Homophobes. Your nipples prove that you could have been Gay.

[Greatest I am]

Homophobes. Your nipples prove that you could have been Gay.

Zygotes are conceived as female. As they progress to embryos, chemical activity in the womb decides if that person will become a male or a female; or all the variations in between that we see in nature.

We are all whatever we are by the luck of the draw and we are all somewhere between heterosexual and homosexual. We likely all have a proportion of both and we mature to whatever nature, Gay or straight, predominates within us.

Homophobes target Gays as somehow un-natural. This is clearly wrong as Gays are generally born from heterosexual parents who are quite natural from the homophobic view. Even you my friend might produce a Gay child or grand child.

If homophobes are to hate Gays, their hate is misplaced. It is the creator of the Gay nature that, if anyone, should be hated. That is, the parents. These parents are people who are just as “normal” as you think you are.

If yours is a creator God, then God is the one you should hate as he directly created their Gay nature.

You are killing the messenger but you ignore the sender of that messenger. That is completely immoral and you target the innocent Gays instead of the guilty parents, or God.

If you are a male, just look at your nipples and recognize that you could have been born a female and that it is just chemical activity that made you a heterosexual male. Nipples are quite useless on men. Although I must admit that when my wife gives mine attention, I like and notice. That aside.

Just a bit more or less of your mothers chemistry and you would be one of the ones you hate. Remember that.

Change the labels in this quote to read women or Gays and it still show what we should all be thinking and doing for each other.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

Homophobes.
Does contemplating your nipples change your wrong view of who to hate enough for you to repent from your lack of tolerance of Gays?

Be you R C or Protestant, how about giving woman equality as well. They have earned it putting up with you.

Regards
DL

 

[Captain Kremmen]

So, let's see if I've got this right.
If you have nipples, you are gay?


If you are a male, just look at your nipples and recognize that you could have been born a female and that it is just chemical activity that made you a heterosexual male. Nipples are quite useless on men. Although I must admit that when my wife gives mine attention, I like and notice. That aside.

That's definitely gay.

 

[kx000]

Anyone couldhave been anything

 

[Arioch]

@Knowledge --

Yup. For example you could have been someone who could contribute meaningful content to a thread, or someone who knows what they're talking about.

 

[Greatest I am]

So, let's see if I've got this right.
If you have nipples, you are gay?

Did I say that?
Where?

If you are a male, just look at your nipples and recognize that you could have been born a female and that it is just chemical activity that made you a heterosexual male. Nipples are quite useless on men. Although I must admit that when my wife gives mine attention, I like and notice. That aside.

That's definitely gay.

I cannot help liking what my wife does.

Regards
DL

 

[GeoffP]

Homophobes. Your nipples prove that you could have been Gay.

Good lord! Thank Myuu that I haven't got any.

 

[scheherazade]

Catchy thread title, Greatest I Am, but perhaps somewhat inaccurate.

The short answer to why men have nipples is because women have nipples. Male and female humans are virtually identical genetically except for a few sex-related chromosomes. The blueprints called genetic code create the same basic chassis for every fetus until the instructions for sexual development arrive. Based on the XX or XY chromosome information, the fetus will follow either the male or female template. A female will receive enough estrogen to trigger full development of breast tissue and milk glands, and her nipples will act as a conduit for a nursing baby. A male will not receive enough estrogen to activate his underdeveloped milk glands, therefore he will have nipples and some breast tissue, but will not be able to produce milk for his offspring.

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-men-have-nipples.htm

I do appreciate your argument though, that antipathy toward Gays is misplaced, for any one of us could have been born with such inclination.

Random selection on the part of nature that we are born unto our sex and gender, which ever one of several options that turns out to be.

While there are two sexes, male or female, with the occasional hermaphrodite tossed into the mix, the debate continues that gender is a matter of who you are between the ears.

 

[SciWriter]

As as human embryos begin as female, those who are to be male must be masculinized, both the body and the brain. Sometimes one or the other doesn't happen, thus a gay or lesbian result.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Your nipples prove that you could have been Gay.

Don't male primates also have nipples?
Where are the gay monkeys?

Zygotes are conceived as female. As they progress to embryos, chemical activity in the womb decides if that person will become a male or a female; or all the variations in between that we see in nature.

Not sure what you mean exactly.
Sperm determines sex of offspring.
Hopefully the uterus does not cause mutations.
That would be weird.

If yours is a creator God,
then God is the one you should hate as he directly created their Gay nature.

