A 'gay gene'? It's complicated, according to new research on same-sex behavior

  
Via:  tig  •  3 weeks ago  •  454 comments

A 'gay gene'? It's complicated, according to new research on same-sex behavior
The study released by "Science" looked at nearly half a million people and is the largest of its kind.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


By Associated Press

CHICAGO — The largest study of its kind found new evidence that genes contribute to same-sex sexual behavior, but it echoes research that says there are no specific genes that make people gay.

The genome-wide research on DNA from nearly half a million U.S. and U.K. adults identified five genetic variants not previously linked with gay or lesbian sexuality. The variants were more common in people who reported ever having had a same-sex sexual partner. That includes people whose partners were exclusively of the same sex and those who mostly reported heterosexual behavior.

The researchers said thousands more genetic variants likely are involved and interact with factors that aren't inherited, but that none of them cause the behavior nor can predict whether someone will be gay.

The research "provides the clearest glimpse yet into the genetic underpinnings of same-sex sexual behavior," said co-author Benjamin Neale, a psychiatric geneticist at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

"We also found that it's effectively impossible to predict an individual's sexual behavior from their genome," Neale said. "Genetics is less than half of this story for sexual behavior, but it's still a very important contributing factor."

The study was released Thursday by the journal Science. Results are based on genetic testing and survey responses.

Some of the genetic variants found were present in both men and women. Two in men were located near genes involved in male-pattern baldness and sense of smell, raising intriguing questions about how regulation of sex hormones and smell may influence same-sex behavior.

Importantly, most participants were asked about frequency of same-sex sexual behavior but not if they self-identified as gay or lesbian. Fewer than 5% of U.K. participants and about 19% of U.S. participants reported ever having a same-sex sexual experience.

The researchers acknowledged that limitation and emphasized that the study's focus was on behavior, not sexual identity or orientation. They also note that the study only involved people of European ancestry and can't answer whether similar results would be found in other groups.

Origins of same-sex behavior are uncertain. Some of the strongest evidence of a genetic link comes from studies in identical twins. Many scientists believe that social, cultural, family and other biological factors are also involved, while some religious groups and skeptics consider it a choice or behavior that can be changed.

A Science commentary notes that the five identified variants had such a weak effect on behavior that using the results "for prediction, intervention or a supposed 'cure' is wholly and unreservedly impossible."

"Future work should investigate how genetic predispositions are altered by environmental factors," University of Oxford sociologist Melinda Mills said in the commentary.

Other experts not involved in the study had varied reactions.

Dr. Kenneth Kendler a specialist in psychiatric genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University, called it "a very important paper that advances the study of the genetics of human sexual preference substantially. The results are broadly consistent with those obtained from the earlier technologies of twin and family studies suggesting that sexual orientation runs in families and is moderately heritable."

Former National Institutes of Health geneticist Dean Hamer said the study confirms "that sexuality is complex and there are a lot of genes involved," but it isn't really about gay people. "Having just a single same-sex experience is completely different than actually being gay or lesbian," Hamer said. His research in the 1990s linked a marker on the X chromosome with male homosexuality. Some subsequent studies had similar results, but the new one found no such link.

Doug Vanderlaan, a University of Toronto psychologist who studies sexual orientation, said the absence of information on sexual orientation is a drawback and makes it unclear what the identified genetic links might signify. They "might be links to other traits, like openness to experience," Vanderlaan said.

The study is a collaboration among scientists including psychologists, sociologists and statisticians from the United States, United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. They did entire human genome scanning, using blood samples from the U.K. Biobank and saliva samples from customers of the U.S.-based ancestry and biotech company 23andMe who had agreed to participate in research.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
TᵢG
1  seeder  TᵢG    3 weeks ago

Behavioral biology is incredibly complex with many unanswered questions.

But there is insight to be gained from simple questions:

Why are heterosexuals attracted to the opposite sex?   Is it choice or is there something genetic (and/or epigenetic) that results in this attraction?   The answer to this question is likely to yield insight into why homosexuals are attracted to the same sex and the many variations (shades of gray) of sexuality and sexual identity.

 
 
 
Freefaller
1.1  Freefaller  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 weeks ago

Read this story yesterday (but was too lazy to seed it).  Anyway in my interpretation it pretty much confirms what most have always thought that homosexuality is the result of both nature and nurture and trying to pin down the exacts why someone turned out the way they did is incredibly difficult and multi faceted.

The reason any and all of us are who we are is a result of the same process

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Freefaller @1.1    3 weeks ago
The reason any and all of us are who we are is a result of the same process

In my opinion, there have been far too many taboos associated with many of the physical, mental and other differences in human beings. Most of which are totally unfounded and undeserved. Some of the labels are; Demons, Witches, Devils, Unearthly, Damned by God, etc. that have survived since Man first came. And they have been treated with disdain, horror, torture, expulsion, death, and other forms of non-acceptance.

The Cherokee, as well as other Native American Tribes, fully and unconditionally accept gays. They are considered to be two Spirit people and respected the same as any other member of the Tribe. They do the work of the gender they associate with. Gay men will do women's chores, but, can also participate in men's work. Gay women participate in the work and duties of the men, but, can also assist with women's work if needed. There is no discrimination or intolerance of either. And the children of the Tribe learn to accept those who are different from themselves.

This is how it has been since time began, yet, is something others of the world are just now beginning to think about. 

The diversity of our human family, and the world, should bring us all closer together, not drive us apart.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.1.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

You say fully and unconditionally yet my understanding is that the Cherokee nation prohibits gay marriage. Is that true? 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kathleen-brown/11-native-american-tribes-including-two-largest-prohibit-gay-marriage

For example, the Cherokee Nation Marriage and Family Protection Act of 2004 defines marriage as “a civil contract between one man and one woman” and states that “no marriage shall be contracted...between parties of the same gender.”

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

Dean,

That was updated:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/us/cherokee-nation-same-sex-marriage/index.html

The problem is between members of the tribe who follow traditional indian law and those who have become Christians by missionaries. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.1.4  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

After further investigation I see they just recently changed there policy for the Cherokee tribe in 2016. Do you know if the other tribes also changed their positions? 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.1.5  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.4    3 weeks ago

My research indicates it varies and same sex marriage is not universally accepted amongst all the tribes. It looks like the largest tribe the Navajo nation bans same sex marriage so it does not appear to me that gays are unconditionally accepted there. 

Same-sex marriage is not valid under Navajo law, even if performed in a jurisdiction such as Arizona where it is legal. [3] Because of this, same-sex couples do not have the rights accorded by the tribal government to opposite-sex married couples. [4] Same-sex marriage is explicitly prohibited by the Diné Marriage Act (see external links ), an amendment to the tribal code enacted on April 22, 2005. [5] The act was vetoed by then–Navajo President Joe Shirley, Jr. , [6] but the veto was overridden by the Navajo Nation Council

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Navajo_Nation

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.6  Raven Wing  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
You say fully and unconditionally yet my understanding is that the Cherokee nation prohibits gay marriage. Is that true? 
For example, the   Cherokee Nation Marriage and Family Protection Act of 2004   defines marriage as “a civil contract between one man and one woman” and states that “no marriage shall be contracted...between parties of the same gender.”

No. In 2016 that was overturned and same-sex marriage became legal for the Cherokee Nation. Info:

OKLAHOMA CITY --  The Cherokee Nation’s attorney general legalized gay marriage for the country’s second-largest Native American tribe, saying its same-sex marriage ban violates a tribal requirement for all of its citizens to be treated equally. 

Attorney General Todd Hembree’s opinion, which was issued Friday, says parts of a 2004 tribal law that defined marriage as “a civil contract between one man and one woman” and prohibited marriage between two persons of the same sex violate the Cherokee Constitution, which requires the equal treatment of tribal citizens.

“The right to marry without the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice is no right at all,” Hembree wrote in his opinion.

If you Goggle you can find more info on the subject. But, here is a link to more info here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cherokee-nation-gay-marriage-attorney-general-marriage-license-gender/

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.1.7  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.6    3 weeks ago

Yes I saw that after looking deeper into the subject but also found the Navajo tribe does not recognize same sex marriage even where it is legal such as Arizona. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.4    3 weeks ago

Hi Dean,

First you might find this interesting about how Indians really did view gay people as being special two spirited people:

http://indianaffairs.state.ne.us/native-american-yearns-for-old-views-of-gays-lesbians/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-many-native-americans-embracing-lgbt-members-is-a-return-to-the-past/2019/03/29/24d1e6c6-4f2c-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html

And this is the most current information on which tribes have changed position and which never needed to. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_tribal_nations_in_the_United_States

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.7    3 weeks ago

Dean,

I tried to tell you that this was not the original way of the Indian people and came about because of forced conversions. 

Here is an article that explains it so much better than I can:

https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/two-spirits-one-heart-five-genders-9UH_xnbfVEWQHWkjNn0rQQ/

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.10  Raven Wing  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.7    3 weeks ago
the Navajo tribe does not recognize same sex marriage even where it is legal such as Arizona. 

Each Tribe/Nation have their own laws, and as a Sovereign Nation are apart from the laws of the state in which they are located. Thus, Tribes/Nations can have their own laws. 

Perrie has presented some very informative and enlightening information of this subject, which can further explain the laws of other Tribes.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.11  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
I tried to tell you that this was not the original way of the Indian people and came about because of forced conversions. 

Indeed this has created good deal of confusion among the Tribes as well as others. Like many other ways of Native Americans, the Christians have forced their own religion and beliefs on Native Americans across the country, and in doing so, have done their best to turn the people against their own beliefs and way of life. Ultimately, this created disharmony among the Tribes and their people. 

Non-acceptance of gay members of the Tribe was one of the beliefs and way of life that the Christians found most offensive, and did their best to either 'turn them around', or ban them. This resulted in causing Native Americans who had lived in peace and Harmony with all their people for thousands of years, into turning their people against one another.

Thus, in recent years the leaders of many of the Tribes have begun to take back their way of life and return Harmony to their people. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.12  Raven Wing  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.11    3 weeks ago
Non-acceptance of gay members of the Tribe

Sorry, that should be "acceptance....", not- non-acceptance. Sorry for the confusion.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
In my opinion, there have been far too many taboos associated with many of the physical, mental and other differences in human beings.

Simply voting this up does not seem a sufficient method of agreement.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.14  Raven Wing  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
It looks like the largest tribe the Navajo nation

The largest Native American Tribe in America is the Cherokee, not the Navajo.

The Ten Largest Indian Tribes in the United States

Tribe

Population

1. Cherokee

729,533

2. Navajo

298,197

3. Choctaw

158,374

4. Sioux

153,360

5. Chippewa

99,704

6. Apache

96,833

7. Blackfeet

85,750

8. Iroquois

80,822

9. Pueblo

74,085

10. Creek

71,310

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000 census).

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/47394/a-gay-gene-its-complicated-according-to-new-research-on-same-sex-behavior#cm1148738

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/nativetrends/tables/table_1_3.asp

The Cherokee are enrolled in three tribal entities. At the last census in 2010 there were 316,049 total enrolled tribal members in one of three Cherokee tribal organizations. So, as an ethnic group they are larger but the single largest Cherokee tribe is the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma which has 299,862. About 190,000 live in the state. The Eastern Band of Cherokee in North Carolina has about 13,000–16,000 members. The United Keetoowah Band has about 14,300. The Cherokee Nation lost most of its tribal owned land. The Eastern Band has 82 sq miles. The Keetoowah have 76 acres.

However, The Navajo Nation has the largest Reservation of all the Tribes. The Navajo Nation has the largest membership in one singular Tribe. But, the largest overall membership is the Cherokee.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-largest-Native-American-tribe-in-the-USA

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 weeks ago
Why are heterosexuals attracted to the opposite sex?   Is it choice or is there something genetic (and/or epigenetic) that results in this attraction?

It would seem that if Darwin is accurate at all, this answer should be obvious, yes?  Organisms with a proclivity for reproductive activity should have a distinct evolutional advantage, shouldn't they?

   The answer to this question is likely to yield insight into why homosexuals are attracted to the same sex and the many variations (shades of gray) of sexuality and sexual identity.

Again, I think Darwin may get in the way of this.  We're talking about organisms with a proclivity for an activity which is not reproductive.  

I also think the more significant discussion revolves around why any of this matters.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2    3 weeks ago
It would seem that if Darwin is accurate at all, this answer should be obvious, yes?  Organisms with a proclivity for reproductive activity should have a distinct evolutional advantage, shouldn't they?

One certainly would expect homosexuality to have disappeared since it is detrimental to passing on the genes.   But there are all sorts of traits (e.g. left-handedness, red hair) that seem to offer no evolutionary advantages yet persist.   So it is not accurate to presume that every aspect of life exists only because it helped pass on genes.   The genetic root for sexual orientation in general is almost certainly present in our DNA.   That genetic root can then be affected by factors (currently unknown) to manifest the various orientations we witness.   

Your comment is more an argument that homosexuality is not heritable.   I think that is probably correct.   It would be interesting to see a study of homosexual couples who have used their genetic material (with assistance from an individual of the opposite sex) to procreate.   Are their offspring more likely to be homosexual?   I would be surprised if that were true.

Again, I think Darwin may get in the way of this.  We're talking about organisms with a proclivity for an activity which is not reproductive.  

(see my answer above)

I also think the more significant discussion revolves around why any of this matters.

Why does anything matter Jack?   Human beings are curious creatures and sometimes we like to explore areas that we do not fully understand.   How this matters (assuming it ever does) remains to be seen but that should not dissuade us from exploring it, right?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.2.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2    3 weeks ago
Again, I think Darwin may get in the way of this.

Not necessarily.  Natural selection tends to select for variations that contribute to the survival of the species or population as a whole, not just the propagation of an individual's genes.  For example, sickle cell disease is frequently fatal.  But having a single sickle cell allele protects an individual from malaria, so the presence of the gene for sickle cell disease in a population existing where malaria is common actually helps that population to survive.

Homosexuality may be adaptive in some way.  Perhaps male homosexuality decreases competition over mates in populations where there are fewer women than men, common until recently due to the dangers of childbearing.  Violence in some Asian countries as a result of sex-selective abortion and a shortage of marriageable women is a problem today - perhaps homosexuality became more common because it mitigates such tensions.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.3  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
But there are all sorts of traits (e.g. left-handedness, red hair) that seem to offer no evolutionary advantages yet persist.

It would be important to note they don't represent an evolutionary disadvantage, either.

Why does anything matter Jack? 

My question was specific to homosexuality.  Historically, homosexuality has been a socially charged topic, largely because of the interference by various religious groups. 

But organized religion in America is waning, and those religious organizations that remain are becoming increasingly tolerant.  

We have people almost desperate to prove that homosexuality is either genetic or the result of some other biological occurrence beyond the control of the person in question.  Why?  Why should it matter?

We're not worried about why some people prefer yellow roses to white, or why some prefer Audi to Mercedes Benz or why some people prefer medium rare steaks to medium well.  We don't conduct studies on why some people prefer blondes to brunettes or voluptuous women to petite ones. 

Yet we're studying homosexuality, again, searching for some biological explanation and confirming we still can't find one.

I believe the answer to "why are we doing this" lies in the fact that as a society we still cannot get past the idea that homosexuals are somehow inferior, or that we are still far too concerned about what old religious people think of them. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
It would be important to note they don't represent an evolutionary disadvantage, either.

That is true.   But the presence of homosexual members in a population are not necessarily an evolutionary disadvantage for the population.   Plenty of species have members who do not participate in procreation but support the continued survival of the population.

We have people almost desperate to prove that homosexuality is either genetic or the result of some other biological occurrence beyond the control of the person in question.  Why?  Why should it matter?

I think this is mostly response to religious claims of homosexuality being looked down upon by God.   Logic here is simple:  if homosexuality is part of one's biology (as then would be heterosexuality) and not a result of conscious choice, then the God excuse for bigotry is debunked.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.2.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
It would be important to note they don't represent an evolutionary disadvantage, either.

Lefties are more likely to die as the result of accidents (on an order of five times) than righties.

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/04/us/being-left-handed-may-be-dangerous-to-life-study-says.html#targetText=But%20they%20found%20that%20left,in%20accidents%2C%20often%20while%20driving.&targetText=Their%20findings%20support%20a%201989,injuries%20in%20left%2Dhanded%20people." > https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/04/us/being-left-handed-may-be-dangerous-to-life-study-says.html#targetText=But%20they%20found%20that%20left,in%20accidents%2C%20often%20while%20driving.&targetText=Their%20findings%20support%20a%201989,injuries%20in%20left%2Dhanded%20people.

Red hair itself is not a disadvantage, but is associated with traits that can be - fair skin (and being prone to skin cancer) and with endometriosis in women, which can negatively affect fertility.

And yet, fair-skinned people (gingers included) tend to do better in northern climates, where darker-skinned people might not make enough vitamin D to maintain health.

As far as why we should be concerned - it is still legal in many areas to discriminate against LGBTQ people, and many people use as their excuse that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice".  I wish it weren't so, but it is.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.2.6  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.4    2 weeks ago

It should be noted that the environment can impact genetics. Exposure to pesticides can actually make male frogs produce female hormones who then mate with other male frogs. Chemical transitioning.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

We need to explore environmental influences as well.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.2.6    2 weeks ago
It should be noted that the environment can impact genetics. Exposure to pesticides can actually make male frogs produce female hormones who then mate with other male frogs. Chemical transitioning.

Note how I have mentioned epigenetics throughout.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.4    2 weeks ago
But the presence of homosexual members in a population are not necessarily an evolutionary disadvantage for the population.

If homosexuality is inherited, it is definitely a disadvantage for that sub-population.  There isn't really any way around that.

I think this is mostly response to religious claims of homosexuality being looked down upon by God.

Exactly my point.

Logic here is simple:  if homosexuality is part of one's biology (as is heterosexuality) and not a result of conscious choice, then the God excuse for bigotry is debunked.

It would seem logical.  Yet we're talking about using logic to predict the behavior of religious people and organizations.  Which is itself highly illogical behavior.

Do you see the problem here?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.2.9  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.7    2 weeks ago

Noted Sir.

I simply wanted to enter the study of transgender frogs to the discussion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.10  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.8    2 weeks ago
If homosexuality is inherited, it is definitely a disadvantage for that sub-population.  There isn't really any way around that.

My comment did not imply nor did I intend to suggest that homosexuality is heritable.   But, even so, the likelihood of a homosexual procreating would be low thus heritable or not is not much of a factor.

Yet we're talking about using logic to predict the behavior of religious people and organizations.  Which is itself highly illogical behavior.

Evidenced by the fact that even today we have 10% of the USA population who, for religious reasons, believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.12  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.10    2 weeks ago
But, even so, the likelihood of a homosexual procreating would be low thus heritable or not is not much of a factor.

The likelihood of homosexual procreating would be low, eliminating (or very nearly eliminating) that trait from the population over time.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.2.13  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.12    2 weeks ago

If that happens, who would cut my hair or match a tie with my new suit?  I wouldn't look Fabulous anymore!

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.14  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.12    2 weeks ago

Only if the genetic underpinning for homosexuality was exclusively passed by homosexual parents.   Clearly the genetics for homosexuality are passed by heterosexual parents (and, to be clear, there is no reason of course to think this is any different for homosexual parents).   IMO the genetics of which we speak would generally be considered the genetics underlying sexual orientation.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.2.15  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.14    2 weeks ago

512

It may have more to do with prenatal and postnatal hormones.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.2.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.14    2 weeks ago

Yup.  It could very well be like blue eyes - two brown-eyed parents can produce a blue-eyed child, because they carry the gene for blue eyes. 

Two heterosexual parents could have genes that, for some reason or other (recessiveness, lack of hormones that lead to expression, hormones that suppress expression, maternal exposure to environmental conditions, etc.) did not manifest as homosexuality in themselves, but may in their children.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.17  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.2.15    2 weeks ago

Recognize that genetics is what determines endocrinology in an individual.   This is certainly complex stuff with many things determining other things (and recursively no less).   But genetics starts the ball rolling.   A rather important fact to keep front and center.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.18  Jack_TX  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.2.13    2 weeks ago
If that happens, who would cut my hair or match a tie with my new suit?  I wouldn't look Fabulous anymore!

