A 'gay gene'? It's complicated, according to new research on same-sex behavior
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
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
Who is online
70 visitors
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.
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
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.
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.”
Dean,
That was updated:
The problem is between members of the tribe who follow traditional indian law and those who have become Christians by missionaries.
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?
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
No. In 2016 that was overturned and same-sex marriage became legal for the Cherokee Nation. Info:
If you Goggle you can find more info on the subject. But, here is a link to more info here:
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.
Hi Dean,
First you might find this interesting about how Indians really did view gay people as being special two spirited people:
And this is the most current information on which tribes have changed position and which never needed to.
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:
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.
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.
Sorry, that should be "acceptance....", not- non-acceptance. Sorry for the confusion.
Simply voting this up does not seem a sufficient method of agreement.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
(see my answer above)
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?
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.
It would be important to note they don't represent an evolutionary disadvantage, either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Note how I have mentioned epigenetics throughout.
If homosexuality is inherited, it is definitely a disadvantage for that sub-population. There isn't really any way around that.
Exactly my point.
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?
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.
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.
The likelihood of homosexual procreating would be low, eliminating (or very nearly eliminating) that trait from the population over time.
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.
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.
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.
A chick. And you would still look fabulous.
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.
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:
It is unworkably awkward fully qualifying every sentence.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
That's not what I said.
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?
That's not what was asked. Is sexual orientation a choice?
How do you mean? What is the implication of that?
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.
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.
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.
How do you mean?
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?
I would say it's an essential component of a healthy life. Beyond that, I'm not sure how it's a societal expectation.
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?
Evasion noted.
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.
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".
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?
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.
Because the bible, or perhaps because the Koran. At least that's what virtually every objection boils down to.
Are we being forced to succumb to social pressure?
Being cryptic and avoiding the question is annoying as hell. Not cute at all.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
Obviously. Some would rather be cryptic to appear intelligent and thoughtful.
Again, avoiding the answer. I never put words in your mouth.
You just think you're so intelligent and thoughtful. Meh.
Well my question (which started this) was not about the sex act nor was it about relationships. I asked you about sexual orientation.
It's poor form to insult somebody else for your own refusal to answer a straightforward question.
Yes, exactly.
But is that based on the same social expectations that justified arranged marriages?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Invalid question because your premise of 'biology doesn't explain homosexuality' has not been established as true.
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.
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!
Nobody said there was.
It is influenced by genetics. From the article:
Do you really think that genetics is the whole of biology?
No, it was a question posed to you, which you refuse to answer.
I love it when people tell me what I was thinking and insist they know my intent better than me.
( It is my seed Nerm. )
Whatever.
Did you read the research?
And it's my discussion thread.
"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?
And you accuse others of straw men?
But it strongly suggests that sexual orientation is to some degree innate.
There, was that so hard?
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.
Actually, you ARE. The question that you've been avoiding is:
YOU are the one that chose to reply by address only ONE of the many sexual orientations, homosexuality.
Why?
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?
Never going to happen in this one.
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.
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?
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.
That's irrelevant to the question posed to you.
IMHO, no more so than heterosexually.
Nope, the opposition to homosexuality has focused attention on religious animus.
Then it's YOUR demeaning attitude.
What a laughably unfounded and ignorant statement.
Nope, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality and bisexuality. Sexual orientation has NO connection to stable relationships.
So you're equating homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality and S&M.
Why are you trying to perpetuate that demeaning attitude?
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...
That is correct.
Uh huh.
Behavior and orientation are different matters.
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?
Behavior and orientation are different matters.
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.
Prostitutes do not satisfy every benefit that a trusting, intimate relationship provides.
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.
The seeded article doesn't say anything about relationships but you've insisted that's what it's all about since your first comment.
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?
The seeded article is talking about sexual orientation too Nerm. Right off the bat:
The words 'gay' and 'lesbian' refer to sexual orientation. The word 'sexuality' means sexual orientation.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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'.
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
It's amazing that you always think you are the only cognizant entity in the universe.
The same thing that distinguishes heterosexuality from them.
See the inadequacy of your argument?
No more of a Pandora's box than making the argument about whether or not heterosexuality is a choice. Why pretend it is?
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.
It seems that you still haven't read the research. Genetic variants have been identified which correlate with homosexual behavior.