How about do unto others... uh, never mind. :bugeye:

If you are a male, just look at your nipples and recognize that you could have been born a female and that it is just chemical activity that made you a heterosexual male. Nipples are quite useless on men.

Except for the chemical part, this would be a good talking point in biology.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

Hopefully you won't lose your audience this way.

Be you R C or Protestant, how about giving woman equality as well. They have earned it putting up with you.

Hopefully you are not advocating equal nipples.

 

[Arioch]

@Aqueous Id --

Technically it is a chemical interaction while undergoing embryological development which determines whether you're male or female. The transformation from female to male is caused by a surge of testosterone in the fetus which causes male traits(like a penis) to develop, that this chemical surge is triggered by a set of genes(which can be obtained from either the ovum or the sperm, by the way) is true, but ultimately it is the presence of the chemical itself that makes the determination.

I say this because there are numerous things which could happen to not trigger the change. The ovum could be altered by an unusual uterine environmental factor, or the genes responsible for triggering the testosterone could be damaged, leading to their failure to express. There are a myriad of possibilities in this regard, all of which would lead to a woman with an X and a Y chromosome being born(in fact, this sort of thing happens all the time). These people are biologically women even though they're genetically men, and when biology disagrees with genetics, it usually wins.

 

[Stryder]

Homophobia doesn't necessarily mean someone that hates or target's gays, it just means that they really aren't in to what gay is. They might find it disgusting but it doesn't necessarily mean they are going to become rude or abusive to gay people.

It's much like saying Vegetarians hate meat eaters, which again isn't the case, they likely have their reasons for not eating meat and wouldn't necessarily attempt to change the perspectives of others to follow the same suit as them.

Other than that, How exactly does this thread fit with religion? Since sexuality technically isn't a religion (Although some will obviously beg to differ)

 

[billvon]

Homophobia doesn't necessarily mean someone that hates or target's gays, it just means that they really aren't in to what gay is.

If they're just not into what gay is, they are apathetic towards gays. If they fear or hate gays, they are homophobic.

It's much like saying Vegetarians hate meat eaters, which again isn't the case, they likely have their reasons for not eating meat and wouldn't necessarily attempt to change the perspectives of others to follow the same suit as them.

Agreed. But a carnivorophobe would fear/hate meat eaters.

 

[Stryder]

If they fear or hate gays, they are homophobic.

If you fear falling because you might get hurt, it doesn't necessarily mean you hate falling. After all if you could fall relatively safely (skydiving, bungee jumping etc) you might enjoy it, even though you continue to fear.

What I am saying is that a person can be fearful and apathetic and still be called homophobic, even though they don't technically "hate" a person.

 

[Aqueous Id]

@Aqueous Id --

Technically it is a chemical interaction while undergoing embryological development which determines whether you're male or female. The transformation from female to male is caused by a surge of testosterone in the fetus which causes male traits(like a penis) to develop, that this chemical surge is triggered by a set of genes(which can be obtained from either the ovum or the sperm, by the way) is true, but ultimately it is the presence of the chemical itself that makes the determination.

I say this because there are numerous things which could happen to not trigger the change. The ovum could be altered by an unusual uterine environmental factor, or the genes responsible for triggering the testosterone could be damaged, leading to their failure to express. There are a myriad of possibilities in this regard, all of which would lead to a woman with an X and a Y chromosome being born(in fact, this sort of thing happens all the time). These people are biologically women even though they're genetically men, and when biology disagrees with genetics, it usually wins.

I did not know this. This is the probable cause of fragile X? I had in mind the decisions being finalized at the end of sperm meiosis, as far as whether it carries X or Y. And I also had in mind the "hardening" of the ovum upon implant. So there's more to this. I will read up on it. Thanks for the info.

So - what is the process in salamanders, where they can switch gender? This would apparently be a primordial trait, that maybe has something to do with this (otherwise ludicrous) scientific curiosity of a question? Any thoughts on that?

 

[Sapientivore]

I did not know this. This is the probable cause of fragile X? I had in mind the decisions being finalized at the end of sperm meiosis, as far as whether it carries X or Y. And I also had in mind the "hardening" of the ovum upon implant. So there's more to this. I will read up on it. Thanks for the info.

So - what is the process in salamanders, where they can switch gender? This would apparently be a primordial trait, that maybe has something to do with this (otherwise ludicrous) scientific curiosity of a question? Any thoughts on that?