A chick.  And you would still look fabulous.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.19  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.14    2 weeks ago
Clearly the genetics for homosexuality are passed by heterosexual parents (and, to be clear, there is no reason of course to think this is any different for homosexual parents).

I'm curious as to why you imagine these genetics to exist, in light of this and many other studies failing to find them.

This just seems an odd contradiction for a person who does not believe in God because of lack of evidence.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.20  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.19    2 weeks ago

I was talking about the genetics hypothetically Jack.    I do not know anything more than what science has determined.   Personally I would be surprised if orientation is not substantially based on genetics and epigenetics but I do not claim to have special knowledge nor do I believe this is true based on faith.

Note my opening comment:

TiG @1 - Why are heterosexuals attracted to the opposite sex?   Is it choice or is there something genetic (and/or epigenetic) that results in this attraction?   The answer to this question is likely to yield insight into why homosexuals are attracted to the same sex and the many variations (shades of gray) of sexuality and sexual identity.

It is unworkably awkward fully qualifying every sentence.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

Oh, I'm glad you seeded this! I saw this story this afternoon. If there's a bottom line, I guess it's that it's a complicated matter and that sexuality - orientation and behavior - appear to exist on a spectrum - which is what a lot of people in the queer community have been trying to communicate for a long time.

I think it's about time for a lot of people to face that fact and start dealing with it positively rather than trying to make people fit into boxes that don't really exist.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @2    2 weeks ago
I saw this story this afternoon.

I saw it coming from a different perspective:

"I don’t see decades’ worth of increasing acceptance of homosexuality disappearing just because this trait, like pretty much all human traits, is only partly genetic. And as for conversion therapy, frankly, while I’ve seen no evidence it works, if an adult wants to try to change his sexuality or learn not to act on it — hey, knock yourself out.

Interestingly, one of the study’s authors pitches his research as the opposite of a Catch-22 for the Left, a situation where both the environmental and the genetic component should somehow help to normalize homosexuality. “I hope that the science can be used to educate people a little bit more about how natural and normal same-sex behavior is,” he told the NYT. “It’s written into our genes and it’s part of our environment. This is part of our species and it’s part of who we are.”

"Whatever you make of that as an argument, it’s no coincidence that the study’s authors are ready with spin like this for the press. One reason they did this research is that if they didn’t, another, less careful team might have done it first, without all the consultations with LGBT activist groups that the paper touts to shield itself from the mob."

nationalreview.com/2019/09/death-of-the-gay-gene/

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 weeks ago

One thing that should be clear without any studies is that people who fall under the LGBT umbrella are not the way they are because they are sexual predators or slaves to perverted, out of control passions. They're just folks. All you have to do to figure that out is get to know somebody who is gay.

Being gay shouldn't need to be caused by one thing or another (genes vs environment) to justify or eliminate shaming and dehumanizing the population we are looking at. Our sense of basic decency (wherever it comes from for each person) should be sufficient to cause us treat these people with dignity and compassion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
One thing that should be clear without any studies is that people who fall under the LGBT umbrella are not the way they are because they are sexual predators or slaves to perverted, out of control passions. They're just folks. All you have to do to figure that out is get to know somebody who is gay.

Ya, I agree with that.

Being gay shouldn't need to be caused by one thing or another (genes vs environment) to justify or eliminate shaming and dehumanizing the population we are looking at.

Shaming and dehumanizing are clear cut examples of intolerance. That's the thing many forget. One dosen't have to embrace anything so long as no action is taken against anyone else. Personal and/or religious beliefs should be off limits. For example: Most people prefer their own children to all others. That is a preference and one that is almost universal. (I don't think that is a generalization). IMO modern progressives will eventually even seek to alter that human impulse one day....that is, if we don't end this insane ideology.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3  Perrie Halpern R.A.    3 weeks ago

Here are two take aways that stuck me. 

I know 2 different families where there are multiple people within the larger family tree that have several gay family members. To me, this would indicate the genetic connection. 

Two in men were located near genes involved in male-pattern baldness and sense of smell, raising intriguing questions about how regulation of sex hormones and smell may influence same-sex behavior.

And just a personal observation, but I have noticed that it seems there are more gay men who have baldness then straight men. 

I would have to agree with what Tacos said: 

If there's a bottom line, I guess it's that it's a complicated matter and that sexuality - orientation and behavior - appear to exist on a spectrum - which is what a lot of people in the queer community have been trying to communicate for a long time.

My daughter who studies autism has said this all along. That there is a spectrum of sexuality. There was a time when autism was considered one thing, and very negatively viewed. Now we know that there is a huge spectrum and some of these people are among the smartest and or gifted people in the world. I think we will get to that point one day with sexuality.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1  WallyW  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3    3 weeks ago
And just a personal observation, but I have noticed that it seems there are more gay men who have baldness then straight men. 

Ii have noticed this too....especially a receding hairline in many gay men I  know. And I have never seen any evidence of sexual preference being a choice

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3    3 weeks ago

My son E was diagnosed with autism spectrum he a walking encyclopedia of history we were told when was young he may never be able to talk or read and write he graduated high school with honors and is in his last year of college.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @3.2    3 weeks ago

That is fantastic news MUVA. I am glad that you and your wife didn't give into the very negative stereotypes. I have a nephew with aspergers and he got a scholarship to a really fine university and is just starting off his first year there. There was a time when people wanted to pigeon hole him, too. 

 
 
 
lady in black
4  lady in black    3 weeks ago

My late bil and ex sil had 2 kids a boy and a girl..both are gay and my niece is now my nephew.  Someone explain to me how 2 kids brought up in a loving household are both gay???????  

My nephew was terrified to come out thinking the family would hate him as he is the one that came out first...he was relieved that everyone but his dad accepted that he is gay. 

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @4    3 weeks ago

That is a shame my younger sister is gay was married to man 8 years before she came out.She too was afraid to come out but everyone in the family accept it very well we were surprised but gladly accepted it. My sisters partner is probably one the finest persons I have ever met. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @4.1    2 weeks ago

I'm really glad for your sister. We get only one shot at happiness and as long as the person is a good person, then what does it matter?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

Surprise!  Humans are more than just DNA.  Claiming that God, nature, or the roll of the dice made us who we are is a a cop out.  

Sexuality is about more than just sex.  And the way the human body functions is about more than DNA.

The concerning aspect about these sorts of scientific endeavors is how they readily dismiss the greatest attributes of humans: free will and the human spirit.  Humans are treated as biomechanical devices who are configurable, programmable, and ultimately controllable.  Gene therapy and drug induced homogeneity by any other name is still eugenics. 

Homosexuality (and heterosexuality) is really more about relationships of semi-social humans in an enforced social environment.  Sex has become an enforced social expectation as well as being a natural instinct.  Science can't provide understanding of human sexuality by ignoring humanity.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5    3 weeks ago
Claiming that God, nature, or the roll of the dice made us who we are is a a cop out.  

What besides nature and nurture (all those external factors in the 'roll of the dice') causes one to genuinely prefer individuals of the same gender?

You are not indirectly suggesting that sexual orientation is a personal choice are you?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    3 weeks ago
You are not indirectly suggesting that sexual orientation is a personal choice are you?

That's not what I said.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

I know that is not what you wrote.   But your comments imply that.   Ergo my question; asking for clarification.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    3 weeks ago
I know that is not what you wrote.   But your comments imply that.   Ergo my question; asking for clarification.

A sexual relationship is a choice.  Or is it something else?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

That's not what was asked.  Is sexual orientation a choice?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.3    3 weeks ago
A sexual relationship is a choice.

How do you mean? What is the implication of that?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.3    3 weeks ago
A sexual relationship is a choice.

But he asked what "causes one to genuinely prefer individuals of the same gender?", not whether humans "choose" partners.

"Would you like the chicken, fish or vegetarian meal on your flight today?"

I don't like fish, so I'd pick the chicken. But why? Why don't I like fish? Nature, nurture, exposure to certain things as a child, I don't know, but it's my preference which is why when given the choice, I choose the chicken and my feelings are genuine. I even get a little nauseous at the smell of fish for some reason, but that doesn't mean I go around trying to force everyone to give up their fish just because I think fish tastes icky. And no one (at least since childhood) is forcing me to eat fish. Perhaps it was trying to force me to eat fish as a child that led to my dislike it. I've seen some people try and force their children to be more masculine or feminine but end up getting exactly the opposite result. Why not just let nature and nurture take their course and love them regardless of their personal tastes?

Obviously, ones sexual orientation goes far deeper than their taste for certain foods, and their feelings about it are far more complex, so I did not intend to diminish their feelings with my example. But the fact remains, the feelings that effect personal choices are very real, and to dismiss them or tell a person they are "evil" or "sinners" for feeling the way they feel is what is actually the abomination. Those attacking gays verbally and even physically or trying to force their children into a mold are the ones doing true harm.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.4    3 weeks ago
That's not what was asked.  Is sexual orientation a choice?

But the question doesn't address what I said.  The research highlighted in the seed focused attention on genetics as a possible cause for orientation.  However, sex has become an enforced social expectation as well as being a natural instinct.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.3    3 weeks ago
A sexual relationship is a choice.  Or is it something else?

A sexual relationship is a choice. Who we are attracted to, is not. Even as a heterosexual man, I could show you photos of totally different women and you will attracted to only some of them. To a gay man, he will be attracted to none of them. That goes beyond freewill. That is background programming, so to speak.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.7    3 weeks ago
enforced social expectation

How do you mean?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.7    3 weeks ago

Is homosexuality an enforced social expectation?

I doubt it.  It seems to me that it exists in spite of enforced social expectations.

So, is sexual orientation a choice?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.7    3 weeks ago
sex has become an enforced social expectation

I would say it's an essential component of a healthy life. Beyond that, I'm not sure how it's a societal expectation.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.12  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.5    3 weeks ago
How do you mean? What is the implication of that?

Forming sexual relationships has been the social expectation for thousands of years.  Societies have enforced that social expectation through a variety of undeclared but implicit social standards. 

The social pressure to form a sexual relationship as a measure of a happy, healthy lifestyle should not be dismissed so readily.

A sexual relationship is a choice.  Or is it?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.12    3 weeks ago

Evasion noted.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.12    3 weeks ago
The social pressure to form a sexual relationship as a measure of a happy, healthy lifestyle should not be dismissed so readily.

So what you're saying is that we should all succumb to social pressures and that will bring us happiness? How about we apply that to other things in our lives? That would be like saying peer pressure is good for you. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.12    3 weeks ago
A sexual relationship is a choice.  Or is it?

It's actually two choices as both parties need to agree. Just because I'm attracted to someone doesn't mean I get to have sex with them.

A sexual relationship is merely the end result of at least two parties sexual orientation, proximity, eligibility, and a slew of other factors. But that's not what we are discussing, we're talking about the underlying roots of attraction.

I could see a picture of a woman that I'd be very attracted to, but then spend 10 minutes around her and find I'm totally not attracted to her because of her personality or other traits.

If you were shown a naked picture of a cute 20 year old girl you might be initially attracted, but then your Mom tells you that's your long lost sister and find yourself retching with nausea. Why? Because attraction is mental and the reason most aren't attracted to siblings is evolutions way of dispersing our DNA making new combinations instead of decaying it with inbreeding.

Anyone seeking a mate can tell you, it's not easy to find the person they want to choose to be with, but they usually have no problem telling you the kinds of people they are attracted to because that parts not really a "choice".

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.12    3 weeks ago
A sexual relationship is a choice.

I don't think that for most people, living a life without sex is a choice. You seem to be suggesting that gay people should choose to simply not have sex. At least, that is the implication of what you are saying. Why should we ask that of anyone?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.17  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.6    3 weeks ago
But he asked what "causes one to genuinely prefer individuals of the same gender?", not whether humans "choose" partners.

It's a social relationship.  Does a close, intimate personal relationship require sex?  How much is sexual attraction and how much is social expectation?

Sex is just sex.  Without a relationship sex no different than playing Nintendo, riding a roller coaster, base jumping, or recreational drugs.  It's an activity that provides a thrill.

So, sexuality is about more than sex or sexual attraction.  And relationships are about more than genetics or biochemistry.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.18  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.16    3 weeks ago
Why should we ask that of anyone?

Because the bible, or perhaps because the Koran. At least that's what virtually every objection boils down to.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.19  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.14    3 weeks ago
So what you're saying is that we should all succumb to social pressures and that will bring us happiness? How about we apply that to other things in our lives? That would be like saying peer pressure is good for you. 

Are we being forced to succumb to social pressure?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.19    3 weeks ago

Being cryptic and avoiding the question is annoying as hell.  Not cute at all.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.21  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.17    3 weeks ago
So, sexuality is about more than sex or sexual attraction.

That seems to be what everyone is saying, so not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, who you choose to be with is a choice, but the underlying reasons for attraction aren't.

Throughout most of human history marriage was a construct created and managed by the parents and the choice was effectively taken away from the youth who were simply expected to fulfill their roles as prescribed to them by their parents.

Today, we've decided that people should be free to make the marriage or partnership of their choice, not chosen by someone else. We've come to realize that just forcing children into procreation unions was not only unnecessary but truly cruel.

Now, because some cling to their preconceived social constructs, they choose to demonize and attack those who don't want to conform. They call gay humans "evil", "sinners", "abominations" and a variety of other personal attacks. Because they do this, those who are gay often suffer relentless persecution all their lives. Suicide rates are double for gay teens because of the viscous attacks they receive at the hands of the hateful bigots, often their own parents and peers. To me that is truly the tragedy, that some parents would choose arbitrary social constructs over loving their own child. If there was a hell, those are the people I believe are most deserving of it.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.22  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.16    3 weeks ago
I don't think that for most people, living a life without sex is a choice. You seem to be suggesting that gay people should choose to simply not have sex. At least, that is the implication of what you are saying. Why should we ask that of anyone?

Does establishing a close, intimate relationship depend upon an expectation of sex?  Long term sexual partners form a particularly intimate relationship.  Is that sort of relationship possible without sex?  

The question is about relationships and the expectations for relationships; not about genders.  Sexual attraction can be satisfied by prostitutes.  Relationships involve much more than sex or sexual attraction.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.21    3 weeks ago

This sounds like a newer study based upon some other studies.  I remember Stephen Colbert when he was still on the Colbert Report saying that if being gay was decided in the womb, then you know they're doing some re-decorating in there.

Always loved him, still do!

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.24  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.7    3 weeks ago
But the question doesn't address what I said. 

As I explained, I asked my question for you to clear this up.   I asked a question rather than presumed.   So I am taking all the steps to ensure I do not put words in your mouth.

Is my question that difficult to simply answer?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.25  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.20    3 weeks ago
Being cryptic and avoiding the question is annoying as hell.  Not cute at all. 

What is even more annoying is people trying to put words in my mouth because they are too intellectually lazy to look beyond the predigested pablum they've been fed.

I don't give a shit which gender prostitute people want to have sex with.  Screw goats for all I care.  Sex is just entertainment.

The question isn't really about sex.  The question is about relationships, expectations for relationships, and how social expectations play a role in relationships. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.24    3 weeks ago
'Is my question that difficult to simply answer?'

Obviously.  Some would rather be cryptic to appear intelligent and thoughtful.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.25    3 weeks ago

Again, avoiding the answer.  I never put words in your mouth.  

You just think you're so intelligent and thoughtful.  Meh.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.28  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.25    3 weeks ago
The question isn't really about sex.  The question is about relationships, expectations for relationships, and how social expectations play a role in relationships. 

Well my question (which started this) was not about the sex act nor was it about relationships.   I asked you about sexual orientation.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.25    3 weeks ago

It's poor form to insult somebody else for your own refusal to answer a straightforward question.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.30  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.21    3 weeks ago
Throughout most of human history marriage was a construct created and managed by the parents and the choice was effectively taken away from the youth who were simply expected to fulfill their roles as prescribed to them by their parents.

Yes, exactly.

Today, we've decided that people should be free to make the marriage or partnership of their choice, not chosen by someone else. We've come to realize that just forcing children into procreation unions was not only unnecessary but truly cruel.

But is that based on the same social expectations that justified arranged marriages?

Now, because some cling to their preconceived social constructs, they choose to demonize and attack those who don't want to conform. They call gay humans "evil", "sinners", "abominations" and a variety of other personal attacks. Because they do this, those who are gay often suffer relentless persecution all their lives. Suicide rates are double for gay teens because of the viscous attacks they receive at the hands of the hateful bigots, often their own parents and peers. To me that is truly the tragedy, that some parents would choose arbitrary social constructs over loving their own child. If there was a hell, those are the people I believe are most deserving of it.

And then the political bullshit based on thousands of years of social expectations overwhelms any rational discussion.

Okay, let's move on and try to get away from the gender bullshit.  What is the purpose of sex?  Is sex just an endorphin rush?  Is sex nothing more than an activity to obtain self gratification?  Is sex some sort of self validation?  Is sex a means of attaining social status?  Is sex a way of conforming to social expectations?

Sex, sex, sex.  Where does relationships fit into the research?  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.31  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.29    3 weeks ago
It's poor form to insult somebody else for your own refusal to answer a straightforward question.

It's also poor form to attempt to rehash what the research highlighted in the seeded article debunks.  There isn't a sexual orientation gene.

Homosexuality isn't explained by genetics.  Homosexuality isn't hardwired by biology which means homosexuality isn't really about the biomechanics of sex.  So, there has to be other factors involved that explain why homosexuality is not a choice.

If biology doesn't explain homosexuality then what's left?  One possibility is social organization.  Sexuality is also about forming relationships.  Does social expectations concerning relationships play a role in why homosexuality is not a choice?

I'm not the one who introduced the bullshit about whether or not homosexuality is a choice.  That's a strawman argument introduced by someone else.  Perhaps that strawman argument was to avoid the consequences of the research results.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.32  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.27    3 weeks ago
Again, avoiding the answer.  I never put words in your mouth.   You just think you're so intelligent and thoughtful.  Meh.  

I don't want to discuss whether or not homosexuality is a choice.  Homosexuals claim it's not a choice and that's enough.  Accept that homosexuality is not a choice and move on.

The research in the seeded article debunks the idea of a sexual orientation gene.  That means people are not born homosexuals; not too surprising since sexuality (particularly puberty) doesn't manifest until later in development.  So, what other factors may play a role in why homosexuality is not a choice?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.33  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.31    3 weeks ago
There isn't a sexual orientation gene.

That has not been established.   Sexual orientation, by the way, might be a complex result of several genes combined with other factors.   The research is not done.

Homosexuality isn't explained by genetics.  Homosexuality isn't hardwired by biology which means homosexuality isn't really about the biomechanics of sex.  So, there has to be other factors involved that explain why homosexuality is not a choice.

Again, you are drawing conclusions that are not supported by the findings.   Homosexuality might be more than genetics (I suspect it is).   Homesexuality might indeed be hardwired by biology.   Note that our biology continues to evolve as we age.   So our biochemical nature is not established solely at conception.

If biology doesn't explain homosexuality then what's left? 

Invalid question because your premise of 'biology doesn't explain homosexuality' has not been established as true.

I'm not the one who introduced the bullshit about whether or not homosexuality is a choice.  That's a strawman argument introduced by someone else.  Perhaps that strawman argument was to avoid the consequences of the research results.

Holy shit man.   I asked a qualifying question of you rather than presume and now I have introduced a strawman argument and you even assigned a particular dishonest intent to me?   Not cool.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.34  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.24    3 weeks ago
As I explained, I asked my question for you to clear this up.   I asked a question rather than presumed.   So I am taking all the steps to ensure I do not put words in your mouth. Is my question that difficult to simply answer?

No, the question of choice was to rehash the arguments that the highlighted research debunks.