Except that there is.
"Deviant behavior." Nice.
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.
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.
Where?
You don't think that behavior likely correlates with orientation?
The fact that genetic variants associated with same-sex behavior were found.
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"
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?
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.
The researchers indicated that assumption could not be made.
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.
That's not at all what the article says. The article even tells you not to presume this conclusion:
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.
A correlation isn't an association?
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.
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.
Male/Female sexual BEHAVIOR ensures survival of the species. That doesn't have a fucking thing to do with sexual orientation or attraction.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
Wow.
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 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Say, what do you think this is?
My bad, pays to be a gay man...
This study indicates that.
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.
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?
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?
If gay men work, shouldn't they expect to be paid?
Shouldn't heterosexuals get paid to work too?
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?
Again, you're focusing too much on the DNA, and ignoring parts of the article that don't support your position.
Epigenetics are also likely an important contributing factor.
No.
I might ask you the same question.
What part of 'my bad' don't you understand Tex?
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.
Care to explain WTF you meant by "pays to be a gay man"?
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?
Actually, it doesn't and I have already told you why. Repeating it doesn't make it any more factual.
Who was talking about work Tex?
You're desperately grasping at straws to argue with me about.
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.
If you were, why did you ask your ACTUAL question in your next post?
You're not liking my comment doesn't mean it sounds homophobic either.
You yet to explain how it does.
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?
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.
Why would I bother, as is your practice, you've yet to answer my prior questions.
For once, you are right.
You CAN'T understand it for yourself yet!
Never mind for me!
Here is a few more stats.
https://ncadv.org/blog/posts/domestic-violence-and-the-lgbtq-comm1.
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)
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?
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'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.
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?
I wonder if that is because they are less likely to be obese as compared to lesbians?
I think I read that...
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."
Protect from what? It's not a contagion and it doesn't hurt anyone. Why would society have to do anything?
Agreed. I'd kinda like for Nerm-L to answer that, but I have a feeling he won't.
Here we go. . . .
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.
I think that they are born that way and WHY is irrelevant to me.
Do you mean that homosexuality isn't only about 'deviant sexual behavior'?
Nerm-L seems to have bowed out of the discussion.
There is NO explanation of 'homosexual behavior in the seeded article.
Presuming that you're still talking about the seeded article, actually it does.
From the article:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's your can of worms.
Society does not regulate sexual attraction, either. Society regulates sexual behavior.
You just ignored the WebMD definition and deflected to regulation.
You refuse to even acknowledge a credible third party source.
Fascinating.
And why should there be any accountability for homosexual behavior? Why does, as you hinted earlier, society need to protect against it?
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.
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.
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.
Still no answer from the person who mentioned society needing to protect itself from homosexuality. What are we to conclude?
You're forced to change word definitions to attempt to bolster your argument. Is it that weak (rhetorical question)?
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.
Why is the sexual orientation of a celibate person important? Has society attempted to regulate celibacy?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
Apparently heterosexual and bisexual are sexual orientations, too. What does that have to do with the seeded article, the discussion, or anything else?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Against what does regulation of homosexual behavior protect, Nerm?
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.
Was that supposed to be revelatory?
Sheesh you DO love to blather. Off you go on another irrelevant tangent. FOCUS!
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?
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.
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.
You have got to be kidding.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
You seem to be equating sex with sexual violence.
Illuminating, and a bit sad.
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?
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.
So, trying to be sexually attractive is violent.
Oy
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?
Okay. Got it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The psychology of losing
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.
The topic is the question about sexual orientation that you refused to answer and then whined about hijacking 'your' thread.
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'?
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.
Fascinating. Your posit has evolved before our very eyes. Here is what you said 2 days ago in 5.1.65:
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.
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:
So since you've already stated an answer, WHY did you ask that ridiculous question Nerm?
Ridiculous. Read your own comments Nerm. You're just going farther and farther off on a tangent.
False and your own comment proves it.
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?
I haven't and in fact, you've either failed to refute my claims or haven't even tried to do so.
Especially because it goes off on an irrelevant tangent and contradicts his prior comments.
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.
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.
NO IT DOES NOT!
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...
I've started to envision his argument as someone throwing darts at a Carrie Mathison psychosis wall to come up with their next tangent.
If you want to discuss that, you should post your own seed.
