Greatest I am - 25 November 2011 06:48 AM

Write4U - 24 November 2011 04:39 PM

[
Nipples are an essential part of life for “mammals”, especially when we are most impressionable. Is it wonder that we are enamored with nipples? They are symbolic of love and nurture…

On women for sure .

I nurtured four boys and did not use my nipples even once.

Regards
DL

And the result?

Quite good.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am - 22 November 2011 10:20 AM

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.

“Chemical activity in the womb”?

Gene SRY on the Y chromosome triggers the transformation of an anatomically female embryo into male fetus.  There might be certain factors which may affect transformation, such as chemical activity in the womb and other environmental factors, so that the person turns out to be a gay male, but without gene SRY on that Y chromosome, no transformation occurs.  If there are 2 X chromosomes, none containing gene SRY, it stays female.  Both mammalian males and females have certain levels of various hormones, and varying levels may actually result in a lesbian, or a transgendered female without needing a Y chromosome or gene SRY.  More common though is a sterile XY female, in which everything that normally is set into motion by gene SRY does not occur.

Normally there is no gene SRY on an X chromosome, but there can be in rare cases, and this can produce an XX male.

If this qualifies as “chemical activity in the womb” then I guess your statement is true, though it is not the case in “in vitro” fertalization.

Interesting.

Do you know of a study that confirms that in vitro does not produce Gays?
If so, it would confirm that nature is causing it and not nurture.

Regards
DL

Tradition Of Progress - 28 November 2011 08:16 PM

If this qualifies as “chemical activity in the womb” then I guess your statement is true, though it is not the case in “in vitro” fertalization.

But this is due to the fact that no sry-expressing cell lines have been established for ivf, not because it wouldn’t otherwise be possible.

Greatest I am - 29 November 2011 05:42 AM

Interesting.

Do you know of a study that confirms that in vitro does not produce Gays?
If so, it would confirm that nature is causing it and not nurture.

Regards
DL

No I am not aware of any such study, and I never claimed that in vitro does not produce Gays.  I only claimed that in vitro fertilization does not qualify as “chemical activity in the womb” because in vitro fertilization takes place in a test tube—not a womb.

What I was picking at was the phrase “chemical activity in the womb” because it suggests chemical activity produced by the womb, when in fact some of these chemicals are produced in the testes of the male.

The complete story of the formation of a sexual mammal begins in the testes where a sperm supplying a Y chromosome bearing gene SRY is produced, then is transprted to either a womb or test tube where it meets an egg, becomes an embryro with female parts, and if in a test tube, then gets transplanted into a womb, then in the womb grows male parts, and brain development begins, then after birth development continues, on into adolescence and puberty. 

Isn’t there a study somewhere showing that autopsies of the brains of gay men show differences from those of heterosexual men?  That suggests nature, but not all of nature takes place in the womb.

traveler - 29 November 2011 06:16 AM

Tradition Of Progress - 28 November 2011 08:16 PM

If this qualifies as “chemical activity in the womb” then I guess your statement is true, though it is not the case in “in vitro” fertalization.

But this is due to the fact that no sry-expressing cell lines have been established for ivf, not because it wouldn’t otherwise be possible.

The statement I am refering to is “chemical activity in the womb decides if that person will become a male or a female” and I am saying that when cell fertalization is “in vitro” then it is not “chemical activity in the womb”, because this chemical activity is then in a test tube. 

I am not suggesting that what can happen when gametes combine in a womb cannot happen in a test tube at all.  I am just acknowledging that this chemical activity, SRY-expressing or not, does not qualify as “chemical activity in the womb” because it is happening in a test tube and not a womb.

Tradition Of Progress - 29 November 2011 08:53 PM

I am not suggesting that what can happen when gametes combine in a womb cannot happen in a test tube at all.  I am just acknowledging that this chemical activity, SRY-expressing or not, does not qualify as “chemical activity in the womb” because it is happening in a test tube and not a womb.

Sure can’t argue with that. 

Tradition Of Progress - 29 November 2011 08:38 PM

Greatest I am - 29 November 2011 05:42 AM

Interesting.

Do you know of a study that confirms that in vitro does not produce Gays?
If so, it would confirm that nature is causing it and not nurture.

Regards
DL

No I am not aware of any such study, and I never claimed that in vitro does not produce Gays.  I only claimed that in vitro fertilization does not qualify as “chemical activity in the womb” because in vitro fertilization takes place in a test tube—not a womb.

What I was picking at was the phrase “chemical activity in the womb” because it suggests chemical activity produced by the womb, when in fact some of these chemicals are produced in the testes of the male.

The complete story of the formation of a sexual mammal begins in the testes where a sperm supplying a Y chromosome bearing gene SRY is produced, then is transprted to either a womb or test tube where it meets an egg, becomes an embryro with female parts, and if in a test tube, then gets transplanted into a womb, then in the womb grows male parts, and brain development begins, then after birth development continues, on into adolescence and puberty. 

Isn’t there a study somewhere showing that autopsies of the brains of gay men show differences from those of heterosexual men?  That suggests nature, but not all of nature takes place in the womb.

I have no information on such.

My focus was on morality and not biology. I do not care how Gays are born or reared.
I do care how humans are treated by other humans.

Regards
DL

Look, my theory as to why males have nipples, I believe, is the best explanation.

It’s simple - they are nature’s pacifier - Now that’s Good.

Yeah, aren’t men allowed to have a couple of extra erotic zones? 

Occam

ventapjaabaaji - 18 March 2012 09:20 PM

I hold no cognitive dissonance. I have not to my knowledge invented my own absudities, that didn’t have a firm place in theological circles. I have never to my knowledge sidestepped any question or issue since coming to this site. Nor, do I have any trouble deciding what side of the fence I’m on. If you feel otherwise, show evidence or see yourself out of the conversation. I could go through a litany of your flaws, but I’m aware of mine and you haven’t listed one in that rant. Put up or shut up.
[Edited to remove spam link. Please try *not* to respond to spammers: they don’t care. dougsmith—Admin.]
*When it HURTS to look back, and you’re SCARED to look ahead,you can look beside you and your BEST FRIEND will be there*

For a First post, that statement sounds very much like you have invented your own absurdities. I have no clue what you are talking about.

I believe it is somewhat premature to tell someone to “put up or shut up” when no one knows what you are talking about. At least i don’t.
Care to explain ?