I'm not directly answering the question because the question is uninteresting.  But you did successfully hijack the discussion.  Congratulations!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.35  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.31    3 weeks ago
There isn't a sexual orientation gene.

Nobody said there was.

Homosexuality isn't explained by genetics.

It is influenced by genetics.  From the article:

The genome-wide research on DNA from nearly half a million U.S. and U.K. adults identified five genetic variants not previously linked with gay or lesbian sexuality. The variants were more common in people who reported ever having had a same-sex sexual partner. If biology doesn't explain homosexuality then what's left?

Do you really think that genetics is the whole of biology?

That's a strawman argument introduced by someone else.

No, it was a question posed to you, which you refuse to answer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.36  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.34    3 weeks ago
No, the question of choice was to rehash the arguments that the highlighted research debunks.

I love it when people tell me what I was thinking and insist they know my intent better than me.

But you did successfully hijack the discussion. 

( It is my seed Nerm. )

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.37  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.32    3 weeks ago

Whatever.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.38  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.34    3 weeks ago
the highlighted research debunks.

Did you read the research?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.39  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.36    3 weeks ago
( It is my seed Nerm. )

And it's my discussion thread.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.40  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.38    3 weeks ago
Did you read the research?

"The researchers said thousands more genetic variants likely are involved and interact with factors that aren't inherited, but that none of them cause the behavior nor can predict whether someone will be gay."

"We also found that it's effectively impossible to predict an individual's sexual behavior from their genome," Neale said. "Genetics is less than half of this story for sexual behavior, but it's still a very important contributing factor."

"Origins of same-sex behavior are uncertain. Some of the strongest evidence of a genetic link comes from studies in identical twins. Many scientists believe that social, cultural, family and other biological factors are also involved, while some religious groups and skeptics consider it a choice or behavior that can be changed."


What the research concluded is that it's not possible to identify homosexuals by inspecting their DNA.  There isn't a sexual orientation gene; the research debunks that idea.  Other factors are larger contributors for determining homosexuality than genetics.  The research doesn't support the idea that homosexuals are born homosexual.

Given that homosexuality is not a choice then other factors must play a larger role than genetics.  I am stating that one of those factors likely involves social relationships and social expectations for relationships.  Do you agree or disagree?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.41  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.40    3 weeks ago
The researchers said thousands more genetic variants likely are involved

Genetics is less than half of this story forsexual behavior, but it's still a very important contributing factor."

There isn't a sexual orientation gene; the research debunks that idea.

And you accuse others of straw men?

The research doesn't support the idea that homosexuals are born homosexual.

But it strongly suggests that sexual orientation is to some degree innate.

Given that homosexuality is not a choice

There, was that so hard?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.42  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.39    3 weeks ago
And it's my discussion thread.

Yes it is.   And I asked you a qualifying topical question on your opening post rather than presume to know what you were thinking which you then spent the entire thread dancing around and now you wish to blame me for hijacking your thread.    

And then you finally answer the question @5.1.40 ("Given that homosexuality is not a choice ...") showing that the dancing was pointless.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.43  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.31    3 weeks ago
I'm not the one who introduced the bullshit about whether or not homosexuality is a choice. 

Actually, you ARE. The question that you've been avoiding is:

You are not indirectly suggesting that sexual orientation is a personal choice are you?

YOU are the one that chose to reply by address only ONE of the many sexual orientations, homosexuality. 

Why? 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.44  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.40    3 weeks ago
"We also found that it's effectively impossible to predict an individual's sexual behavior from their genome," Neale said.

What the research concluded is that it's not possible to identify homosexuals by inspecting their DNA.

The research doesn't support the idea that homosexuals are born homosexual.

There, you did it again. The researcher said sexual behavior and YOU choose to pretend that it's all about homosexuals. 

The research doesn't support the idea that heterosexuals are born heterosexuals.

See how that works? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.45  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.14    3 weeks ago
So what you're saying is that we should all succumb to social pressures

Never going to happen in this one.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.46  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.42    3 weeks ago
Yes it is.   And I asked you a qualifying topical question on your opening post rather than presume to know what you were thinking which you then spent the entire thread dancing around and now you wish to blame me for hijacking your thread. 

Homosexuality is not the only variant of sexual behavior.  Sadism, masochism, sexual predation, sex as violence, and sexual addiction are some of the variants of sexual behavior.  A discussion of choice opens a Pandora's box of uninteresting argument.  I didn't want to go there on my discussion thread.  Simply acknowledging your question would open Pandora's box.

Is genetics a major contributing factor in all the variants of sexual behavior?  The research does not support the idea that genetics is a major contributing factor in any sexual behavior.  There isn't a sexual sadist gene, either; people are not born to become sexual sadists.  

If sexual sadism is not a choice and can be corrected by therapeutic means then what of homosexuality?  That might provide fodder for argument but I don't find that sort of discussion interesting.

All the variants of sexual behavior share a common basis: sex.  Homosexuality is different because forming relationships is an important aspect.  Homosexuality is about more than sexual behavior.  Both individual and societal expectations concerning relationships is a far richer and more interesting topic of discussion than whether or not sexual behavior is a choice.  Social behavior does involve free will.  We can choose our individual expectations and we can choose how to respond to societal expectations.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.47  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.46    3 weeks ago
Homosexuality is not the only variant of sexual behavior. 

The question wasn't about 'sexual behavior' it was about sexual orientation. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.48  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @5.1.47    3 weeks ago
The question wasn't about 'sexual behavior' it was about sexual orientation. 

Yes.  And the question successfully hijacked the discussion so we are now thinking about how people use their gonads.

Homosexuality isn't the only variant of sexual behavior.  Are homosexuals only interested in screwing who they want, when they want, where they want?  Is that really what homosexuality is about?

The opposition to homosexuality has focused attention on dirty sex.  That's a demeaning attitude.  Why are you trying to perpetuate that demeaning attitude?

Homosexuality is really about choosing a partner for a stable relationship.  That sets homosexuality apart from most variants of sexual behavior.  What is more important: the sex or the relationship?  What's your answer?

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.49  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.48    3 weeks ago
Yes.  And the question successfully hijacked the discussion so we are now thinking about how people use their gonads.

NO! 

Again, the question was about sexual ORIENTATION, not sexual behavior or how people use their gonads. 

All you needed to do was answer the fucking question. Instead, as is your practice, you blathered, trying and failing to deflect from the simple question. 

Homosexuality isn't the only variant of sexual behavior.

That's irrelevant to the question posed to you. 

Are homosexuals only interested in screwing who they want, when they want, where they want? Is that really what homosexuality is about?

IMHO, no more so than heterosexually.

The opposition to homosexuality has focused attention on dirty sex.

Nope, the opposition to homosexuality has focused attention on religious animus. 

That's a demeaning attitude.

Then it's YOUR demeaning attitude. 

Why are you trying to perpetuate that demeaning attitude?

What a laughably unfounded and ignorant statement. 

Homosexuality is really about choosing a partner for a stable relationship.

Nope, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality and bisexuality. Sexual orientation has NO connection to stable relationships. 

That sets homosexuality apart from most variants of sexual behavior.

So you're equating homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality and S&M. 

Why are you trying to perpetuate that demeaning attitude? 

What is more important: the sex or the relationship? What's your answer?

Well I doubt that my wife would think that we have a 'stable relationship' if there was NO sex involved. Now we ARE getting on in age but hey, we're both physically able so it happens...often in fact. 

Will there come a time when we aren't able? I hope we live that long and I have no doubt that our relationship will go on, especially since I'll still ogle her till the day I die...

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.50  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.46    3 weeks ago
Homosexuality is not the only variant of sexual behavior. 

That is correct.

Simply acknowledging your question would open Pandora's box.

Uh huh.  jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

Is genetics a major contributing factor in all the variants of sexual behavior? 

Behavior and orientation are different matters.

If sexual sadism is not a choice and can be corrected by therapeutic means then what of homosexuality?

Why are you poking at Pandora's box?   If merely answering my qualifying question was so dangerous don't you think you are really pushing things with sadomasochism?

All the variants of sexual behavior share a common basis: sex.  

Behavior and orientation are different matters.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.51  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.22    3 weeks ago
Does establishing a close, intimate relationship depend upon an expectation of sex? 

It depends on the relationship, obviously. But the kind of relationship that includes an intimate sex partner is extremely beneficial to mental and physical health. Most people engage in a relationship like that because they want to, not because it is expected of one socially.

Sexual attraction can be satisfied by prostitutes

Prostitutes do not satisfy every benefit that a trusting, intimate relationship provides.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.52  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.48    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.53  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.50    3 weeks ago
Why are you poking at Pandora's box?   If merely answering my qualifying question was so dangerous don't you think you are really pushing things with sadomasochism?

The seeded article doesn't say anything about sexual orientation.  The research used sexual behavior as selection criteria for the test population.  The research results are about sexual behavior and not sexual orientation.

"Importantly, most participants were asked about frequency of same-sex sexual behavior but not if they self-identified as gay or lesbian. Fewer than 5% of U.K. participants and about 19% of U.S. participants reported ever having a same-sex sexual experience.

The researchers acknowledged that limitation and emphasized that the study's focus was on behavior, not sexual identity or orientation. They also note that the study only involved people of European ancestry and can't answer whether similar results would be found in other groups."

So what was your question intending to qualify? Are you trying to claim that anyone who engages in same gender sexual behavior should be identified as gay or lesbian? Or are you attempting to claim that only those who self-identify as gay or lesbian engage in same gender sexual behavior?

Is sexual behavior a choice?  That's what the seeded article is discussing.  That's what my lead comment addresses, too.

What exactly was the intent of your qualifying question?  And, please, explain how that qualifying question addresses either my lead comment or the seeded article?

Claiming that I implied sexual orientation is a choice ain't what I said.  The only claim I made about sexual orientation is that homosexuality (and heterosexuality) is really more about relationships of semi-social humans in an enforced social environment.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.54  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.53    3 weeks ago
The seeded article doesn't say anything about sexual orientation.

The seeded article doesn't say anything about relationships but you've insisted that's what it's all about since your first comment. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.55  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.48    3 weeks ago
That sets homosexuality apart from most variants of sexual behavior. 

You've said this a couple of times now. It's utter bullshit.

Homosexuality is a sexual attraction/ sexual ORIENTATION.

Fellatio is a sexual behavior. 

Are you getting it yet? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.56  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.53    3 weeks ago
The seeded article doesn't say anything about sexual orientation. 

The seeded article is talking about sexual orientation too Nerm.   Right off the bat:

The genome-wide research on DNA from nearly half a million U.S. and U.K. adults identified five genetic variants not previously linked with gay or lesbian sexuality

The words 'gay' and 'lesbian' refer to sexual orientation.   The word 'sexuality' means sexual orientation.

Claiming that I implied sexual orientation is a choice ain't what I said.  

Did you forget that I did the opposite of make a claim?   Rather than presume your position, I asked you to state your position clearly.   Hello?

What a bunch of nonsense from you all because I asked you to clarify your opening statement regarding choice.   Good grief man, this is ridiculous.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.57  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @5.1.55    3 weeks ago
Homosexuality is a sexual attraction/ sexual ORIENTATION.

Necrophilia is a sexual attraction, too.  A number of sexual fetishes arise from sexual attraction.  

Sex with animals would be a sexual behavior but a preference for bestiality would be a sexual attraction.

What distinguishes homosexuality from any other form of paraphilia?  What distinguishes homosexuality from deviant sexual behavior or deviant sexual attraction?

See the inadequacy of your argument?  See why making the argument about whether or not homosexuality is a choice opens a Pandora's box?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.58  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.56    3 weeks ago
What a bunch of nonsense from you all because I asked you to clarify your opening statement regarding choice.   Good grief man, this is ridiculous.

Where in @5 did I make an opening statement about choice of sexual orientation?  That's not what I said.  And trying to put words in my mouth won't change what I said.

It's amazing that you choose to ignore the researcher's explicit explanation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.59  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.58    3 weeks ago
And trying to put words in my mouth won't change what I said.

So you did not read my response @5.1 where I quoted the contextual sentence from your @5 and asked my qualifying question on it?   Here, Nerm, I have copied my entire comment for you:

Nerm @5 ⇨ Claiming that God, nature, or the roll of the dice made us who we are is a a cop out.  
TiG @5.1 ⇨ What besides nature and nurture (all those external factors in the 'roll of the dice') causes one to genuinely prefer individuals of the same gender?  You are not indirectly suggesting that sexual orientation is a personal choice are you?

I cannot read this for you.   You will have to do that on your own.   Hint:  the last sentence in my reply is the qualifying question I asked you.   All you had to do is write something like 'no, I am not trying to suggest sexual orientation is a personal choice'.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.60  Split Personality  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.57    3 weeks ago

By definition, necrophilia is not a sexual attraction.

It is a psychosexual  disorder between a living person and a dead person.

Necrophilia is a psychosexual disorder where there is an intense sexual desire for a corpse or dead body.

In order for there to be a mutual attraction of necrophilia between two living people is illogical.

Go back to to square one, do not collect $200.

/s

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1.61  Split Personality  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.58    3 weeks ago

It's amazing that you always think you are the only cognizant entity in the universe.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.62  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.57    3 weeks ago
What distinguishes homosexuality from any other form of paraphilia?  What distinguishes homosexuality from deviant sexual behavior or deviant sexual attraction?

The same thing that distinguishes heterosexuality from them. 

See the inadequacy of your argument?

See why making the argument about whether or not homosexuality is a choice opens a Pandora's box?

No more of a Pandora's box than making the argument about whether or not heterosexuality is a choice. Why pretend it is? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.63  Nerm_L  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.60    3 weeks ago
In order for there to be a mutual attraction of necrophilia between two living people is illogical.

So, now sexual orientation requires mutual sexual attraction that is not a choice?  An individual cannot determine their sexual identity without a committee?

A person can't be gay until someone is gay back at them?

See, you are trying to talk about relationships in a backhanded manner.  And I tried to discuss relationships (mutual attraction, in simpler terms).  But the more enlightened cognizant entities wanted to open the 'choice' can of worms that has been kicked around for decades.

Like it or not, humans exhibit a wide variety of deviant sexual behavior.  Homosexuality is only one deviant sexual behavior among many.  Is deviant sexual behavior a choice?  What differentiates one deviant sexual behavior from another?

Homosexuality is not an evolved trait.  The DNA research indicates that homosexuality is not likely the result of genetic mutation.  Homosexuality cannot be the result of natural selection since that would depend upon transmitting traits to succeeding generations of offspring.  Homosexuality cannot be the result of loss of genetic diversity in a shrinking population.  There isn't anything in the reported research that suggests homosexuals are born homosexual.

The 'choice' argument is that individual sexual orientation is not a choice.  So, society must accept certain types of deviant sexual behavior as being normal.  I guess other types of deviant sexual behavior must find their own advocates. 

The argument being made is that since homosexuals don't have a choice then the larger society shouldn't have a choice either.  Society must provide protections for certain types of deviant sexual behavior while protecting society against other types of deviant sexual behavior.

Homosexuals cannot win the 'choice' argument because society always has a choice in everything and society will be reluctant giving up its ability to choose.  Kicking that can of worms only attracts flocks of feeders and focuses attention on the wrong things.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.64  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.63    3 weeks ago
Homosexuality is not an evolved trait.  The DNA research indicates that homosexuality is not likely the result of genetic mutation.

It seems that you still haven't read the research.  Genetic variants have been identified which correlate with homosexual behavior.

There isn't anything in the reported research that suggests homosexuals are born homosexual.

Except that there is.

"Deviant behavior."  Nice.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.65  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @5.1.62    3 weeks ago
The same thing that distinguishes heterosexuality from them. 

Heterosexuality is the evolutionary norm that has been naturally selected to propagate traits to succeeding generations of offspring.  Survival of the species depends upon heterosexual reproduction.

What distinguishes heterosexuality from deviant sexual behavior is the evolved sexual biology that produces offspring.  Yes, heterosexuals engage in deviant sexual behavior, too.  And society does protect itself from such deviant sexual behavior.

Homosexuality can only be considered deviant sexual behavior.  So, what distinguishes homosexuality from other types of deviant sexual behavior determines whether or not society should protect itself from homosexuality.

I attempted to open that discussion but more enlightened cognizant entities chose to kick the can of worms instead.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.66  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.64    3 weeks ago
It seems that you still haven't read the research.  Genetic variants have been identified which correlate with homosexual behavior.

Homosexual behavior is engaging in sex with the same gender; as explained in the seeded article.  That doesn't provide any information about sexual orientation or sexual identity.  And the research indicated that sexual behavior cannot be predicted through analysis of DNA.

Except that there is.

Where?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.67  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.66    3 weeks ago
That doesn't provide any information about sexual orientation or sexual identity.

You don't think that behavior likely correlates with orientation?

Where?

The fact that genetic variants associated with same-sex behavior were found.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.68  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.65    3 weeks ago
Heterosexuality is the evolutionary norm that has been naturally selected to propagate traits to succeeding generations of offspring.  Survival of the species depends upon heterosexual reproduction.

Forming partnerships has far more to it than procreation.

" same-sex behavior (comprising courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and parental activities) has been documented in over 450 species of animals worldwide"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

If it has evolved in in so many different species, then I think it reasonable to assume that it plays some necessary role in survival.

Why would anyone believe it their responsibility to go police other people attempting to force them to conform to some norm? Why should we consider it "deviant sexual behavior" as if it should be frowned upon? What danger is there of simply showing love for one another regardless of whether someone else fits the social norms? What is the real risk religious conservatives imagine happening if they were to treat gay persons with respect instead of hateful derision? We know the hateful derision has increased the likelihood of youth suicide, so we know that religious conservatives and the anti-gay crowd are responsible for the deaths of thousands of children. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the damage that unmitigated and unnecessary bigoted hate expressed towards the gay community causes than with the supposed loss of "human procreation" from same sex unions?

" society does protect itself from such deviant sexual behavior."

It's not "society" that's trying to protect itself with such vile hate towards other humans, it's bigoted religions that try to impose their fantasy based morality on society. It's not evolution that has caused thousands of hate crimes towards the lgtbq community each year. It is a vile ideology of hate and the push of some bullshit idea that gay persons are somehow inferior to straight persons very similar to the beliefs of white supremacists who also often express their hate towards the lgtbq community. Those who hate gays and hate minorities are birds of a feather and actually, by their actions, show themselves to be useless vestigial humans this planet no longer needs or wants.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.69  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.67    3 weeks ago
You don't think that behavior likely correlates with orientation?

The researchers indicated that assumption could not be made.

The fact that genetic variants associated with same-sex behavior were found.

The research did not identify genetic variants associated with same sex behavior.  The research identified variants that correlated with same sex behavior.  The researchers specifically explained that DNA could not be used as a predictive tool for sexual behavior.  If the research had found variants associated with same sex behavior then that behavior could be predicted by analysis of DNA.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.70  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.35    3 weeks ago
It is influenced by genetics.  From the article:

That's not at all what the article says.  The article even tells you not to presume this conclusion:

"Having just a single same-sex experience is completely different than actually being gay or lesbian," Hamer said. His research in the 1990s linked a marker on the X chromosome with male homosexuality. Some subsequent studies had similar results, but the new one found no such link. Doug Vanderlaan, a University of Toronto psychologist who studies sexual orientation, said the absence of information on sexual orientation is a drawback and makes it unclear what the identified genetic links might signify. They "might be links to other traits, like openness to experience," Vanderlaan said.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.71  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.70    3 weeks ago

No doubt that factors which determine sexual orientation remain to be determined.   One thing that is clear in behavioral biology is that behavior is very complex.   Many factors typically are working together to ultimate result in a discernible external behavior.   

So, the genetic (and epigenetic) factors which make one open to experience might indeed be part of the genetic puzzle that explains homosexuality, etc.  Still genetics.  Sexual orientation certainly seems to be influenced by genetics.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.72  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @5.1.49    3 weeks ago
Sexual orientation has NO connection to stable relationships.