It doesn't, so why do you keep bringing it up?
Not a bad analogy.
But sexual orientation can and does establish what society deems a 'family unit'. Same sex married couples are STILL denied housing.
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?
HOW? Please DO explain how you came to the ridiculous conclusion that choice is really about sexual violence.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Ya, there is a lot to worry about there.
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'.
That's another problem - calling people bigots - It's been overdone and dosen't work anymore.
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?
Bigots growing thicker skin did not make bigotry any less reprehensible...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You haven't made any claims other than about my commentary. It's a tedious process but you are gradually proving my point.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Well do tell. I was unaware that bigotry had a hierarchy.
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.
Do you reject a genetic factor in sexual orientation? On what grounds?
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?:
Fascinating how presumption affects discourse.
I made no such claim. Further, that is not the point.
As I noted:
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?
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'.
That bullshit argument was used to deny people the right to marry those of a different race - and was shot down then.
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.
Then do explain the reason for your question?
Not exactly, no.
It's a pretty big difference, actually.
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.
State the question you have in mind and then ask me a specific question.
I disagree.
Who is shoehorning conclusions?
I disagree.
What, specifically, are you talking about? Do you think I am pretending something? If so, be specific.
Knowledge of sexual orientation is important. Do you disagree?
So?
The conclusion is that sexual orientation seems to be more complex than simply inherited genetics.
I think some of us knew that before this seed.
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.
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.
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)?
Where am I doing this?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
IMO we need to quit wasting our lives trying to best and/or impress others with meaningless trinkets and trophies.
Another religion I've failed at. I work to live not live to work
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.
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.
Aren't trophies a societal measure of individual accomplishment in a competition? Being the best at something does require a comparison to others.
Okay. Let's see if I understand:
Genetic variants influencing sexual orientation are contributing determinants of behavior. Is that what you are saying?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
I agree. How do we change that without the 'tribal mindset' of social organization?
We don't change anything....our youth does because they are evolving.....
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.
Introducing a 'complex mix of factors' into the discussion is a deflection.
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?
You have nothing but deflections. Nothing
You also never directly answer a question. Never
Then I am an authority on deflections. Do you agree?
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?
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.
Why should bigots not be called bigots, Vic?
So what? So is heterosexual 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?
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...
See above.
Really? Where?
You're misrepresenting my comments.
You're successfully slinging more bullshit.
Yes and one of your comments was:
You haven't refuted any of my claims Nerm.
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.
Well it sure looks like it hasn't diminished the word with you since you were triggered immediately.
Could you quote the NYT 'hyper concern', I don't subscribe.
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.
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.
Reacting to such things is a habit of mine. You'll see how much the word has been watered down in November of 2020.
What a pity.
Nobody has assumed any such thing.
Disappointing that you're misstating other's position in order to find them disappointing.
Which proves my point. Thanks.
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?
I'll take that to mean that you can't support your claim.
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.
Then you have a very strange definition for what constitutes a direct answer. Let's analyze this:
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.
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.
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?:
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 "?
Bigot don't like being called bigots. They're, "Tolerance Impaired Individuals".
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.
My claim, as you call it is supported by the link in post # 2.1
That smearing people will have backfired.
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 '.
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?
Nope. It connotes that you believe that a majority of the electoral college doesn't care if they vote for a known bigot.
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.
Following this you put this comment from me as an example:
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'.
Correct. Sexual behavior is a choice. Heterosexual behavior is a choice. Bisexual behavior is a choice. Homosexual behavior is a choice.
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.
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.
Okay. What specific questions do you want answered?
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:
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.
That is a non-answer.
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??
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.
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.
And why don't you just admit that your'e in denial.
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!
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.
Very good! Thank you!
You are welcome.
Now, do you understand the point I actually did make?
Um-hum, you are not the first.
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.
I guess that means ‘no’.
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.
Probably. It is likely as inevitable as continued use of weapons of mass destruction. This has nothing to do with my comment.
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?
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.
That strays but I'll play. What is the role of science in society?
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.
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.
What part didn't you say?
Who has encouraged either? That seems to be part and parcel of your fever dream.
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 again. I never said anything close to that. Why lie?
You block quoted what I ACTUALLY said Nerm. Here it is again:
So you just claimed that I said the OPPOSITE of what I said. Again, why lie?