Certain salamanders can functionally become the other gender during growth based on temperature and/or hormones. Their chromosomes are still what they always were-interesting bit is that it's the females that have different sex chromosomes, and the males that have the same ones.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The uncoupling of male and female traits occurs if there is selection for it: if the trait is important to the reproductive success of both males and females but the best or "optimal" trait is different for a male and a female. We would not expect such an uncoupling if the attribute is important in both sexes and the "optimal" value is similar in both sexes, nor would we expect uncoupling to evolve if the attribute is important to one sex but unimportant in the other. The latter is the case for nipples. Their advantage in females, in terms of reproductive success, is clear. But because the genetic "default" is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them. Interestingly, though, it could be argued that the occurrence of problems associated with the male nipple, such as carcinoma, constitutes contemporary selection against them. In a sense, male nipples are analogous to vestigial structures such as the remnants of useless pelvic bones in whales: if they did much harm, they would have disappeared.

In a now-famous paper, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin emphasize that we should not immediately assume that every trait has an adaptive explanation. Just as the spandrels of St. Mark's domed cathedral in Venice are simply an architectural consequence of the meeting of a vaulted ceiling with its supporting pillars, the presence of nipples in male mammals is a genetic architectural by-product of nipples in females. So, why do men have nipples? Because females do.[11]

- Wikipedia, "nipples"

 

[Greatest I am]

Catchy thread title, Greatest I Am, but perhaps somewhat inaccurate.



I do appreciate your argument though, that antipathy toward Gays is misplaced, for any one of us could have been born with such inclination.

Random selection on the part of nature that we are born unto our sex and gender, which ever one of several options that turns out to be.

While there are two sexes, male or female, with the occasional hermaphrodite tossed into the mix, the debate continues that gender is a matter of who you are between the ears.

Exactly. Sexual preference begins in the mind.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

As as human embryos begin as female, those who are to be male must be masculinized, both the body and the brain. Sometimes one or the other doesn't happen, thus a gay or lesbian result.

Yes.
That does not explain the hate and that is what the O P is about.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Homophobia doesn't necessarily mean someone that hates or target's gays, it just means that they really aren't in to what gay is. They might find it disgusting but it doesn't necessarily mean they are going to become rude or abusive to gay people.

It's much like saying Vegetarians hate meat eaters, which again isn't the case, they likely have their reasons for not eating meat and wouldn't necessarily attempt to change the perspectives of others to follow the same suit as them.

Other than that, How exactly does this thread fit with religion? Since sexuality technically isn't a religion (Although some will obviously beg to differ)

The religion parts speaks to the hate that religion promote.

It is one thing to not be drawn to Gays.
It is quite another to try to deny them the love connection and marriage that the rest of us crave.

That is religion promoting hate.

Regards
DL

 

[Pineal]

Homophobes. Your nipples prove that you could have been Gay.

Zygotes are conceived as female. As they progress to embryos, chemical activity in the womb decides if that person will become a male or a female; or all the variations in between that we see in nature.

We are all whatever we are by the luck of the draw and we are all somewhere between heterosexual and homosexual. We likely all have a proportion of both and we mature to whatever nature, Gay or straight, predominates within us.

Homophobes target Gays as somehow un-natural. This is clearly wrong as Gays are generally born from heterosexual parents who are quite natural from the homophobic view. Even you my friend might produce a Gay child or grand child.

If homophobes are to hate Gays, their hate is misplaced. It is the creator of the Gay nature that, if anyone, should be hated. That is, the parents. These parents are people who are just as “normal” as you think you are.

If yours is a creator God, then God is the one you should hate as he directly created their Gay nature.

You are killing the messenger but you ignore the sender of that messenger. That is completely immoral and you target the innocent Gays instead of the guilty parents, or God.

If you are a male, just look at your nipples and recognize that you could have been born a female and that it is just chemical activity that made you a heterosexual male. Nipples are quite useless on men. Although I must admit that when my wife gives mine attention, I like and notice. That aside.

Just a bit more or less of your mothers chemistry and you would be one of the ones you hate. Remember that.

Change the labels in this quote to read women or Gays and it still show what we should all be thinking and doing for each other.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

Homophobes.
Does contemplating your nipples change your wrong view of who to hate enough for you to repent from your lack of tolerance of Gays?

Be you R C or Protestant, how about giving woman equality as well. They have earned it putting up with you.

Regards
DL

Is this in the Religion section because of the nice quote by Pastor Father Niemoller?

Also noticed your sexism in presuming that any religious reader here will be male.