According to this, lesbian and bisexual women beat one another more than other orientations.

  1. 43.8% of   lesbian   women   and 61.1% of   bisexual   women   have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, as opposed to 35% of heterosexual women.
  2. 26% of   gay   men   and 37.3% of   bisexual   men   have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, in comparison to 29% of heterosexual men.

https://ncadv.org/blog/posts/domestic-violence-and-the-lgbtq-community

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.73  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.69    3 weeks ago

A correlation isn't an association?

The largest study of its kind found new evidence that genes contribute to same-sex sexual behavior,

You're much too focused on the DNA here.  Nobody has said that there's a single "gay gene" for which we can do a DNA test to determine whether somebody is gay.  Genetics is part of the picture, though, as this study states.  Epigenetics is likely also part of the picture - exposure to maternal hormones during gestation, for example.  And so is just plain old chance.  It's multifactorial, but you seem to think that if we can't find a "gay gene", homosexuality couldn't possibly have a genetic component, in spite of the evidence that it does.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.74  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.70    3 weeks ago

So further studies can determine whether there's a correlation between those genes and self-identifying as homosexual.  I understand the reluctance among scientists to assume a correlation between behavior and orientation, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people who are willing to engage in same-sex sexual relations likely feel some attraction toward their same-sex partners, and likely don't fall on the "completely straight" end of the spectrum.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.75  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.65    3 weeks ago
Heterosexuality is the evolutionary norm that has been naturally selected to propagate traits to succeeding generations of offspring.  Survival of the species depends upon heterosexual reproduction.

Male/Female sexual BEHAVIOR ensures survival of the species. That doesn't have a fucking thing to do with sexual orientation or attraction. 

What distinguishes heterosexuality from deviant sexual behavior is the evolved sexual biology that produces offspring.

Utter bullshit. Humans are primates and anyone that has studied our closest biological  relative, the Bonobo, has to realize that there is no such thing as a biologically 'deviant sexual behavior' between sexually mature primates. 

Yes, heterosexuals engage in deviant sexual behavior, too. And society does protect itself from such deviant sexual behavior.

Utter bullshit AGAIN.

Society has ALWAYS looked the other way when heterosexuals participated in what you characterize as deviant. I suggest you read the Lawrence v. Texas ruling for proof of that fact. 

Homosexuality can only be considered deviant sexual behavior.

I'll repeat it one more time. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, NOT a behavior. 

You conflate non-reproductive sexual behavior with homosexuality.

That would mean that every man that gets a blow job is a homosexual. Guess that just kicked up the gay population to 100%. 

Is that your ridiculous posit? 

So, what distinguishes homosexuality from other types of deviant sexual behavior determines whether or not society should protect itself from homosexuality.

And the bullshit just keeps on coming. 

As long as the straight men still want to insert their penises into non-reproductive orifices, society will fail to protect itself from what you call 'deviant sexual behavior'. 

What's so fucking ridiculous is that it took you so long to finally admit that your entire posit is based on religious animus and it's underlying hypocrisy of holding same sex partners to standards that you refuse to hold opposite sex partners to. 

It's pretty fucking telling that you claim that homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior, admit that heterosexuals commit those SAME deviant sexual behaviors, yet hypocritically insist that society only need consider protecting itself from the homosexuals. 

I attempted to open that discussion but more enlightened cognizant entities chose to kick the can of worms instead.

Actually, as I see it, what you attempted to do was to pretend that your argument had a basis in biological and scientific data when it's become clear that it's based on the same old tired religious animus that our society has rejected. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.76  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.73    3 weeks ago

Absolutely, sexual orientation (and, also, behavior) is complicated as is most of our biology.   There typically are many factors working together (each with their own weights) which result in the behaviors we observe (as well as factors of the individual that we cannot directly observe).

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.77  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.65    3 weeks ago
So, what distinguishes homosexuality from other types of deviant sexual behavior determines whether or not society should protect itself from homosexuality.

Wow.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.78  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.68    3 weeks ago
Forming partnerships has far more to it than procreation.

Exactly.  Homosexuality isn't only about sexual behavior.  From @ 5 :

"Homosexuality (and heterosexuality) is really more about relationships of semi-social humans in an enforced social environment.  Sex has become an enforced social expectation as well as being a natural instinct.  Science can't provide understanding of human sexuality by ignoring humanity."

Throughout recorded human history partner relationships have included societal expectations concerning sex.  But does a partner relationship really require sex?

The human desire for a close, intimate partner relationship is just as strong as sexual desire.  The mother-child relationship is a very close relationship and siblings can also develop a very close relationship.  But the societal expectations concerning sex is quite different for those types of close relationships.

For unrelated individuals desiring to form a close relationship, society imposes expectations on the relationship concerning sex.  The social expectations for unrelated partners in a close relationship is that they also must be sexual partners.  The social expectation is that sex is a requirement to form a close relationship between unrelated individuals.

It's a chicken and egg situation that can't be easily resolved.  Does the desire for a relationship establish the sexual attraction?  Or does the sexual attraction result in a relationship and why would such relationships share similarities?  How much does thousands of years of societal and social expectations influence either of those personal desires?

If it has evolved in in so many different species, then I think it reasonable to assume that it plays some necessary role in survival.

If same sex behavior were an evolved trait then it would be genetically predictable.  There also needs to be some identifiable explanation how same sex behavior provides a naturally selected advantage.

My guess is that same sex behavior in animals a learned behavior that strengthens relationships.  And its the close relationships that provides the naturally selected advantage.  

An exclusive preference for same sex behavior could also be a natural control on population size.

It's not "society" that's trying to protect itself with such vile hate towards other humans, it's bigoted religions that try to impose their fantasy based morality on society.

I disagree.  The Neanderthals went extinct because of shrinking population size and loss genetic diversity.  Until only recently the human population was quite small and depended upon producing offspring for survival of the species.  For tens of thousands of years humans confronted the real possibility of extinction, too.  Societies had a vested interest in imposing expectations upon relationships to procreate.

Population Estimates: Year One through 2050 A.D.

The religious 'bigotry' arose when continued existence of the human species was not a certainty.  IMO that's why religions that arose in antiquity (such as Judaism and Christianity) placed more emphasis on procreation.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.79  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.74    2 weeks ago
So further studies can determine whether there's a correlation between those genes and self-identifying as homosexual.

1.  Why does it matter?

2.  How many studies will need to fail to conclude people aren't "born this way" before you accept that as a possibility?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.80  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.79    2 weeks ago
2.  How many studies will need to fail to conclude people aren't "born this way" before you accept that as a possibility?

I'm not aware of any studies, including this one, that have concluded that, Jack.  Again, it's not all rooted in DNA.  Were you born heterosexual, or did you choose to be so?

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.81  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.72    2 weeks ago
According to this, lesbian and bisexual women beat one another more than other orientations.

Actually, it doesn't.

I know very few women that have been exclusively lesbian their entire life. It's more prevalent of late in younger millennials. That survey question was about 'in your lifetime'. 

As for bisexual women, the study doesn't state which gender the abusive intimate partner was. 

BTW. I note that you didn't put up the stats on Gay men. According to those states, and your standard, straight women beat one straight men more than gay men beat on each other. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.82  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @5.1.81    2 weeks ago
BTW. I note that you didn't put up the stats on Gay men.

I did put the stat up on gay men. You obviously missed it.

The straight stats were posted too. The clear winner for intimate partner violence is Bisexual women followed by lesbian women.

 I know very few women that have been exclusively lesbian their entire life.

How would you explain this? Do you think homosexuality is driven more by environmental influences than genetics?

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.83  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.81    2 weeks ago
BTW. I note that you didn't put up the stats on Gay men.

Say, what do you think this is?

26% of gay men and 37.3% of bisexual men have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, in comparison to 29% of heterosexual men.
 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.84  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.83    2 weeks ago
Say, what do you think this is?

My bad, pays to be a gay man...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.85  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.80    2 weeks ago
I'm not aware of any studies, including this one, that have concluded that, Jack.  Again, it's not all rooted in DNA.  

This study indicates that. 

The study looked through millions of genetic variants to see if any significant differences appeared. It identified just five variants that stood out, out of the millions analyzed.

The most important conclusion is that "they represent very, very, very small effects," Neale says. "Together, the five variants account for much less than 1% of the variability in the traits that we're looking at."

That means the scientists found virtually nothing in common among the people who reported having at least one same-sex experience in their lifetime. And the results reveal little if anything about the biology that might underlie these genetic variants.

Less than 1% variability.  Anyone looking at the numbers objectively realizes that this study confirms lack of correlation.  The link is to NPR, by the way.

Were you born heterosexual, or did you choose to be so?

This is the go-to emotional, nonsensical response from people desperate to declare that it is "not the fault" of gay people that they're gay.  It's idiotic and it's built on a foundation of homophobia.

Why do gay people need some sort of excuse? 

I prefer Brooklyn Decker to Kim Kardashian.  I wasn't born that way, it's just sort of a preference I developed over time, like my preference for blue shirts over green, white cars over black or broccoli over cauliflower.  I don't need to defend that to anyone, and I sure as hell don't need some excuse for not being able to help myself.  The same would be true if I preferred Chris Hemsworth.  I would not be so weak and pathetic that "I couldn't help it", and I would not owe an explanation to anybody.

Do you believe they are inferior in some way, or that something is wrong with preferring same sex partners?  Then why are you so desperate to conclude things that the science does not support?   

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.86  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.84    2 weeks ago
My bad, pays to be a gay man...

WTF does that mean?

You said he didn't provide exactly what he DID provide.

And now you have read it at LEAST twice.

Got it now?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.87  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @5.1.84    2 weeks ago
My bad, pays to be a gay man...

That sounds homophobic.

It means that bisexual and lesbian woman beat and rape their partners more. That's what that means.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.88  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.84    2 weeks ago
pays to be a gay man...

If gay men work, shouldn't they expect to be paid?

Shouldn't heterosexuals get paid to work too?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.89  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.88    2 weeks ago

Are we talking gay wage gap now?

It actually does pay to be a gay man, they are the highest earning on the LGBTQ wage scale.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.90  Texan1211  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.89    2 weeks ago

Hell if I know what he was talking about.

I always figured any American who has a job got paid.

It's kind of the law and all!

Perhaps he thinks gay men shouldn't get paid?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.91  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.85    2 weeks ago

Again, you're focusing too much on the DNA, and ignoring parts of the article that don't support your position.

"Genetics is less than half of this story for sexual behavior, but it's still a very important contributing factor."

Epigenetics are also  likely an important contributing factor.

Do you believe they are inferior in some way, or that something is wrong with preferring same sex partners?

No.

Then why are you so desperate to conclude things that the science does not support?   

I might ask you the same question.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.92  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.86    2 weeks ago
WTF does that mean?

What part of 'my bad' don't you understand Tex? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.93  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.92    2 weeks ago

Obtuse now, too?

Do you seriously think I was referring to THAT?

WTF does that mean had to do with your comment about it paying to be a gay man.

Got it now?

I obviously know what the fuck "My bad" means.

No need to get mad when someone points out your error.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.94  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.92    2 weeks ago

Care to explain WTF you meant by "pays to be a gay man"?

 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.95  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.87    2 weeks ago
That sounds homophobic.

In what way? 

You post data that you claim proves that lesbians and bi-sexual women ' beat one another more than other orientations' yet don't seem to think that's homophobic. 

So why do you think that my saying it pays to be a gay man based one converse data is homophobic? 

It means that bisexual and lesbian woman beat and rape their partners more. That's what that means.

Actually, it doesn't and I have already told you why. Repeating it doesn't make it any more factual. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.96  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.88    2 weeks ago

Who was talking about work Tex?

You're desperately grasping at straws to argue with me about. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.97  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.96    2 weeks ago

Sorry, but it was YOU who brought up pay, not me. People get paid to WORK, right?

Or is there some special fund that pays gay men for being gay that only you know about?

You could just EXPLAIN WTF you meant by your statement, but I see you simply refuse to.

That's okay, it was indefensible anyways.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.98  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @5.1.95    2 weeks ago

Not liking a statistic doesn't mean it's homophobic. LOL

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.99  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.93    2 weeks ago
Do you seriously think I was referring to THAT?

If you were, why did you ask your ACTUAL question in your next post? 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.100  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.98    2 weeks ago
Not liking a statistic doesn't mean it's homophobic. LOL

You're not liking my comment doesn't mean it sounds homophobic either. 

You yet to explain how it does. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.101  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.99    2 weeks ago
If you were, why did you ask your ACTUAL question in your next post?

I actually asked the question in post #5.1.86

After reading your replies, I realized exactly how precise I must be in my posts to you so you don't get it twisted.

Understand?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.102  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @5.1.100    2 weeks ago
You yet to explain how it does. 

Can you rephrase that?

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.103  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.97    2 weeks ago
You could just EXPLAIN WTF you meant by your statement, but I see you simply refuse to. That's okay, it was indefensible anyways.

I haven't the time or the inclination to educate you about the phrase 'pays to be' in the English language Tex. Suffice it to say, I can't understand things FOR you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.104  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.102    2 weeks ago

Why would I bother, as is your practice, you've yet to answer my prior questions. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.105  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.1.103    2 weeks ago
I haven't the time or the inclination to educate you about the phrase 'pays to be' in the English language Tex. Suffice it to say, I can't understand things FOR you.

For once, you are right.

You CAN'T understand it for yourself yet!

Never mind for me!

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.106  Texan1211  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.82    2 weeks ago

Here is a few more stats.

https://ncadv.org/blog/posts/domestic-violence-and-the-lgbtq-comm1. 

In a study of male same sex relationships, only 26% of men called the police for assistance after experiencing near-lethal violence.
In 2012, fewer than 5% of LGBTQ survivors of intimate partner violence sought orders of protection.
Transgender victims are more likely to experience intimate partner violence in public, compared to those who do not identify as transgender.
Bisexual victims are more likely to experience sexual violence, compared to people who do not identify as bisexual.
LGBTQ Black/African American victims are more likely to experience physical intimate partner violence, compared to those who do not identify as Black/African American.
LGBTQ white victims are more likely to experience sexual violence, compared to those who do not identify as white.
LGBTQ victims on public assistance are more likely to experience intimate partner violence compared to those who are not on public assistance.

https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

https://www.safehorizon.org/get-informed/domestic-violence-statistics-facts

Domestic Violence Statistics on Sexual Orientation. 2 in 5 lesbian women, 3 in 5 bisexual women, and 1 in 3 heterosexual women will experience rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. (CDC, 2010)

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.107  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @5.1.104    2 weeks ago

We should always take time to ensure proper adverb and pronoun placement in sentence structures. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.108  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.91    2 weeks ago
Again, you're focusing too much on the DNA, and ignoring parts of the article that don't support your position.

Please cite where I have mentioned DNA.  You are the one fixated on DNA.

Are you actually reading my comments or do you have me confused with someone else?

Epigenetics are also  likely an important contributing factor.

There are five variants identified in this study.  And again....

" The most important conclusion is that "they represent very, very, very small effects," Neale says.   "Together, the five variants account for much less than 1% of the variability in the traits that we're looking at."

So the study indicates a lack of correlation, despite what over-zealous liberal journalists would like you to believe.

I might ask you the same question.

I'm sure you might.  But then you would have to explain the math.  If you understood the math well enough to explain it, you would immediately understand that this study actually undermines your bias instead of confirming it, and you would withdraw the question.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.109  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.108    2 weeks ago
Please cite where I have mentioned DNA.

You're quoting sentences about genetic variants.  Is there another meaning of "gene" in regards to biology of which I'm unaware when discussing humans, another material of which genes are composed?  I know of DNA and RNA, and one of those (DNA, of which genes are composed) is heritable in humans.  I suppose we might discuss retroviruses, but I'm not aware of any studies done regarding their sexual behaviors or orientations.

DNA is what this study looked at, and found that genetics are an important contributing factor.  No, they are not the only factor (which nobody here is saying, anyway), so while this study does not support that homosexuality is entirely the result of our DNA, it also supports that homosexuality is, in part, the result of our DNA.

Also, the study only looks at sites examined by 23andMe.  How many variants does 23andMe examine?  I don't know, and their website doesn't really say.  Do they examine all known genetic variants?  Doubtful.  Have we even identified all of them?  Until we have, we can't really say that genetics has no role, can we?  In fact, we already know that genetics has some role.  We don't know the extent of that role.

You're polarizing the issue.  "They didn't find a gay gene - homosexuality isn't  genetic, and therefore can't be innate.  Oh, and you're homophobic if you need it to be.  And you can't math, either."  Lots of ad hominem in your comments, Jack. 

You ignore that genetics could be one of many interacting factors that cause a person to be homosexual at birth.  Why must it be so black and white?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5.1.110  KDMichigan  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.89    2 weeks ago
It actually does pay to be a gay man, they are the highest earning on the LGBTQ wage scale.

I wonder if that is because they are less likely to be obese as compared to lesbians?

I think I read that...

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/47252/why-the-federal-government-spent-3-million-to-study-lesbian-obesity

 
 
 
CB
5.1.111  CB   replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.72    2 weeks ago

My friend, your point for sharing these stats about another group of imperfect people? As the saying goes: "We all (groups) have our crosses to bear."

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.112  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.77    2 weeks ago
So, what distinguishes homosexuality from other types of deviant sexual behavior determines whether or not society should protect itself from homosexuality.

Protect from what? It's not a contagion and it doesn't hurt anyone. Why would society have to do anything?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.113  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.112    2 weeks ago

Agreed.  I'd kinda like for Nerm-L to answer that, but I have a feeling he won't.

 
 
 
CB
5.1.114  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @5.1.110    2 weeks ago

Here we go. . . .

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.115  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.82    2 weeks ago
How would you explain this? 

IMHO, it's societal. Most of the older lesbians that I know were with men when they were younger, some married and had kids. It took some decades to come out. The only women that I know that have been exclusively lesbian are younger millennials and Gen Zs. They know and accept themselves. 

It's a societal change and they have family and community support to encourage them to be genuine to themselves. 

Do you think homosexuality is driven more by environmental influences than genetics?

I think that they are born that way and WHY is irrelevant to me. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.116  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.78    2 weeks ago
Exactly. Homosexuality isn't only about sexual behavior.

Do you mean that homosexuality isn't only about 'deviant sexual behavior'? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.117  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dulay @5.1.116    2 weeks ago

Nerm-L seems to have bowed out of the discussion.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.118  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.66    2 weeks ago
Homosexual behavior is engaging in sex with the same gender; as explained in the seeded article.

There is NO explanation of 'homosexual behavior in the seeded article. 

That doesn't provide any information about sexual orientation or sexual identity.

Presuming that you're still talking about the seeded article, actually it does. 

The variants were more common in people who reported ever having had a same-sex sexual partner. That includes people whose partners were exclusively of the same sex and those who mostly reported heterosexual behavior.

Where?

From the article:

His research in the 1990s linked a marker on the X chromosome with male homosexuality. Some subsequent studies had similar results, but the new one found no such link.
 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.119  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @5.1.49    2 weeks ago
Again, the question was about sexual ORIENTATION, not sexual behavior or how people use their gonads.  All you needed to do was answer the fucking question. Instead, as is your practice, you blathered, trying and failing to deflect from the simple question. 

Sexual attraction is not a choice but sexual behavior is a choice.  Fucking is a fucking choice.

Unwanted sexual advances is deviant sexual behavior that society protects against.  That's what the MeToo movement is about.  That's why Jeffery Epstein died in a jail cell.  It doesn't matter if Jeffery Epstein didn't choose to be attracted to young women; Epstein's sexual behavior was a choice that society deems criminal.  The young women affected by Epstein's sexual behavior were not coerced, they were enticed.  Epstein's sexual attraction not being a choice doesn't exonerate Epstein's sexual behavior.

Sexual orientation doesn't excuse sexual behavior because sexual behavior is a choice.  Claiming that God, nature, or the roll of the dice made us who we are is a cop out. That's what I really said in @5.