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.
It's important to make the distinction.
In denial of what exactly Vic?
BTFW, still no support for your exaggeration I see...
That's what I said, they know that the Hater in Chief is Trump and they love it.
Touchdown.
@ 5.1.1 => @ 5.1
What is Sexual Freedom?
No, I haven't.
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?
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.
We know what you said, just remember opinions are like assholes - everyones got one.
Have a good one
So now you've devolved to deflecting to irrelevant prior posts. Bad form Nerm.
You should reread your 5.1.65 post. You said:
And:
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.
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.
No they do NOT. How many times does that need to be said before you get it?
Why would I plagerize that utter bullshit?
That is a lie. Tell you what Nerm. Block quote and cite the post # where you allege I said that bullshit.
Which is it Nerm?
I QUOTED what you said. YOU can't quote what you allege I said.
Prove it or apologize Nerm.
Does it make you feel stronger to pretend that you speak for more than yourself?
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.
A gay gene? Would it change anything, really?
Really. I'd like to know. While I am at it, let me throw in the slippery slope. When you start 'championing' genes as the be all that end all-then, you have to emcompass more than homosexuality. There are all-kinds and types of sexual nuances. (Just visit your local adult stores and 'taste and see.') Moreover, there are the nuances disallowed by community standards and law.
Genes are just part of human behavior. A very significant part, but just a part. Interestingly, environmental factors (starting at conception and, in various degrees, throughout life) also affect behavior at the chemical level.
Possibly. If we have clear scientific findings that sexual orientation is something that occurs at the biochemical level and has nothing to do with a conscious choice (e.g. 'maybe I will choose to be sexually attracted to men today') then possibly the bigots who hold that 'God hates fags' and equivalent would realize that 'God created fags' and maybe think about that for a moment. But, then again, too often religious beliefs are more powerful than facts and logic, so for many it will not make a difference. After all, there are millions who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old based on their religion.
So, maybe it will not change anything for some. Hopefully most people think critically enough so that this hypothetical finding would influence them positively.
Tig, you deliverered an article which informs us that there is no freewill - no choices in this life: . That people simply are who and what we are . "All free will is is biology that hasn't been discovered yet— Professor Sapolsky.
Up to and touching the bigoted (in nature).
A well crafted statement .
If your point is to dispute Sapolsky then I suggest you do so in that article.
If your point is to say that human beings are what they are and there is no changing, then I suggest you do that as well in that article.
If your point applies to this article in some way then would you please state your point so that I can respond to it?
I gave you my point @ 7.1.1. You can't have it all-ways.
Obviously, given I asked you to disambiguate, I cannot tell what point you are making. Since you refuse (why?) to be clear there is nothing I can offer in response.
It's simple. If all we are is the sum of our biological material, nurture, and environment, then we are simply a different form of beast with an overlay of world sophistication. So, people are made sexual by nature, nurture, and environment.
A different angle:
Biological? Nurture? Environment?
The good professor you once brought to my, our, attention says it is a blend of all three factors—none to do with choices.
I am aware of my article. Why are you bringing that up here? Do you want to debate free will?
Is that all in @7.1.5?
I have no idea what you are getting at and at this point I have lost interest.
Me too. It is like communicating with a alien between us.
Sure it would. It would say that it is the natural conditions of things and that you can't beat mother nature. And once you know it is natural, then you can start to rethink how we think of homosexuality, as a society and from a religious POV. God does love what he has created.
That would just be for homosexuality. It is not enough. Homosexuals are not the only people 'under the gun' given a win in the Courts. Other people are strumming the courts' strings demanding a chance to be heard and judged for legitimacy. I can't say I blame them. There are quite a chunk of community standard prohibitions which would not stand up under a "gene" finding.
Incidentally, have scientist set out to research and determine if there is a heterosexual gene (yet)?
If (I think when) science determines the genetic factors which determine sexual orientation (or at least predispose us in a certain way to enable epigenetic influences) I suspect it will apply to heterosexual, homosexual and other variations of orientation.
From my perspective, my sexual orientation is not a conscious choice so it is clear that my orientation is a function of my biochemistry, not my intellect.
From your perspective, I suspect you could make the very same statement.
Emphatically.
