west that they like in the east.

So did the Romans. What's your point? This doesn't seem relevant at all. First you say that there is no such thing as someone completely straight. Then you say homosexuality was common in the East. Then you note that there are differences between the West and East. No, really? So are you trying to tell me that there are certain countries where people can be 100% straight and other countries where they aren't? Because that, too, directly contradicts much of what you have said...

 

[kmik]

Damn I'm so fucking tired. I'll consider writing a reply tomorrow. But seriously, who cares who they prefer in bed. If they think AIDS is cool then it's fine with me. Why discuss it on an online forum.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

If they think AIDS is cool then it's fine with me.