Nope, the opposition to homosexuality has focused attention on religious animus. 

And the religious animus toward homosexuality has focused attention on sexual behavior.  Homosexuality has been portrayed as dirty sex.  And dirty sex is a choice.

Homosexuals have been making the argument that they have no choice over sexual orientation.  Fine.  But that does not exempt homosexuals from accountability for sexual behavior.  Homosexuals do possess free will like anyone else.  And homosexuals can be expected to exercise that free will to control their behavior just like anyone else.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.120  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.119    2 weeks ago
Sexual attraction is not a choice but sexual behavior is a choice. 

There you go.  Sexual orientation is not a choice.   Choosing to act on one's orientation (or not) is a choice.   Let's lock these facts down.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.121  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.120    2 weeks ago
There you go.  Sexual orientation is not a choice.   Choosing to act on one's orientation (or not) is a choice.   Let's lock these facts down.

Sexual orientation is a combination of sexual attraction AND sexual behavior.  Sexual attraction is not a choice; however, sexual behavior is a choice.

So, sexual orientation does include choice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.122  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.121    2 weeks ago
Sexual orientation is a combination of sexual attraction AND sexual behavior. 

You just refuse to agree with anyone on anything, eh?   Not even the basics.   It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who invents his own meaning for words.

Sexual orientation is a term used to refer to a person's emotional , romantic, and sexual attraction to individuals of a particular gender (male or female).

Sexual orientation is usually divided into three categories:

  • Heterosexual: attracted to individuals of the opposite sex
  • Bisexual: attracted to members of either sex
  • Homosexual: attracted to individuals of one's own sex
Sexual orientation involves a person's feelings and sense of identity; it may or may not be evident in the person's appearance or behavior .   [ Note how behavior is stated as something distinct from orientation ]  People may have attractions to people of the same or opposite sex, but may elect not to act on these feelings. For example, a bisexual may choose to have a monogamous (one partner) relationship with one gender and, therefore, elect not to act on the attraction to the other gender.

Note how the above explicitly distinguishes behavior from attraction .   Interesting, eh, how terms have meaning and how important it is to not insert your own meaning for well established terms.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.123  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.122    2 weeks ago
You just refuse to agree with anyone on anything, eh?   Not even the basics.   It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who invents his own meaning for words.

It's your can of worms.

Note how the above explicitly distinguishes behavior from attraction.   Interesting, eh, how terms have meaning and how important it is to not insert your own meaning for well established terms.

Society does not regulate sexual attraction, either.  Society regulates sexual behavior.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.124  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.123    2 weeks ago

You just ignored the WebMD definition and deflected to regulation.

You refuse to even acknowledge a credible third party source.   

Fascinating.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.125  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.119    2 weeks ago
But that does not exempt homosexuals from accountability for sexual behavior.

And why should there be any accountability for homosexual behavior?  Why does, as you hinted earlier, society need to protect against it?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.126  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.121    2 weeks ago
Sexual orientation is a combination of sexual attraction AND sexual behavior.

Nope.  If one is celibate, but attracted to the opposite sex, one still has a heterosexual orientation, regardless of whether or not one acts on that orientation.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.127  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.121    2 weeks ago
So, sexual orientation does include choice.

If a man is attracted only to men and not women, he is not going to choose to have sex with women and no one should expect him to. That leaves him with sex with men or a life of no sex. You're suggesting he should just abstain? Your so-called "choice" is no choice at all.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.128  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.124    2 weeks ago
You just ignored the WebMD definition and deflected to regulation.

You refuse to even acknowledge a credible third party source.   

Fascinating.

You can appeal to authority all you want but that does not alter the fact that society does not regulate sexual attraction.  Limiting the definition of sexual orientation to sexual attraction only means that society does not regulate sexual orientation. 

The point you are trying to make with that can of worms doesn't address the seeded article and doesn't address the ongoing debate over sexual behavior.  Sexual orientation and $5 will get you a latte at Starbucks as long as you have $5.  No one cares as long as you don't try to entice the server to engage in sex.

The reality is that society views sexual orientation as sexual attraction AND sexual behavior.  If someone claims homosexual identity then society understands that to include both sexual attraction and sexual behavior.  Society regulates sexual behavior.  That's not a technicality or an abstraction.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.129  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.112    2 weeks ago

Still no answer from the person who mentioned society needing to protect itself from homosexuality.  What are we to conclude?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.130  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.128    2 weeks ago

You're forced to change word definitions to attempt to bolster your argument.  Is it that weak (rhetorical question)?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.131  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.128    2 weeks ago

Abiding by the commonly held definition for a term is not an appeal to authority.   It is simply enabling communication to occur.

Changing the meaning of a commonly held term, in contrast, makes communication confusing, frustrating and sometimes impossible.

The rest of your post is more bullshit complaining from you as you have taken a qualifying question from me upfront and turned it (in your mind) into some conspiracy to derail my own seed.   

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.132  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.126    2 weeks ago
Nope.  If one is celibate, but attracted to the opposite sex, one still has a heterosexual orientation, regardless of whether or not one acts on that orientation.

Why is the sexual orientation of a celibate person important?  Has society attempted to regulate celibacy?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.133  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.131    2 weeks ago
Abiding by the commonly held definition for a term is not an appeal to authority.   It is simply enabling communication to occur.

Sexual attraction is not a choice.  Since sexual orientation is defined as only sexual attraction (according to your authority) then sexual orientation is not a choice.

So, why is that important?

 
 
 
CB
5.1.134  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.128    2 weeks ago
If someone claims homosexual identity then society understands that to include both sexual attraction and sexual behavior.  Society regulates sexual behavior.  That's not a technicality or an abstraction.

Now wait a minute there, Nerm. I have been following your discussion off and on throughout the thread. As has been stated, words have meanings. Being a homosexual does mean identifying with a same sex perspective specifically for the duration or rest of one's life (depending on the starting point of this attraction).

But, it is presumption to state every homosexual is actively pursuing same-sex relationships with a partner. It would be equivalent to stating something to the effect, 'if someone claims to be a widow/widower then society understands that she/he is actively pursuing new sexual relationships with another partner.

Not (necessary) true. And, if society is thinking it so - it is time to help society get a clue.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.135  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @5.1.134    2 weeks ago
Now wait a minute there, Nerm. I have been following your discussion off and on throughout the thread. As has been stated, words have meanings. Being a homosexual does mean identifying with a same sex perspective specifically for the duration or rest of one's life (depending on the starting point of this attraction).

But, it is presumption to state every homosexual is actively pursuing same-sex relationships with a partner. It would be equivalent to stating something to the effect, 'if someone claims to be a widow/widower then society understands that she/he is actively pursuing new sexual relationships with another partner.

Not (necessary) true. And, if society is thinking it so - it is time to help society get a clue.

Why is sexual orientation important?  Since sexual orientation has been a prominent topic throughout this discussion thread then it seems obvious that others attach a specific significance to sexual orientation that I am missing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.136  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.133    2 weeks ago
So, why is that important?

Using the correct meaning for a term is important if you want people to understand you.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.137  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.136    2 weeks ago
Using the correct meaning for a term is important if you want people to understand you.

But I wasn't trying to discuss sexual orientation.  The topic of sexual orientation has been significant for others on this discussion thread.

Why?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.138  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.137    2 weeks ago

Using the correct meaning for a term is important if you want people to understand you.   

If you use the term (which you did) then you should use it properly.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.139  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.132    2 weeks ago

You say that a celibate person doesn't have a sexual orientation, because orientation is dependent on behavior.  Now they do have an orientation?

Well, I guess you finally got it right.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.140  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.139    2 weeks ago
You say that a celibate person doesn't have a sexual orientation, because orientation is dependent on behavior.  Now they do have an orientation? Well, I guess you finally got it right.

Okay.  That doesn't explain why everyone has focused so much attention on sexual orientation.

So, I finally got it right.  Why is it so important to get it right about sexual orientation?  What is the significance of sexual orientation for the discussion?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.141  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.138    2 weeks ago
Using the correct meaning for a term is important if you want people to understand you.   

I didn't introduce the topic of sexual orientation into the discussion.  Why was it important to bring the topic of sexual orientation into the discussion?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.142  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.140    2 weeks ago
What is the significance of sexual orientation for the discussion?

Read the title.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.143  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.142    2 weeks ago
Read the title.

The title is:  A 'Gay Gene'? It's Complicated, According To New Research On Same-Sex Behavior

As has been pointed out, sexual orientation isn't about behavior.  Connecting behavior to sexual orientation gets it wrong according to authority.

The title doesn't provide an explanation for why sexual orientation was introduced into the discussion.  Why is sexual orientation so important for the discussion?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.144  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.143    2 weeks ago

Gay is a sexual orientation.  It exists regardless of sexual behavior, although sexual behavior is strongly influenced by sexual orientation. Not sure what's so difficult about this.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.145  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.144    2 weeks ago
Gay is a sexual orientation.  

Apparently heterosexual and bisexual are sexual orientations, too.  What does that have to do with the seeded article, the discussion, or anything else?

It exists regardless of sexual behavior, although sexual behavior is strongly influenced by sexual orientation. Not sure what's so difficult about this.

So?  Or should I ask so what?

I am not aware of any laws prohibiting a gay man marrying a woman or prohibiting a lesbian woman marrying a man.  I am not aware of any laws prohibiting a gay man marrying a lesbian woman.  And I'm not aware that marriage included a requirement for sexual attraction (or sexual orientation).

So, what is the significance of sexual orientation for the discussion?  Does society regulate sexual orientation?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.146  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.145    2 weeks ago

Really, Nerm?  You think that an article that mentions a sexual orientation in the title isn't likely to be concerned with...sexual orientation?  You don't find that it's just a bit silly to ask what sexual orientation has to do with an article with a sexual orientation mentioned in both the title and the text?

Does society regulate sexual orientation?

Some societies do.  Even you have said that our society does, back a few posts ago when you were insisting that sexual orientation consists of sexual behavior (which has been regulated).

Now, to ask a question (again) that I've noticed you're evading (again), why did you ask if society needs to protect itself from homosexuality?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.147  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.146    2 weeks ago
Now, to ask a question (again) that I've noticed you're evading (again), why did you ask if society needs to protect itself from homosexuality?

Western societies regulate deviant sexual behavior as a protective measure.  Jeffery Epstein is a recent notable example.  The MeToo movement is about regulating sexual behavior.

And you have explicitly declared that sexual orientation is separate from behavior, supported by an authoritative source.  If it's wrong then its wrong and I got it wrong.  Isn't that the point you were making?

Don't try explaining the significance of sexual orientation for the discussion by repeating a debunked claim.  Why was the topic of sexual orientation introduced into the discussion?  Why is sexual orientation an important topic for the discussion?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.148  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.147    2 weeks ago
Western societies regulate deviant sexual behavior as a protective measure.

Against what does regulation of homosexual behavior protect, Nerm?

 
 
 
CB
5.1.149  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.135    2 weeks ago

Why is sexual orientation important? Because it is identity. I am homosexual, but I have been in an "inactive" status for decades. Still, the passage of time has taught (even me) that were I to become sexually active again, my desire would be with a man (hopefully one I can love and who loves me back). Therefore, orientation (attraction) and behavior are distinct and matter.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.150  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.119    2 weeks ago
Sexual attraction is not a choice but sexual behavior is a choice. Fucking is a fucking choice.

Was that supposed to be revelatory? 

Unwanted sexual advances is deviant sexual behavior that society protects against.

Sheesh you DO love to blather. Off you go on another irrelevant tangent. FOCUS!

Sexual orientation doesn't excuse sexual behavior because sexual behavior is a choice. Claiming that God, nature, or the roll of the dice made us who we are is a cop out.

Yet, as I have already stated, you give heterosexuals a pass for making choices to participate in what you insist are 'deviant sexual behaviors' and insist that society protect themselves from homosexuals that have no other choice except celibacy. 

Why? 

And the religious animus toward homosexuality has focused attention on sexual behavior. Homosexuality has been portrayed as dirty sex. And dirty sex is a choice.

More bullshit Nerm. 

The thumpers that whine about 'gay sex' will stand in line for a blow job at the drop of a hat. Studies have shown that 40% of heterosexuals have had anal sex at least once.

It ain't about 'dirty sex' Nerm, most of the adult population is participating in it wholeheartedly. 

It's about needing a minority to keep their boot on and they're just about running out of victims necks. 

But that does not exempt homosexuals from accountability for sexual behavior. Homosexuals do possess free will like anyone else. And homosexuals can be expected to exercise that free will to control their behavior just like anyone else.

I had to go get my scoop shovel because the bullshit has gotten so deep.

You have already stated that you have no desire or intention of holding 'anyone else' accountable for their behavior Nerm. You've insisted, ad nauseam, that society needs to protect itself from homosexuals even though they aren't doing ANYTHING that heterosexuals don't do. 

The FACT is, if they are going to express their affection sexually, heterosexuals have alternatives, homosexuals do not.

So please do explain something to me:

In a country that ensures equal protection of the law, exactly what form of legal 'accountability' do you propose for homosexual's having 'dirty sex'?

Note that I use the term 'legal' because ANY accountability you come up with, you better be prepared for heterosexuals to be held to the same standard. 

Now I pretty fucking sure that you CAN'T come up with any 'legal' legislation because since Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, such legislation is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.151  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.132    2 weeks ago
Why is the sexual orientation of a celibate person important? 

You have got to be kidding.  

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.152  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.140    2 weeks ago
What is the significance of sexual orientation for the discussion?

Well for one, sexual orientation is cited in the seeded article, unlike your interjection of 'relationships'.

Secondly, as the definition proves, sexual orientation is about sexual attraction and even YOU admit that has a major effect on sexual behavior. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.153  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.148    2 weeks ago
Against what does regulation of homosexual behavior protect, Nerm?

Toxic masculinity. A male Roman citizen assuming the passive role in the sex act could be penalized.  The passive homosexual role was for slaves, the weak, and the conquered.  Homosexual behavior has been utilized throughout history to demonstrate masculine dominance.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.154  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.153    2 weeks ago

Boy, is that ever a stretch, and a deliberate misunderstanding of what toxic masculinity is.  One might even say that that comment exhibits a degree of toxic masculinity, itself.  It also ignores that men raping women has been utilized throughout history to demonstrate male dominance, both within individual relationships and in war situations.  If we adopted your logic, heterosexual sex would also be something we need to protect against.

Try again, Nerm-L.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.155  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @5.1.150    2 weeks ago
Sheesh you DO love to blather. Off you go on another irrelevant tangent. FOCUS!

I am focused.  Just not on the topics you wish to sweep under the carpet.

Is homosexual behavior a choice?  Of course, that is irrefutable.

Is homosexuality about sex?  Only if it is used to demonstrate masculine dominance.  History really does show that homosexual behavior was utilized as a socially acceptable form of sexual violence for thousands of years.

Is homosexuality deviant sexual behavior?  That depends upon why the behavior is pursued.  If the sexual behavior is pursued to demonstrate dominance over another then it is toxic behavior that is a deviant; it's sex as violence.  Sexual behavior to form and maintain a stable familial relationship isn't toxic behavior.  Society does have a vested interest in protecting itself from toxic behavior and that extends beyond sexual behavior.

The FACT is, if they are going to express their affection sexually, heterosexuals have alternatives, homosexuals do not.

What are the alternatives that sexually oriented heterosexuals have but sexually oriented homosexuals do not have?

If answering that question requires examples of behavior then the authoritative definition of sexual orientation must be inadequate.  All sexual orientations can engage in the same sexual behaviors.

The idea that any specific sexual orientation prefers specific sexual behavior has been roundly debunked by medical authority.  Don't try making claims that have been refuted; you'll be just as wrong as I was.

 
 
 
CB
5.1.156  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.155    2 weeks ago

Okay this is a head scratcher. Your 'thrust' is diminished. This post is too hard to dicipher, in my opinion.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.157  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @5.1.156    2 weeks ago
Okay this is a head scratcher. Your 'thrust' is diminished. This post is too hard to dicipher, in my opinion.

So, what's the question?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.158  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.155    2 weeks ago
Is homosexuality about sex?  Only if it is used to demonstrate masculine dominance.

So, if two men who are attracted to each other decide to have sex, because they're in a sexual relationship, it's therefore about dominance?

You seem to have some very...interesting...views about sex in general, and homosexual sex in particular.

 
 
 
CB
5.1.159  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.157    2 weeks ago

Can you re-write and narrow your scope to one or two points at a time? Of what you wrote, which matters to you the most for discussion? Also, what is your background in homosexuality?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.160  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.154    2 weeks ago
Boy, is that ever a stretch, and a deliberate misunderstanding of what toxic masculinity is.  One might even say that that comment exhibits a degree of toxic masculinity, itself.  It also ignores that men raping women has been utilized throughout history to demonstrate male dominance, both within individual relationships and in war situations.

Toxic masculinity are social measures of status and identity imposed on males by society.  Social expectations really does shape individual identity by regulating socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior.  Historically sexual violence has been used to demonstrate masculine dominance as a measure of status and identity.

If we adopted your logic, heterosexual sex would also be something we need to protect against.

And society does protect itself against heterosexual behaviors.  We do maintain a registry of sex offenders, after all.  And being identified as a sex offender is an irrevocable identity.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.161  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.160    2 weeks ago

You seem to be equating sex with sexual violence.

Illuminating, and a bit sad.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.162  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @5.1.159    2 weeks ago
Can you re-write and narrow your scope to one or two points at a time? Of what you wrote, which matters to you the most for discussion? 

The desire to form and maintain a stable familial relationship.  That is the most socially acceptable (and desirable) aspect of any sexual behavior.

 
 
 
CB
5.1.163  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.162    2 weeks ago
The desire to form and maintain a stable familial relationship.  That is the most socially acceptable (and desirable) aspect of any sexual behavior

Okay. I am not saying that is is not so, still, how does a family unit establish and inform sexual orientation or its behaviors?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.164  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @5.1.163    2 weeks ago
Okay. I am not saying that is is not so, still, how does a family unit establish and inform sexual orientation or its behaviors?

A family unit does not establish and inform sexual orientation or sexual behavior.  That's the point.  The topic of whether or not sexual orientation is choice is irrelevant to the discussion of forming and maintaining a stable familial relationship.

The can of worms about choice is really about sexual violence.  What does that mean?  Sexual violence is about sexual behavior as a measure of social status and identity recognized by society.  Sexual desirability is a measure of status and identity.  Social status and identity is really a competition for dominance according to social expectations imposed on individuals by society.  Competition is violence.  

The arguments over whether or not sexual orientation (or identity) is a choice is really about altering social conventions that measure social status and identity.  It's about attempting to 'change the rules' to allow a more equitable competition for dominance in social status and identity.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.165  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.164    2 weeks ago

So, trying to be sexually attractive is violent.

Oy jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.166  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.165    2 weeks ago
So, trying to be sexually attractive is violent.

Like it or not, yes.  Trying to be sexually attractive is a competition with others who are trying to be sexually attractive.  Those who are successful achieve a higher social status and identity.  Sexual appeal is a measure of status and identity imposed on individuals by society that does influence an individual's feeling of self worth.

What do you think 'beating the competition' means?

 
 
 
CB
5.1.167  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.164    2 weeks ago
A family unit does not establish and inform sexual orientation or sexual behavior. 

Okay. Got it.

The arguments over whether or not sexual orientation (or identity) is a choice is really about altering social conventions that measure social status and identity.  It's about attempting to 'change the rules' to allow a more equitable competition for dominance in social status and identity.

At this stage, in the United States, sexual orientation for those 'afflicted,' is about developing a foundation which is solid and not subject to watching away in some newly elected Congress or Administration come into power. Thus, for now, anyway no competition is measurable or at best competition between orientations is at an all-time low.

Am I on track?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.168  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.166    2 weeks ago
What do you think 'beating the competition' means?

Sure, use the definition of "beating" that implies physical violence rather than winning (you know, the definition that most people would assume is meant in that context).  I suppose that if I win, for example, a spelling bee, I've been violent.