That said, then those same genetic factors probably will free up everybody sexually. As you put it "other variations of orientation." That will be quite interesting in a communal society and cultural sense. And certainly will be interesting to watch play out.
Science may do it again!
The people's fish as always I can count on you to have a "jolly-up" time!
Not if that sexual orientation involves a child, minor, or unwilling legal age participant.
I would not want to live in a world where rape of anyone, of any age, is legal because the rapist is genetically wired to be a rapist.
Understanding why a person is wired with a predisposition to harm others does not make the harm less detrimental to the victims and society. Laws to protect the sheep from the wolves must still be made and enforced.
Yeah, I don't quite know how to fully respond to that comment. Besides to state that, rape is an act (behavior) and not a sexual predisposition to my knowledge. That is, I am not sure what form of sexual indulgence takes the form of barring love of any degree from a partner. Can you?
When we begin (or end) discussion by stating genetics and epigenetic factors can and ought to be liberating for certain groups of sexually oppressed people - realize that science does not concern itself with any moral or spiritual views.
Thus, whatever is in the genes which expresses itself from a purely science perspective is—a "good" gene! The ends justifying the means.
Setting aside personal taste - do you understand and agree?
I cannot respond without clearly understanding what you are stating and asking?
Are you stating that pedophilia is the result of a "good" gene and society benefits from pedophilia?
When we begin (or end) discussion by stating genetics and epigenetic factors can and ought to be liberating for certain groups of sexually oppressed people - realize that science does not concern itself with any moral or spiritual views.
Now to your question. What I think about pedophilia is not at issue or discussion. But, so there is no confusion or wasted effort, I am not interested in any child/ren for sexual purposes.
The point: If you use genes and epigenetic factors to liberate one group of people do not fail to expect others to mimic this same approach—science does not care about whose "perspective" on good or wrong it falls. Does it?
As long as the "sexually oppressed" people have to exploit/harm other people in any form to achieve sexual satisfaction then there are zero reasons to expect scientific research to "liberate" them is there?
Who or what is science "liberating"?
In ancient times, homosexuality was an accepted sexual lifestyle in many cultures. It was the Abrahamic religions that largely influenced the homophobia hysteria that we are still experiencing today in the US....and our Christian religious zealots are spreading the homophobia across the globe still today among the people who are susceptible to being brainwashed that there is an invisible being that loves adulterers, child molesters, rapists, murderers, slave owners but just can't abide homosexuals.
People, who are tolerant of not sticking their noses into the sex lives of consenting adults, are "liberating" homosexuals, trans genders and even heterosexuals from the stranglehold of the Abrahamic religious zealots.
Scientists did not pass the Marriage Equality laws - it was an evolving society.
Is this the point of the article?
Or is this? A gay gene its complicated according to new research on same sex behavior.
Because, if it is this, I am not open to being steered.
In order to answer your question about how this thread went from science explaining how genes determine sexuality to how it really doesn't matter what genes determine if it makes a person a predator....
I am going back to your statement about science "will free up everybody sexually" because this is where I commented that just because science can explain genetics, it does not mean that science "will free up everybody sexually" and in anyway justify predatory sexual behavior and/or make it acceptable on any level.
This is how the conversation went from homosexual gene expression to how science might possibly "free up" sexual predators.
I am not understanding how society would benefit from legalizing sexual predation or why anyone would advocate for it.
Me neither. And, I certainly am not clear how gene and epigenetic factors freeing up human sexuality evolves into legalization of sexual predation! Disturbing.
Again, I am asking for specifics because your statement is way too vague to understand what you are referencing.
Who, specifically, are the certain groups of sexually oppressed people that ought be liberated by science that you referencing?
Look mocowgirl, I am not looking for any dispute for dispute sake. People who are sexually oppressed know who they are, and like the rest of us, homosexuals included, these groups can take their turn in the halls of Congress with lawmakers and the Courts.
Science does not concern itself with human emotions. Science seeks to understand what makes people 'tick' and leaves feelings out of it.
Am I making myself clear?
Personal Note: I try not to get too personal with certain people on NT, because it is considered "Meta," and it is a damnable 'hit' (Aka: Ticket of some kind.). So, I leave some 'things' to the imagination of the reader/s.
To the absolute best of my knowledge, the ONLY people that are and should remain sexually oppressed are sexual predators who ruin the lives of their prey. They should be dealt with in the same manner that we deal with serial killers because the harm they cause ripples through society endlessly.