There are serious problems with both language and sex showing in your comments, Nerm-L.  They're disturbing, TBH.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.169  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @5.1.167    2 weeks ago
At this stage, in the United States, sexual orientation for those 'afflicted,' is about developing a foundation which is solid and not subject to watching away in some newly elected Congress or Administration come into power. Thus, for now, anyway no competition is measurable or at best competition between orientations is at an all-time low. Am I on track?

At this stage, its about protecting the social measures that establish individual social status and identity.  The arguments have been more about sexual behavior.

For thousands of years there have also been social expectations for stable familial relationships that have been imposed by society.  IMO that is the result of dynasty; the divine right to rule also included a divine right of succession.  Lack of an heir creates a crisis that can reverberate to the lowest levels of the institutional bureaucracy that allows a society to function.  The societal expectation imposed on familial relationships have been to produce an heir.

 IMO the societal expectations for familial relationships is the topic that needs to be addressed.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.170  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.168    2 weeks ago
Sure, use the definition of "beating" that implies physical violence rather than winning (you know, the definition that most people would assume is meant in that context).  I suppose that if I win, for example, a spelling bee, I've been violent.

How does one win a competition?  If there are winners then there must also be losers.  By focusing attention on winning, society establishes the criteria for social status and identity.  

Even you have ignored the losers in your comment; losers are unimportant, it's winners that have achieved higher social status.  Competition is violence.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.171  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.170    2 weeks ago
How does one win a competition?

Having actually won a spelling bee or two, there was no violence involved, I assure you.  And the losers, so far as I know, are alive and well, having recovered nicely from their injuries, which were, you know, nonexistent.  One was even appointed to be a U. S. Senator for a short time, so I didn't hurt him, I promise.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.172  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.171    2 weeks ago
Having actually won a spelling bee or two, there was no violence involved, I assure you.

The psychology of losing

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.173  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.172    2 weeks ago

That still doesn't mean that all competition is violent, or that all sex is sexual violence.

When I "beat the competition" in a spelling bee, I didn't actually hit any of them.  No amount of twisting of language makes that so.

People who have consensual sex aren't victims.  Men having sex, with women or with other men, aren't victimizing their partners, so long as they have consent.  Sex, either heterosexual or homosexual, isn't violent, and it isn't toxic masculinity.

You see violence where it doesn't exist.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.174  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.155    2 weeks ago
I am focused.  Just not on the topics you wish to sweep under the carpet.

The topic is the question about sexual orientation that you refused to answer and then whined about hijacking 'your' thread. 

Is homosexual behavior a choice?  Of course, that is irrefutable.

You just keep on deflecting with an irrelevant question to the original question posed to you. Why? 

Since it's irrefutable that heterosexuals practice what you characterize as 'homosexual behavior' WHY do you insist on characterizing it as 'homosexual behavior'? 

Is homosexuality about sex?  Only if it is used to demonstrate masculine dominance.  History really does show that homosexual behavior was utilized as a socially acceptable form of sexual violence for thousands of years.

More bullshit. You admit that masculine dominance is violence. Rape is an act of violence, power and control, NOT 'sexuality'.

Lot's of sanctioned rape going on in the bible Nerm and the vast majority of the victims were women. 

Is homosexuality deviant sexual behavior?  That depends upon why the behavior is pursued.  If the sexual behavior is pursued to demonstrate dominance over another then it is toxic behavior that is a deviant; it's sex as violence.  Sexual behavior to form and maintain a stable familial relationship isn't toxic behavior. Society does have a vested interest in protecting itself from toxic behavior and that extends beyond sexual behavior.

Fascinating. Your posit has evolved before our very eyes. Here is what you said 2 days ago in 5.1.65:

Homosexuality can only be considered deviant sexual behavior. So, what distinguishes homosexuality from other types of deviant sexual behavior determines whether or not society should protect itself from homosexuality.

Today, you're equivocating. Now you seem to be saying that it's only 'deviant sexual behavior' based on motivation. That's quite an evolution in 48 hours Nerm. 

BTW, society DOES protect itself from the kind of toxic sexual behavior that you describe. We prosecute rapists, albeit at a disgustingly low rate. Of course, anyone reading the seeds here on the subject would know that there are quite a few that think that most charges of rape are fabricated. 

What are the alternatives that sexually oriented heterosexuals have but sexually oriented homosexuals do not have?

You've been using the term 'deviant sexual behavior' ad nauseam. Have you forgotten your own comment on this subject? Again from your 5.1.65 post:

Heterosexuality is the evolutionary norm that has been naturally selected to propagate traits to succeeding generations of offspring. Survival of the species depends upon heterosexual reproduction. What distinguishes heterosexuality from deviant sexual behavior is the evolved sexual biology that produces offspring. 

So since you've already stated an answer, WHY did you ask that ridiculous question Nerm? 

If answering that question requires examples of behavior then the authoritative definition of sexual orientation must be inadequate. 

Ridiculous. Read your own comments Nerm. You're just going farther and farther off on a tangent. 

All sexual orientations can engage in the same sexual behaviors.

False and your own comment proves it. 

The idea that any specific sexual orientation prefers specific sexual behavior has been roundly debunked by medical authority.

Yet you insist that homosexuals be held accountable for those preferences and given heterosexuals a pass. You insist that society needs to and indeed does protect itself from homosexuals. WHY? 

Don't try making claims that have been refuted; you'll be just as wrong as I was.

I haven't and in fact, you've either failed to refute my claims or haven't even tried to do so. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.175  Dulay  replied to  CB @5.1.156    2 weeks ago
This post is too hard to dicipher, in my opinion.

Especially because it goes off on an irrelevant tangent and contradicts his prior comments. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.176  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.160    2 weeks ago
Toxic masculinity are social measures of status and identity imposed on males by society. 

WOW!

That has got to be THE most loaded comment I have ever read here and that's saying something. 

First of all, social measures of status and identity were created by MEN. 

If they're toxic, it's because that poison works in favor of the MEN that created them. 

Any pretense that masculinity is in and of itself toxic or that it is imposed on males is utterly hypocritical. What happened to your demand for accountability for personal behavior? Talk about a cop out. 

Social expectations really does shape individual identity by regulating socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Historically sexual violence has been used to demonstrate masculine dominance as a measure of status and identity.

Historical social expectations aren't relevant today, especially when it comes to sexual violence. Trying to pretend that historical expectations have any bearing on how we measure status and identity or how we shape individual identity today is idiotic. 

And society does protect itself against heterosexual behaviors.

NO IT DOES NOT!

We do maintain a registry of sex offenders, after all. And being identified as a sex offender is an irrevocable identity.

Your issue is that you have proven incapable of differentiating between consensual and non-consensual. Perhaps you should go review those concepts before you continue blathering nonsensically. 

Oh and BTFW Nerm, sex offender identification CAN be revoked. It's a state by state thingy...

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.177  Dulay  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.165    2 weeks ago
So, trying to be sexually attractive is violent.

I've started to envision his argument as someone throwing darts at a Carrie Mathison psychosis wall to come up with their next tangent. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.178  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.30    2 weeks ago
Okay, let's move on and try to get away from the gender bullshit. What is the purpose of sex? 

If you want to discuss that, you should post your own seed. 

Where does relationships fit into the research?

It doesn't, so why do you keep bringing it up? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.179  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @5.1.177    2 weeks ago
... throwing darts ... to come up with their next tangent.

Not a bad analogy.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.180  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.164    2 weeks ago
A family unit does not establish and inform sexual orientation or sexual behavior. 

But sexual orientation can and does establish what society deems a 'family unit'. Same sex married couples are STILL denied housing. 

The topic of whether or not sexual orientation is choice is irrelevant to the discussion of forming and maintaining a stable familial relationship.

Yet the TOPIC of the seed doesn't have a fucking thing to do with 'forming and maintaining a stable familial relationship' is it Nerm? 

The can of worms about choice is really about sexual violence.

HOW? Please DO explain how you came to the ridiculous conclusion that choice is really about sexual violence. 

What does that mean?

From comments by multiple members that I have read in this thread, one thing is glaringly obvious. It doesn't mean what YOU think it means Nerm. 

Competition is violence.

That's nonsense. Go Fish isn't violence. Cooking competitions aren't violence. The Olympics aren't violence. 

Three days of unfounded nonsensical proclamations. Sheesh.

The arguments over whether or not sexual orientation (or identity) is a choice is really about altering social conventions that measure social status and identity. It's about attempting to 'change the rules' to allow a more equitable competition for dominance in social status and identity.

How does sexual orientation being a choice or not alter social conventions? What 'rules' would it change? How would it allow 'more equitable competition for dominance in social status and identity'? 

That sounds a hell of a lot like you're worried about the dominant status of 'heterosexual male privilege'. You still haven't explained HOW equality for a small minority threatens that privilege. You also haven't cited why those that are being dominated should continue to acquiesce to it. 

BTFW, the very concept that male heterosexuals are so dependent on anyone else for their 'dominance in social status and identity' infers that their 'dominance' is a façade. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.181  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    2 weeks ago

Well here is what the New York Times said:

"One concern is that evidence that genes influence same-sex behavior could cause anti-gay activists to call for gene editing or embryo selection, even if that would be technically impossible. Another fear is that evidence that genes play only a partial role could embolden people who insist being gay is a choice and who advocate tactics like conversion therapy."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/science/gay-gene-sex.html

Ya, there is a lot to worry about there. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.182  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.181    2 weeks ago

That is true for pretty much any finding of science.   The more we learn the more potential for good and the more potential for bad.

There will always be those who claim sexual orientation is a choice because that enables continued bigotry.   So until science completely answers the question of sexual orientation (and it may never completely answer that question) there will be bigots employing 'choice of the gaps'.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.183  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.182    2 weeks ago

That's another problem - calling people bigots - It's been overdone and dosen't work anymore.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.184  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.183    2 weeks ago

Do you object to my using the term 'bigot' to refer to people who are intolerant / hate others due to a factor such as homosexual orientation?

What English word should I use when making such a reference?

 
 
 
JBB
5.1.185  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.183    2 weeks ago

Bigots growing thicker skin did not make bigotry any less reprehensible...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.186  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.182    2 weeks ago
There will always be those who claim sexual orientation is a choice because that enables continued bigotry.

The great whopping lunatic myth of the whole "born this way" argument is that whether or not it's a choice somehow matters to bigots.

Being black is not a choice.  Ask black folks how it's going with the bigots.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.187  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.184    2 weeks ago
Do you object to my using the term 'bigot' to refer to people who are intolerant / hate others due to a factor such as homosexual orientation?

That's not what you are doing. You are saying those who who  question if science can or can't support the finding of a sexual orientation gene are bigots. It is that I object to and furthermore, I am saying that the word no longer carries any stigma, because of it's heavy handed misuse.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.188  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5.1.185    2 weeks ago
Bigots growing thicker skin did not make bigotry any less reprehensible...

You mean people falsely accusing people they dislike of bigotry dosen't make it so. It only diminishes the word and those who use it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.189  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.186    2 weeks ago

So you argue that bigotry applied to skin color and bigotry applied to sexual orientation are identical because they are both bigotry?

I think you need a bit more than that.   

The reason people hold this 'myth' that the 'it is a choice' belief emboldens bigotry of sexual orientation is because of the arguments people make to justify bigotry based on sexual orientation.   If people did not argue that homosexuals, et. al. choose the gender(s) of their attraction then this 'myth' would have never materialized.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.190  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.189    2 weeks ago
The reason people hold this 'myth'

If you believe in science, as you claim to, you must support it whatever it says - even if it finds that genes play only a partial role in sexual orientation.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.191  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @5.1.174    2 weeks ago
You just keep on deflecting with an irrelevant question to the original question posed to you. Why?  Since it's irrefutable that heterosexuals practice what you characterize as 'homosexual behavior' WHY do you insist on characterizing it as 'homosexual behavior'? 

Sexual attraction is not a choice but sexual behavior is a choice.  Same gender sexual behavior is a choice.

Since all sexual orientations engage in same gender sexual behavior, as you eloquently point out, then explain why sexual orientation is relevant.  You have successfully shown that sexual orientation is irrelevant concerning discussion of sexual behavior. 

So, why is it important whether or not sexual orientation is a choice if all sexual orientations engage in the same sexual behavior?  Since sexual behavior is a choice; you've only shown that all sexual orientations have the same choices.

You have successfully demonstrated that society regulating sexual behavior is justified regardless of sexual orientation.  You have successfully explained why criminalizing specific sexual behavior is not discriminatory.

I haven't and in fact, you've either failed to refute my claims or haven't even tried to do so. 

You haven't made any claims other than about my commentary.  It's a tedious process but you are gradually proving my point. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.192  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.187    2 weeks ago
That's not what you are doing. You are saying those who who  question if science can or can't support the finding of a sexual orientation gene are bigots.

Really?   That is what I was saying?   Thank you Vic for correcting me on what is in my mind because I thought I was thinking that even if science were to determine that choice is not a factor that there will be those who continue to claim it is a choice to enable continued bigotry.

In fact, sure enough, I do believe I have written words to that effect:

TiG @5.1.184 - There will always be those who claim sexual orientation is a choice because that enables continued bigotry. 

Word of advice, do not presume.   Best to take a person at his written words.   Best to not presume that you know what is in another's mind better than he.

It is that I object to and furthermore, I am saying that the word no longer carries any stigma, because of it's heavy handed misuse.

And if that is the case that does not concern me.   It still is a perfectly fine English word to express the point I was making.   You do realize that I was not calling anyone a bigot, right?   I was describing what some bigots will likely do.   You do understand that, right?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.193  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.190    2 weeks ago
If you believe in science, as you claim to, you must support it whatever it says - even if it finds that genes play only a partial role in sexual orientation.

One does not 'believe in science', one accepts or rejects specific findings of science.   One may hold the position that science generally gets things right, but believing in science is not how one should operate ... that would make science a 'religion' and it most certainly is not.   The 'you must support it whatever it says' is the opposite of critical thinking and most definitely not the way to operate.

I have never claimed to 'believe' in science as you see it ... to accept whatever it offers.   (For future reference.)

The science on sexual orientation is not 'decided' (per se) and may not ever be completely known.    What is interesting is that sexual orientation seems to be complicated and may not be strictly genetic; it may involve epigenetic factors (sounds reasonable to me) and beyond.   Research may even find that there is some element of choice.   While I doubt that seriously (and will be happy to explain why if you are interested) that remains a possibility.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.194  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.192    2 weeks ago
 You do understand that, right?

I understand that the argument of sexual orientation being related to genes has only been important to advocates. It was an important message for those who found fault with homosexuality on religious grounds. It must have felt so good to tell them - see they aren't perverts - they are born this way! That would explain the hyper concern from the New York Times with new findings. 

BTW, I did take you at your written words:

TiG @ 5.1.184  - There will always be those who claim sexual orientation is a choice because that enables continued bigotry. 

As you accurately pointed out - you believe science settled the issue.


 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.195  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.189    2 weeks ago
So you argue that bigotry applied to skin color and bigotry applied to sexual orientation are identical because they are both bigotry?

Is one somehow less egregious than the other?  How is that decided, exactly?  It would seem to me that the overlap between the racial bigots and the sexual orientation bigots would be significant evidence that the two are very similar, at least.

I think you need a bit more than that.

Well do tell.  I was unaware that bigotry had a hierarchy.   

The reason people hold this 'myth' that the 'it is a choice' belief emboldens bigotry is because of the arguments people make to justify bigotry based on sexual orientation.   If people did not argue that homosexuals, et. al. choose the gender of their attraction then this 'myth' would have never materialized.

This is where you need to have scouted your opponents.  Bigots are irrational, emotional creatures who will use any handy rationalization to justify their views.  Believing what they say is naive, at best. 

Let's pretend for a moment that a "gay gene" is discovered, and indisputable proof is given that homosexuality is determined in the womb.  Very quickly, the "condition" will be deemed a "birth defect".  It will be labeled a punishment from God upon a society that has eschewed His laws.  People born with this "affliction" will be lumped in with people born with the genetic predisposition for alcoholism, and expected to live a celibate life.  There will be support groups to help them from "turning astray".  Funds will be raised to find a "cure".  Bigotry will be preserved with very little interruption. 

We also need to acknowledge the unhappy fact that any such discovery about sexual orientation could quite possibly also discover a "pedo-gene", where we discover that pedophiles are also determined by some sort of pre-natal chemistry.  Now you have bigotry not only preserved but turbocharged.  Such a discovery would set the LGBT movement back decades.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.196  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.194    2 weeks ago
I understand that the argument of sexual orientation being related to genes has only been important to advocates. 

Do you reject a genetic factor in sexual orientation?   On what grounds?

As you accurately pointed out - you believe science settled the issue.

Amazing that you can quote my words and then interpret something entirely different than what I wrote.  And what is worse is I just explained to you my position and you are arguing with me about my position — as if you know my position better than I do.   You are insisting that my position is not really my position.  

Even worse than that, I wrote other words that directly contradict what you stated, yet here you are making wild interpretations as if you had not even read what I wrote.   Did you not read this Vic?:

TiG @193 ⇨ The science on sexual orientation is not 'decided' (per se) and may not ever be completely known.    What is interesting is that sexual orientation seems to be complicated and may not be strictly genetic; it may involve epigenetic factors (sounds reasonable to me) and beyond.   Research may even find that there is some element of choice.   While I doubt that seriously (and will be happy to explain why if you are interested) that remains a possibility.

Fascinating how presumption affects discourse.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.197  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.195    2 weeks ago
Is one somehow less egregious than the other? 

I made no such claim.   Further, that is not the point.   

Bigotry will be preserved with very little interruption. 

As I noted:

TiG @5.1.184 ⇨ There will always be those who claim sexual orientation is a choice because that enables continued bigotry.  

So apparently you agree with me.   The difference is that I think that would cause some to back down but you think that they will simply change their justification.   Possible.   But the important thing is that some people will remain bigoted regardless of facts.   We agree on this, right?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.198  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @5.1.177    2 weeks ago
I've started to envision his argument as someone throwing darts at a Carrie Mathison psychosis wall to come up with their next tangent. 

I have to throw darts to advance the discussion toward arriving at a conclusion.  The technique can be described colloquially as 'leading a bull by the balls'.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.199  katrix  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.191    2 weeks ago
you've only shown that all sexual orientations have the same choices.

That bullshit argument was used to deny people the right to marry those of a different race - and was shot down then.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.200  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.196    2 weeks ago
Do you reject a genetic factor in sexual orientation?   On what grounds?

Why is a genetic factor in sexual orientation important?  So far, the discussion has shown that sexual orientation doesn't dictate sexual behavior.  All sexual orientations engage in the same sexual behaviors.

The conclusion of the research is that genetics does not provide a predictive indicator of sexual behavior.  And the discussion, so far, has arrived at a conclusion that sexual orientation does not provide a predictive indicator of sexual behavior, either.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.201  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.197    2 weeks ago
I made no such claim.

Then do explain the reason for your question?

   Further, that is not the point.   
Bigotry will be preserved with very little interruption. 

As I noted:

TiG @5.1.184 ⇨ There will always be those who claim sexual orientation is a choice because that enables continued bigotry. 

So apparently you agree with me.

Not exactly, no.

   The difference is that I think that would cause some to back down but you think that they will simply change their justification.

It's a pretty big difference, actually.

   Possible.   But the important thing is that some people will remain bigoted regardless of facts.   We agree on this, right?

We do agree on this.  Which is why attempts to shoehorn conclusions into thoroughly inconclusive science like the study in this article are unnecessary and actually counter-productive.

If they did have conclusive science, it wouldn't change anything.  Meanwhile, pretending studies say things they don't just throws gasoline on the "fake news" fire.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.202  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.201    2 weeks ago
Then do explain the reason for your question?

State the question you have in mind and then ask me a specific question.

It's a pretty big difference, actually.

I disagree.

Which is why attempts to shoehorn conclusions into thoroughly inconclusive science like the study in this article are unnecessary and actually counter-productive.

Who is shoehorning conclusions?   

If they did have conclusive science, it wouldn't change anything. 

I disagree.

Meanwhile, pretending studies say things they don't just throws gasoline on the "fake news" fire.  

What, specifically, are you talking about?   Do you think I am pretending something?   If so, be specific.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.203  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.200    2 weeks ago
Why is a genetic factor in sexual orientation important?

Knowledge of sexual orientation is important.  Do you disagree?

So far, the discussion has shown that sexual orientation doesn't dictate sexual behavior. 

So?

The conclusion of the research is that genetics does not provide a predictive indicator of sexual behavior. 

The conclusion is that sexual orientation seems to be more complex than simply inherited genetics.

And the discussion, so far, has arrived at a conclusion that sexual orientation does not provide a predictive indicator of sexual behavior, either.

I think some of us knew that before this seed.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.204  Nerm_L  replied to  katrix @5.1.199    2 weeks ago
That bullshit argument was used to deny people the right to marry those of a different race - and was shot down then.

Thank you! 

Marriage is a familial relationship.  So, the important topic of discussion concerns relationships rather than sexual orientation or sexual behavior (or race, religion, and ethnicity for that matter).  

The adherents of the religion of perpetual tantalizing profundity wanted to kick the can of irrelevancy.  And the discussion is gradually arriving at that conclusion.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.205  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.203    2 weeks ago
The conclusion is that sexual orientation seems to be more complex than simply inherited genetics.

Why is that important?  You continue to ask me to explain why that is important.  Or, perhaps, you only continue to expect me to accept that as important without discussion.  

You're the one that has claimed that whether or not sexual orientation is choice is an important question that needs answered.  Why?  Explain yourself.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
5.1.206  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.172    2 weeks ago
The psychology of losing

Competition is a zero sum game when society allows predators, striving for self-gain that is detrimental for others, to win.  Example"  Wars are rarely fought to free anyone - it is largely about replacing one ruler with another one.  The majority, of foot soldiers, fight for slogans/flags/medals/propaganda or are forced when they won't volunteer.  

Isn't it beneficial for our species to evolve beyond a primitive, tribal mindset and quit viewing life as nothing more than a competition with everyone outside of our tribe (and even largely everyone within our tribe)?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/socially-relevant/201506/the-psychology-competition

A “competition," by its very nature, is what psychologists call an “extrinsic incentive." Extrinsic simply means that the motivation to adopt a behavior or decision is sourced externally rather than internally (e.g., when you do something because you get a reward for it). A fundamental characteristic (and downside) of nearly all extrinsic incentives is that they only tend to work for as long as the incentive is maintained! In our example, students stopped saving energy as soon as the competition ended.

The opposite of extrinsic is what we call “intrinsic” motivation. When we are intrinsically motivated to do something (e.g., helping others, save energy) we do it not because of an external reward, but simply because we are personally convinced that it is the right thing to do. By “right” I don’t refer to vague cultural conceptions of good and evil, but rather to   morality   as an evolved capacity. Long-standing   research   has shown that the ability to be compassionate, empathize with others and to care about the natural world are evolutionarily adaptive behavioral traits. In fact, a psychological concept known as the “ helper’s high ” suggests that “doing good” actually makes people “feel good” both psychologically as well as physically ( helping behavior   often releases “feel-good” neurotransmitters such as   oxytocin , a process which economists refer to as “warm-glow”). For example, an interesting recent   study   showed that people’s body temperature goes up when they are acting “green” (a literal warm-glow!).

Unfortunately, lots of psychological  research  has also shown that external incentives “crowd out” (i.e., undermine) people’s  intrinsic motivation  to do good. For example,  highlighting  the monetary benefits of saving energy actually makes people less likely to do so. This is related to what we call negative “goal-replacement.” Consider that if you were originally intending to save energy because you strongly care about the environment but instead, now simply do so to win a competition, your pro-social motivation for caring about the environment has been “replaced” with a self-serving goal (i.e., winning). Think about other goals such as quitting  smoking  or losing weight. Are you more likely to achieve either of these goals as a result of a temporary competition or because you are internally convinced that it is the right thing to do? You might ask what the difference is if they both have the same outcome. There is a difference. Let's say that you do end up saving energy (temporarily) because it helps you lower your monthly bills. Will you still save energy when your income suddenly goes up?

Psychological research suggests that intrinsically-motivated behavior change is much more likely to be sustained in the long-term.

Let’s not forget that competition is not the only dominant force in nature, it is rivaled only by its better half:  cooperation . Indeed, humans not only survived by competing but perhaps more importantly, we survived by cooperating with one another. In the words of Bertrand Russell, “the only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."

It's time we start doing the right thing, for the right reasons.
 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.207  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.205    2 weeks ago
You continue to ask me to explain why that is important. 

Where am I doing this?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.208  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @5.1.206    2 weeks ago
Competition is a zero sum game when society allows predators, striving for self-gain that is detrimental for others, to win.

Doesn't society attempt to regulate the competition? 

Humans engage in a variety of behaviors to compete for dominance in social status and identity according to measures recognized (and imposed) by society.  Most of those measures have evolved over time; the measures were created by consensus rather than by design.  Deliberate intervention is an attempt to regulate competition.

Isn't it beneficial for our species to evolve beyond a primitive, tribal mindset and quit viewing life as nothing more than a competition with everyone outside of our tribe (and even largely everyone within our tribe)?

Haven't social measures for social status and identity evolved over time?  Evolution is a slow process.  

Trying to eliminate a 'tribal mindset' is self-defeating.  Social organization (tribalism) is a feature of humanity and not a flaw.  Without social organization we would not have communities (or civilizations).  Without tribalism, competition for dominance in social status and identity would only increase.  Tribalism exerts a regulating influence over competition.

I contend that eliminating a 'tribal mindset' would be detrimental.  

Selecting a partner to form a familial relationship is based upon natural competition.  We can't just hold a lottery or assign partners by artificial criteria.  That has been tried; that's the idea behind arranged marriages.  And arranged marriages did not eliminate competition.  So, the idea that competition can be eliminated from society is unrealistic.

IMO we need to strengthen the 'tribal mindset' since that is the only way to exert control over competition through a consensus that is accepted by society.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.209  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.207    2 weeks ago
Where am I doing this?

You are asking a question without providing an explanation for why the question is relevant or needs an answer.

The possibility of genetic variants influencing sexual orientation is unimportant for determining behavior.  Do you agree?

BTW, I don't agree that knowledge of sexual orientation is important.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.210  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.209    2 weeks ago

You are deflecting again.  You made an accusation and I asked you to name the posts from me that justify your accusation.

I am aware that you cannot do so.  An apology is appropriate, deflection is not.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.211  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.210    2 weeks ago
You are deflecting again.  You made an accusation and I asked you to name the posts from me that justify your accusation. I am aware that you cannot do so.  An apology is appropriate, deflection is not.

Alright, I apologize.

Now answer the question.

The possibility of genetic variants influencing sexual orientation is unimportant for determining behavior.  Do you agree?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
5.1.212  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.208    2 weeks ago
That has been tried; that's the idea behind arranged marriages.

Arranged marriages were a way for men to sell their daughters and/or achieve power through unions with other men.  Women were treated little more than a commodity for men.  It is a vile mindset that is detrimental to the life and well-being of all women.  The men, who have not evolved past this mindset, are a hindrance to the well-being of our society.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
5.1.213  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.208    2 weeks ago
IMO we need to strengthen the 'tribal mindset' since that is the only way to exert control over competition through a consensus that is accepted by society.

IMO we need to quit wasting our lives trying to best and/or impress others with meaningless trinkets and trophies.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/595672/workism/

‘We’re the Workaholics of the World’

Aug 08, 2019   | 2 videos  

Video by   The Atlantic
Should a job provide a paycheck or a purpose? For Americans, the edict is both. “Work has become the centerpiece of our identity, the focal point of our lives, and the organizing principle of society,” says Derek Thompson in a new video from   The Atlantic .

The concept of an all-consuming career—Thompson calls it   workism —has rendered Americans the workaholics of the world. Where traditional religion once lent people meaning, community, and self-actualization, work has stepped in to fill the void. But it’s difficult to strike a balance between life and work, and many Americans are burning out.

“We have essentially made our work our god,” Thompson says.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.214  Trout Giggles  replied to  mocowgirl @5.1.213    2 weeks ago
“We have essentially made our work our god,” T

Another religion I've failed at. I work to live not live to work

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.215  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.211    2 weeks ago
The possibility of genetic variants influencing sexual orientation is unimportant for determining behavior.  Do you agree?

No I do not agree.   Sexual orientation is a factor in behavior.   For example, if one is heterosexual it is very unlikely that one would hit on individuals of the same gender.   Likewise, if one is homosexual it is unlikely that one would hit on individuals of the opposite gender (unless of course this is done to play a role to fit into society, etc.).

Sexual orientation encourages certain behaviors and mitigates others.   

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.216  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @5.1.212    2 weeks ago
Arranged marriages were a way for men to sell their daughters and/or achieve power through unions with other men.  Women were treated little more than a commodity for men.  It is a vile mindset that is detrimental to the life and well-being of all women.  The men, who have not evolved past this mindset, are a hindrance to the well-being of our society.

And society has evolved to exert control over that form of competition, hasn't it?  But that form of competition has only been replaced by other forms of competition.  Society exerting control over arranged marriages has not eliminated competition from the process of selecting a partner for a familial relationship.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.217  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @5.1.213    2 weeks ago
IMO we need to quit wasting our lives trying to best and/or impress others with meaningless trinkets and trophies.  

Aren't trophies a societal measure of individual accomplishment in a competition?  Being the best at something does require a comparison to others.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.218  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.215    2 weeks ago
Sexual orientation encourages certain behaviors and mitigates others.   

Okay.  Let's see if I understand:

Genetic variants influencing sexual orientation are contributing determinants of behavior.  Is that what you are saying?

 
 
 
CB
5.1.219  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.200    2 weeks ago

I don't think you fully know what you are writing about. Furthermore you write: "All sexual orientations engage in [] same sexual behaviors." That implies you do too. If so, then you should be fully aware that sexual orientation is not about experimentation or even impulse. Sexual orientation is a steady stream of consciousness regarding sexual appetite and spiritual connection.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.220  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.218    2 weeks ago

Yes, the genetic factors (which naturally include epigenetics in my mind) which at least in part determine sexual orientation will ultimately influence behavior.

This concept, by the way, is well known in behavioral biology.   All of us behave based on our genetics.   An individual who is predisposed to a violent temper is a simple and familiar example of this.   The examples, however, can get very interesting and detailed (e.g.  per Dr. Robert Sapolsky:  twins separated at birth;  one raised Jewish, the other raised Muslim and in different parts of the world, exposed to different cultures, etc. yet both individuals had the odd behavioral tic of flushing the toilet before using it).

Human behavior is a wild and wacky thing, but it is well known (scientifically) that genetics absolutely influences behavior.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
5.1.221  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.217    2 weeks ago
Aren't trophies a societal measure of individual accomplishment in a competition?

To date, all of that competition is causing our country to be littered with landfills full our "trophies".

All of that competition is unhealthy for our environment as we raid its resources to create things that are supposed to give us pleasure, status and contentment, but wind up discarded because they didn't.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.222  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.220    2 weeks ago
Human behavior is a wild and wacky thing, but it is well known (scientifically) that genetics absolutely influences behavior.

Okay. It seems we have agreement on your meaning.  Next question:

Removing identified genetic variants from a population would reduce the frequency of correlated behaviors from a population.  Do you agree?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
5.1.223  mocowgirl  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.214    2 weeks ago
Another religion I've failed at. I work to live not live to work

Me, too.  I've rarely lived much above the poverty line, but between shopping department store clearance sales and garage sales, I acquired decent goods.  It pains me to pay full price for anything.  LOL!

I've spent the last year giving away my life's "trophies" (that had been stored and largely ignored) that were in good condition and burning the rest. 

I don't like dusting or cleaning house so I am eyeing other "treasures" that may deserve a new home.  LOL!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.224  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @5.1.221    2 weeks ago
To date, all of that competition is causing our country to be littered with landfills full our "trophies".

I agree.  How do we change that without the 'tribal mindset' of social organization?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
5.1.225  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.224    2 weeks ago
How do we change that without the 'tribal mindset' of social organization?

We don't change anything....our youth does because they are evolving.....

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/millennials-kill-materialism-matthew-taylor-experience-economy

Necessity is the mother of invention. The economic travails of millennials could herald the era of late materialism.

Fewer than a third of millennials own their own home compared to more than half of Generation X at the same age. Very few young people are saving enough for their retirement. Perhaps because these great personal financial goals are increasingly out of reach, more young people than previous generations say they save not to accumulate but "to live my desired lifestyle". In 2018, this aspiration will challenge the materialism of their elders.

The evidence is mounting. Millennials already tend to rate work-life balance over pay. Across the UK, the number of people wanting to work fewer hours now exceeds those who want more. It's a world where our needs to socialise, communicate, be entertained and organised are all contained in a single smart device. When growing your own, sharing, making do and even mending are all the rage, spare money is for experiences, not stuff (which you have nowhere to store anyway).

Materialism has always had its critics, and their voices have been getting louder. Added to the ethical case against greed is the fact that the planet can't cope with everyone consuming more goods indefinitely, as well as the psychological and political critique that acquisitiveness messes up society and our heads. From Fred Hirsch's seminal Social Limits to Growth in 1976 and Oliver James's Affluenza in 2007 to James Wallman's Stuffocation in 2013, many writers have railed against the impact of possessive individualism.

Perhaps Tim Jackson, author of Prosperity Without Growth, summed up consumerism most pithily as the process by which "we are persuaded to spend money we don't have on things we don't need to create impressions that won't last on people we don't care about".

Yet these voices have done little to dent the economic consensus for spending-led growth and, until recently, even less to change the way we live. Those in the mainstream argue societies cannot survive without economic growth, and growth only comes from rising demand. That attitude will increasingly feel misguided.

The reality is that we're already surviving if not without growth then with a great deal less. The promise of consumer capitalism, that most of us would get better off year-on-year, has been broken for well over a decade.

Isn't this broken promise of rising living standards precisely what is driving the rise of Donald Trump, the victory of Brexit and the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn? Perhaps, but what happens when the populists also fail to deliver? Human beings adapt to reality. We may rise up but equally we may, as the very British slogan has it, "Keep calm and carry on."

The most difficult challenge for the late-materialist era - one which we've hardly even begun to face - is getting the politics, policy and economics right. We need politicians to tell us the truth, shape our expectations and give us hope. We need new forms of living, working, travelling and eating.

Late-materialist societies won't generate enough tax revenue for paternalistic national public services so we need social innovation to help communities do more themselves. Technology too is vital. It can liberate us from drudgery, transform human productivity and free us to be creative, or it can ensnare us in new addictions, intrusions and widening inequality.

We could be entering an era of unprecedented human flourishing. Unlike money, possessions or power, I can have more love, friendship, caring and fun without you having less. Beyond populism, young people need a cause that is both realistic and visionary. And 2018 will be the year we understand the huge benefits of late materialism.
 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.226  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.222    2 weeks ago
Removing identified genetic variants from a population would reduce the frequency of correlated behaviors from a population.  Do you agree?

Biology is not that easy Nerm.   It is not as if biologists point to a factor and proclaim 'this is it!'.   Behavior, especially, is the result of a complex mix of factors across one's lifetime.

But, assuming it is possible to remove the factors that contribute to a particular behavior, then it is quite reasonable to expect that behavior to be mitigated.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.227  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.226    2 weeks ago
Biology is not that easy Nerm.   It is not as if biologists point to a factor and proclaim 'this is it!'.   Behavior, especially, is the result of a complex mix of factors across one's lifetime.

Introducing a 'complex mix of factors' into the discussion is a deflection.

But, assuming it is possible to remove the factors that contribute to a particular behavior, then it is quite reasonable to expect that behavior to be mitigated.  

That doesn't directly answer the posed question.  The question was:

Removing identified genetic variants from a population would reduce the frequency of correlated behaviors from a population.  Do you agree?

May I conclude from your answer that you agree?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.228  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.227    2 weeks ago

You have nothing but deflections.  Nothing 

You also never directly answer a question.   Never

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.229  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.228    2 weeks ago
You have nothing but deflections.  Nothing 

Then I am an authority on deflections.  Do you agree?

You also never directly answer a question.   Never

Then I am an authority on never directly answering questions.  Do you agree?

If I am an authority on deflections and never directly answering questions then it follows that I can point out those behaviors with authority. Do you agree?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.230  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.196    2 weeks ago
Do you reject a genetic factor in sexual orientation? 

I'm accept the evidence, including what is in your article.

 Did you not read this Vic?:

I did and I also heard you call people bigots - and I'm not letting you off the hook for that.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.231  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.230    2 weeks ago

Why should bigots not be called bigots, Vic?

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.232  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.191    2 weeks ago
Same gender sexual behavior is a choice.

So what? So is heterosexual behavior. 

Since all sexual orientations engage in same gender sexual behavior, as you eloquently point out, then explain why sexual orientation is relevant.  You have successfully shown that sexual orientation is irrelevant concerning discussion of sexual behavior. 

Well Gee Nerm, since YOU are the one that insists that society needs to protect itself from only ONE sexual orientation, homosexuals, even though you now admit that sexual orientation is irrelevant to sexual behavior, how about YOU tell me? 

So, why is it important whether or not sexual orientation is a choice if all sexual orientations engage in the same sexual behavior?

Actually, all sexual orientations do NOT engage in the same sexual behavior. Heterosexuals engage in non-procreative oral and anal sex. Homosexuals do NOT engage in procreative sex. After your prior comments, it's hard to believe that you needed that explained to you...

Since sexual behavior is a choice; you've only shown that all sexual orientations have the same choices.

See above. 

You have successfully demonstrated that society regulating sexual behavior is justified regardless of sexual orientation.

Really? Where? 

You're misrepresenting my comments.

You have successfully explained why criminalizing specific sexual behavior is not discriminatory.

You're successfully slinging more bullshit. 

You haven't made any claims other than about my commentary.

Yes and one of your comments was:

Don't try making claims that have been refuted; you'll be just as wrong as I was.

You haven't refuted any of my claims Nerm. 

It's a tedious process but you are gradually proving my point.

Well you've conveniently [for you] left a crap load of questions unanswered.

Perhaps if you'd FOCUSED and answered more of questions instead of going off on irrelvant tangents, I could have nailed shit down faster.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.233  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.188    2 weeks ago
It only diminishes the word and those who use it.

Well it sure looks like it hasn't diminished the word with you since you were triggered immediately. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.234  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.194    2 weeks ago
That would explain the hyper concern from the New York Times with new findings. 

Could you quote the NYT 'hyper concern', I don't subscribe. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.235  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.231    2 weeks ago

For one thing to assume that everyone who dosen't accept that sexual orientation is based on genes is a bigot is a sweeping generalization.

More important it is subjective. There is a world of difference between what some here call bigots and what I and others believe that term means.

I think it's immoral to do it. You sound totally confident that all such people are bigots. I'm disappointed to say the least.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.236  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.209    2 weeks ago
You are asking a question without providing an explanation for why the question is relevant or needs an answer.

Seriously? 

Nerm, I suggest you review the PLETHORA of questions you have asked without providing an explanation for why the question is relevant or needs an answer.

Without scrolling through the whole thread, I'd bet it's over 50. 

Either meet your own standards or stop trying to impose them on other members. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.237  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @5.1.233    2 weeks ago
Well it sure looks like it hasn't diminished the word with you since you were triggered immediately. 

Reacting to such things is a habit of mine. You'll see how much the word has been watered down in November of 2020.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.238  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @5.1.234    2 weeks ago
I don't subscribe. 

What a pity.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.239  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.235    2 weeks ago
to assume that everyone who dosen't accept that sexual orientation is based on genes is a bigot is a sweeping generalization.

Nobody has assumed any such thing.

Disappointing that you're misstating other's position in order to find them disappointing.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.240  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.237    2 weeks ago
Reacting to such things is a habit of mine.

Which proves my point. Thanks. 

You'll see how much the word has been watered down in November of 2020.

So I presume that your posit is that the word bigot doesn't have a meaning if Trump gets reelected. Do you understand what that connotes? 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.241  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.238    2 weeks ago
What a pity.

I'll take that to mean that you can't support your claim. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.242  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.227    2 weeks ago
Introducing a 'complex mix of factors' into the discussion is a deflection.

It is much better than lying to you and making a claim that behavioral biology has found that there is a specific gene that controls each behavior.   That simply is not how the human body works.   Accurately reporting known science (albeit in super-summary) is not a deflection, it is a direct answer.   

That doesn't directly answer the posed question.

Then you have a very strange definition for what constitutes a direct answer.    Let's analyze this:

Nerm @5.1.222 Removing identified genetic variants from a population would reduce the frequency of correlated behaviors from a population.  Do you agree?

Your question presumes we have identified certain genetic factors that enabled certain behaviors and you want to know if removing those factors would reduce the occurrences of the behavior.

TiG @5.1.226 But, assuming it is possible to remove the factors that contribute to a particular behavior, then it is quite reasonable to expect that behavior to be mitigated.  

My answer is that if we assume that it is indeed possible to remove these factors (it may not be) then the associated behavior is very likely to be reduced.

Now what exactly is your problem?   I responded in the affirmative and added appropriate qualification so that we were clear.

If, when I directly respond to your questions, I have to then debate you over how directly I responded, I am not going to bother responding to you.

I trust that was sufficiently candid.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.243  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.230    2 weeks ago
I did and I also heard you call people bigots - and I'm not letting you off the hook for that.

Explain to me who you think I called a bigot.   Note Vic, I think you are upset simply because I used the word bigot in a sentence to refer to people who (shockingly) meet the definition of the word 'bigot'.

So, you seem to disapprove of the word 'bigot'.    I asked you which word I should use.   So here we go, in this sentence, what is the proper word for us all to use?:

TiG @ 5.1.182 There will always be those who claim sexual orientation is a choice because that enables continued bigotry .   So until science completely answers the question of sexual orientation (and it may never completely answer that question) there will be bigots employing ' choice of the gaps '.

What word should I use to connote the concept of:  " a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices "?

 
 
 
JBB
5.1.244  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.243    2 weeks ago

Bigot don't like being called bigots. They're, "Tolerance Impaired Individuals".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.245  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.243    2 weeks ago
Explain to me who you think I called a bigot. 

The people whom you singled out in your highlighted comment. I thought you also told us that people either accept the science or they don't. Are you saying all those who don't are bigots?

So, you seem to disapprove of the word 'bigot'.  

I do.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.246  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @5.1.241    2 weeks ago

My claim, as you call it is supported by the link in post # 2.1

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.247  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @5.1.240    2 weeks ago
Do you understand what that connotes? 

That smearing people will have backfired.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.248  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.239    2 weeks ago
Nobody has assumed any such thing.

TiG @  5.1.182  ⇨ There will always be those who claim sexual orientation is a choice because that enables continued bigotry .   So until science completely answers the question of sexual orientation (and it may never completely answer that question) there will be bigots employing '  choice of the gaps  '.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.250  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.246    2 weeks ago
My claim, as you call it is supported by the link in post # 2.1

You claimed that there was 'hyper concern from the NYT'. Your 2.1 post doesn't support that claim. It merely repeats the 'ONE concern' statement that you already posted. 'ONE concern' is hardly hyper.

Why not just admit that you can't support your exaggeration?  

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.251  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.247    2 weeks ago
That smearing people will have backfired.

Nope. It connotes that you believe that a majority of the electoral college doesn't care if they vote for a known bigot. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.252  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.242    2 weeks ago
Your question presumes we have identified certain genetic factors that enabled certain behaviors and you want to know if removing those factors would reduce the occurrences of the behavior.
TiG @5.1.226 But, assuming it is possible to remove the factors that contribute to a particular behavior, then it is quite reasonable to expect that behavior to be mitigated.  
My answer is that if we assume that it is indeed possible to remove these factors (it may not be) then the associated behavior is very likely to be reduced.

Yes, its necessary to squirm away from the logical conclusion, isn't it?  But its your can of worms, you wanted to open it.

The Pandora's box of improving humanity through genetics hasn't changed since Plato proposed selective breeding over 2500 years ago.  It's a noble argument espoused by nobility; breeding makes the man.  Charles Darwin's explanation of natural selection provided a scientific foundation for transforming Plato's hypothetical into a rational theory.  By the early 20th century it was discovered a complex mix of factors, the social condition, could also be correlated with undesirable traits and deviant behavior.

Eugenics!  Humanity could be improved by controlled, scientific breeding coupled with social programs for improved diet, wholesome athletic activities, education, and proper social training.  

And while the LGBT community bleats 'Nazi, Nazi, Nazi' they are blind to the source of the desire for a super race: the development of the science of inherited traits and behaviors and genetics over a period of 2500 years.  The Nazis were about science, not tribalism.  

Of course, everyone will berate, belittle, and chastise me for kicking everyone's can of worms down the road.  The ignorant, the blind, and the foolish can't accept that they are making the same arguments that Heinrich Himmler and his Schutzstaffel would recognize.  The Jews didn't have a choice about being a Jew, either.  Or did they?

Yes, your answer is consistent with the historic progression of attempts to scientifically improve humanity.  Nice little final solution you have there.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.253  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.248    2 weeks ago
Vic @5.1.235 ⇨ For one thing to assume that everyone who dosen't accept that sexual orientation is based on genes is a bigot is a sweeping generalization.

Following this you put this comment from me as an example:

TiG @  5.1.182  ⇨ There will always be those who claim sexual orientation is a choice because that enables continued bigotry .   So until science completely answers the question of sexual orientation (and it may never completely answer that question) there will be bigots employing 'choice of the gaps '.

I am saying that there will always be bigots out there who use 'choice' as a wedge for continued bigotry.

I am not saying that all people who deem sexual orientation a choice are bigots.

'Some will always do' is not the same as 'All do'.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.254  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @5.1.232    2 weeks ago
So what? So is heterosexual behavior. 

Correct.  Sexual behavior is a choice.  Heterosexual behavior is a choice.  Bisexual behavior is a choice.  Homosexual behavior is a choice.

Well Gee Nerm, since YOU are the one that insists that society needs to protect itself from only ONE sexual orientation, homosexuals, even though you now admit that sexual orientation is irrelevant to sexual behavior, how about YOU tell me? 

Not what I said.  Although you apparently want me to say it.  

But I will say that replacing familial relationships with sexual relationships is dangerous.  And making sexual behavior the primary purpose of a familial relationship is destructive.

Actually, all sexual orientations do NOT engage in the same sexual behavior. Heterosexuals engage in non-procreative oral and anal sex. Homosexuals do NOT engage in procreative sex. After your prior comments, it's hard to believe that you needed that explained to you...

You have repeatedly pointed out that all sexual orientations do engage in the same sexual behaviors.  And all sexual orientations DO engage in procreative sex.  Now you are trying to morph that into a phony claim that all individuals engage in the same sexual behaviors.  That's nothing I said.

Perhaps if you'd FOCUSED and answered more of questions instead of going off on irrelvant tangents, I could have nailed shit down faster.

Okay.  What specific questions do you want answered?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.255  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.252    2 weeks ago
Yes, its necessary to squirm away from the logical conclusion, isn't it? 

I stated fact.   Too bad if that fact disrupted your plan.   And by the rest of your comment it is clear what your plan was.   You wanted to engage in a tirade about genetic engineering.   And your tirade ends with this obnoxious quip:

Yes, your answer is consistent with the historic progression of attempts to scientifically improve humanity.  Nice little final solution you have there.

I have no idea where you find a proposed 'solution' in my comments.   There was no posed problem.

Your post has nothing to do with my answer to the question you posed.  

It is a strawman argument drawn from thin air.   

I think this ends my patience for tolerating intellectual dishonesty.   We are done.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.256  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.245    2 weeks ago
The people whom you singled out in your highlighted comment.

That is a non-answer.

I thought you also told us that people either accept the science or they don't.

That is an obvious truth on all counts.   No matter what we are talking about, an individual will either accept or not accept.   There are no other choices.   (Not accept includes being undecided.)   So how can you possibly disagree with this??

Are you saying all those who don't are bigots?

No.   I am saying that bigotry is usually irrational and will persist in spite of good information to the contrary.   Surely you can think of situations where you have directly observed bigotry whose justification has been debunked.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.257  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.253    2 weeks ago
I am saying that there will always be bigots out there who use 'choice' as a wedge for continued bigotry. I am not saying that all people who deem sexual orientation a choice are bigots.

And I am saying that the idea that people are defined by their hereditary biology has been the justification for genocide throughout history.  And societies in antiquity strove to create a super race through scientifically controlled breeding and intense indoctrination.  The Egyptians did it.  The Greeks did it.  The Romans did it.  Science has improved and scientific knowledge has increased but that science and knowledge is still being used for the same purpose.

I am not the one that introduced the wedge issue of choice into the discussion thread.  And I have been lambasted, derided, and castigated for trying to ignore that wedge issue.  I have been chastised for deflection and dishonesty by the 'woke' participants in the discussion.

I have only remained on the discussion because I haven't forgotten.  I haven't forgotten how science resulted in the rational conclusion that extermination is the only viable option for improving humanity because traits and behaviors are hereditary and can't be changed.

The bigotry you are complaining about is really about sexual orientation NOT being a choice.  Your logic was impeccable even though you tried avoid taking that last step.  And you were applauded as you progressed toward a final solution.

Never forget.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.258  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @5.1.250    2 weeks ago
Why not just admit that you can't support your exaggeration?  

And why don't you just admit that your'e in denial.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.259  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @5.1.251    2 weeks ago

That is your interpretation. The people know who the haters are. You are getting 4 more years of Donald Trump and I will be here! jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.260  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.257    2 weeks ago

And I am saying that I am not going to allow you to get on your soapbox and pretend that you are in some way engaging in a debate with me.   You are pretending to rebut something that I have not written.

That is both offensive and intellectually dishonest.   

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.261  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.253    2 weeks ago
I am not saying that all people who deem sexual orientation a choice are bigots.

Very good! Thank you!

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.262  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.261    2 weeks ago

You are welcome.   

Now, do you understand the point I actually did make?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.263  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.262    2 weeks ago

Um-hum, you are not the first.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.264  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.260    2 weeks ago
And I am saying that I am not going to allow you to get on your soapbox and pretend that you are in some way engaging in a debate with me.   You are pretending to rebut something that I have not written. That is both offensive and intellectually dishonest.   

I am not engaging in a debate with you.  I am leading you to a logical conclusion from your introduction of the wedge issue of choice that needs to be eliminated from society.

LGBT behave the way they do because of who they are.  And LGBT cannot change who they are.

The bigotry is sustained because LGBT don't choose who they are.  The belief in a tolerant nirvana is delusional; human history doesn't suggest that tolerance of deviant behavior is achievable or sustainable.  And since you like to argue with the dictionary:

deviant -- departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.

While there has been tremendous effort to impose a conversion therapy onto society to attempt to change accepted standards, such efforts have proven to be unsustainable in the past.  Ultimately genetics will be used as a tool to abort deviants; not just sexual deviants.  But since LGBT are adamant that they do not have choice then abortion based on genetic correlation becomes a final solution.  DNA testing is providing the means for extermination before birth; a proactive genocide.  And society is expending a lot of effort to protect the practice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.265  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.263    2 weeks ago

I guess that means ‘no’.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.266  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.264    2 weeks ago
I am leading you to a logical conclusion from your introduction of the wedge issue of choice that needs to be eliminated from society.

You are simply noting the slippery slope of genetic engineering.   That has nothing to do with what I wrote, so do not pretend to include me in your declarations.

Ultimately genetics will be used as a tool to abort deviants; not just sexual deviants. 

Probably.   It is likely as inevitable as continued use of weapons of mass destruction.   This has nothing to do with my comment.

But since LGBT are adamant that they do not have choice then abortion based on genetic correlation becomes a final solution.

Society historically misuses information (and technology).   We might fail as you suggest.   But that is irrelevant to science.   Science is about discovering facts of the real world.   If science discovers the origin of sexual orientation then that is progress.   If that information is misused by society then that is on society.   Science should continue its pursuit of explanations.   You are not indirectly trying to suggest that science should not continue to try to understand behavioral biology and/or the source of sexual orientation are you?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.267  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.266    2 weeks ago
You are simply noting the slippery slope of genetic engineering.   That has nothing to do with what I wrote, so do not pretend to include me in your declarations.

You introduced the topic into the discussion @5.1.  It's your can of worms.  And the slippery slope of genetic engineering is a logical conclusion for the question of choice.

Society historically misuses information (and technology).   We might fail as you suggest.   But that is irrelevant to science.   Science is about discovering facts of the real world.   If science discovers the origin of sexual orientation then that is progress.   If that information is misused by society then that is on society.   Science should continue its pursuit of explanations.   You are not indirectly trying to suggest that science should not continue to try to understand behavioral biology and/or the source of sexual orientation are you?

That strays but I'll play.  What is the role of science in society?

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.268  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.267    2 weeks ago

I asked you a question to clarify your meaning.   You have played this can of worm games with several members for this entire thread.

Do not blame me for what you have expanded and perpetuated.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.269  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.268    2 weeks ago
I asked you a question to clarify your meaning.   You have played this can of worm games with several members for this entire thread. Do not blame me for what you have expanded and perpetuated.

And I answered.  What about "That's not what I said" needs clarification?

And I didn't perpetuate the discussion about choice.  I was consistently trying to discuss relationships until I finally gave up and started leading bulls by the balls.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.270  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.248    2 weeks ago

Think of it like a Venn diagram, Vic.  There will always be people who are bigoted against LGBTQ people.  Many (but not all) will justify bigotry by calling sexual orientation a "lifestyle" - they're the types who support "conversion therapy".

But there are also people who think sexual orientation is a choice, but aren't bigoted against LGBTQ people.  Regardless of whether they think it's a choice, they accept LGBTQ people.

Those groups both fall within the circle "believes homosexuality is a choice", but there's one circle for bigots and one for non-bigots.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.271  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.254    2 weeks ago
Not what I said. 

What part didn't you say? 

But I will say that replacing familial relationships with sexual relationships is dangerous. And making sexual behavior the primary purpose of a familial relationship is destructive.

Who has encouraged either? That seems to be part and parcel of your fever dream. 

You have repeatedly pointed out that all sexual orientations do engage in the same sexual behaviors. 

No I have NOT. I said heterosexuals engage in what you labeled 'dirty sex' which I presume is oral and anal sex. You haven't even tried to refute that fact. 

And all sexual orientations DO engage in procreative sex.

No again. I never said anything close to that. Why lie? 

Now you are trying to morph that into a phony claim that all individuals engage in the same sexual behaviors. That's nothing I said.

You block quoted what I ACTUALLY said Nerm. Here it is again: 

Actually, all sexual orientations do NOT engage in the same sexual behavior.

So you just claimed that I said the OPPOSITE of what I said. Again, why lie? 

Okay. What specific questions do you want answered?

All of the questions I asked that you conveniently ignored. Go back and review my posts, you'll find plenty that you avoided. 

BTFW, you can start with the questions in this post. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.272  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.270    2 weeks ago

It's important to make the distinction.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.273  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.258    2 weeks ago
And why don't you just admit that your'e in denial.

In denial of what exactly Vic? 

BTFW, still no support for your exaggeration I see...

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.274  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.259    2 weeks ago
The people know who the haters are.

That's what I said, they know that the Hater in Chief is Trump and they love it. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.275  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.270    2 weeks ago
But there are also people who think sexual orientation is a choice, but aren't bigoted against LGBTQ people.  Regardless of whether they think it's a choice, they accept LGBTQ people.

Touchdown.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.276  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @5.1.271    2 weeks ago
What part didn't you say? 

@ 5.1.1 => @ 5.1

Who has encouraged either? That seems to be part and parcel of your fever dream. 

What is Sexual Freedom?

No I have NOT. I said heterosexuals engage in what you labeled 'dirty sex' which I presume is oral and anal sex. You haven't even tried to refute that fact. 

No, I haven't.

No again. I never said anything close to that. Why lie? 

You have pointed out that all sexual orientations engage in oral and anal sex; so all sexual orientations do engage in the same sexual behaviors. 

The comment that all sexual orientations do engage in procreative sex is my claim, not your claim.  Are you attempting plagiarism?

So you just claimed that I said the OPPOSITE of what I said. Again, why lie? 

Since you really did say that all sexual orientations engage in the same sexual behaviors, now you seem to be attempting to shift the goal posts toward all sexual orientations engage in all sexual behaviors.  That's not what you said and not what I said. 

So your allegation of a lie is a lie.  You are lying about lying.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.277  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @5.1.274    2 weeks ago
That's what I said,

We know what you said, just remember opinions are like assholes - everyones got one.

Have a good one

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.278  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.276    2 weeks ago
@ 5.1.1 => @ 5.1

So now you've devolved to deflecting to irrelevant prior posts. Bad form Nerm. 

You should reread your 5.1.65 post. You said: 

So, what distinguishes homosexuality from other types of deviant sexual behavior determines whether or not society should protect itself from homosexuality.

And:

Homosexuals have been making the argument that they have no choice over sexual orientation. Fine. But that does not exempt homosexuals from accountability for sexual behavior. Homosexuals do possess free will like anyone else. And homosexuals can be expected to exercise that free will to control their behavior just like anyone else.

You DID say that.

You were asked by me and other members WHY you singled out homosexuals for accountability AND what you would codify to ensure that accountablity. You ignored every question and avoided answering every question about your obvious animus toward homosexuals. 

What is Sexual Freedom?

First of all, WTF are you doing posting an outside link. There are 276 comments in THIS THREAD. Other that to deflect, WHY would you interject some bullshit from outside of the thread?

Secondly, I asked you who encouraged 'replacing familial relationships with sexual relationships' and 'making sexual behavior the primary purpose of a familial relationship' and you fucking link doesn't even address either. Sheesh. 

You have pointed out that all sexual orientations engage in oral and anal sex; so all sexual orientations do engage in the same sexual behaviors.

No they do NOT. How many times does that need to be said before you get it? 

The comment that all sexual orientations do engage in procreative sex is my claim, not your claim. Are you attempting plagiarism?

Why would I plagerize that utter bullshit? 

Since you really did say that all sexual orientations engage in the same sexual behaviors, now you seem to be attempting to shift the goal posts toward all sexual orientations engage in all sexual behaviors.

That is a lie. Tell you what Nerm. Block quote and cite the post # where you allege I said that bullshit. 

That's not what you said

Which is it Nerm? 

and not what I said.

I QUOTED what you said. YOU can't quote what you allege I said. 

So your allegation of a lie is a lie. You are lying about lying.

Prove it or apologize Nerm. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.279  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.277    2 weeks ago
We know what you said

Does it make you feel stronger to pretend that you speak for more than yourself? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6  Dismayed Patriot    3 weeks ago

An interesting thought occurred to me earlier in regards to attraction. I have two sisters, one older and one younger, and have never found either of them attractive. Some of my high school friends did however and I recall thinking "Why the hell would they want to date my sister? Ewww!".

Now, could you imagine if there was a group trying to get me to overcome my sexual repulsion of my sisters? Isn't that basically what gay "reparative therapy" is trying to do? Someone telling you your feelings are wrong and you're not allowed to have them so they force you into sexual situations with your sibling to force you to overcome it? I think most would be completely repulsed by the very thought of that, yet we have many religious conservatives who have no problem sending their children to "reparative therapy" in an effort to get them to change who they are attracted to. Seems like a very sad and cruel thing to do to your child.

 
 
 
CB
7  CB     3 weeks ago

 A gay gene? Would it change anything, real