Science may explain many aspects of human behavior, so what?
During my lifetime, it has been socially acceptable in religious circles to believe that some people actually take direct orders from their God when harming or promoting harm to others. When that didn't fly, they blamed God's adversary, Satan. Science has never looked for a god, but to date, there is zero evidence of any supernatural force found in any scientific research in any field of study.
The people, looking to use any justification for harmful behavior, will most likely jump back and forth between religion and science for self-gratification and self-preservation. Science does not have a dog in that fight, but a society must protect its women and children from sexual predators in order for our species to thrive.
Asking for clarification to promote understanding and discussion is not making it "personal".
This comment is ripe with innuendo. I don't have to take that from you. This article is not about the Church, your, my, anybody's personal joyous or tragic experiences with the aforementioned.
The article appears to be-to me anyway, about science, genes, homosexuality, and extrapolating from those items, what science can do that can aid groups in Congress and Courts to plead for liberty for their 'particular' sexual oppression in our society.
I repeat, this is not about you. This is not about me.
I suggest we stay up here where high-minded thinking dwells and not delve into phobias of any kind.
If not, I will see no other workable choice except to discontinue this line of discussion with you.
And Mocowgirl;
I really like the both of you and think that you may be talking at cross purposes.
IMNSHO, even if sexual predation is determined to have a genetic factor, that still doesn't give sexual predators any rights to engage in their orientation. For one thing, they are harming others. We don't forgive sociopaths and psychopaths when they commit crimes and say "Oh, they were just born that way", do we?
Just my 4 cents
Hi TG!
My larger point has been and continues to be science is what it is. Treat it accurately. Science can only tell us the facts of the matter about a human condition, then what society does with said facts is another story to be weighted in the balance.
There are groups out there seeking their 'day' in Court. I shall not go into which groups these are. We can use our own education, study, discernment or imagination. We have to be fair, setting biases aside at least for discussion sake, to say that scientific proof of being "born this way" can be liberating for a great many groups of people. (I have no problem with that fact.) These groups can go to court and plead their 'case' for wanting to be 'free and clear' to be equal and productive members in our land.
Science can afford them that.
What courts determinations will be is wholly another story all its own. But, should science 'prove' their sexual states are out of their control. They will be in their right to try.
Lastly, I am not fully sure where this line of discussion is tacking. Because, this article really is not about crime, passionate or otherwise. What we can not do in discussion is use science to liberate "the captives" in a favorite cause célèbre, while oppressing others.
Science is objective. You're correct that we should treat it as it is.
I completely agree.
If science PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that murderers have a genetic factor that compels them to have to murder others, there is no reason that murderers should have their day in court to make it acceptable for them to murder other people.
I repeat, I know of no group of adults that are being denied consensual sex with other adults. Do you?
I get petitions on a daily basis to protect the rights of assorted marginalized people, but as of today, there are ZERO groups of sexually repressed adults in the US that are denied consensual sex that are demanding rights in the US to best of my knowledge.
I guess I need to do some research about who is being sexually oppressed in the US and seeking rights to have consensual sex with other adults.
First article that I find does not surprise me because this is what I have been reading for years and we had a discussion about this very topic not long ago on Newstalkers.
I was not off base in regard to the one group of sexual predators that I know are seeking exoneration for preying on children.
I can understand having sympathy for people born without a moral compass, but it is society's duty to protect our children, not the predators.
I don't do innuendo. I strive to be clear, concise and straightforward in all communication.
You've failed. Big disappointment. So let me be clear. Your rhetoric to me has worn my patience out.
There is a great many things you and I may not understand that goes on in this land we share with others. We are not the point, nevertheless! If science helps determine that sexuality is a "born this way" permissible, in a general purpose sense - the fact is it could as TiG suggests:
Logically, it can open the door to maybe thinking God loves other groups God created whatever they are. Science does not care one way or the other.
Absolutely.
However, society has a duty to protect our children from pedophiles.
We should all be aware of how pedophiles are working to make it legal for them to have sex with our children. I would not be surprised to see pedophiles try to shame us for "discriminating" against them.
Pedophiles are a clear and present danger to the well-being of our society that rarely gets the attention that they are due in mainstream media. Jeffrey Epstein should have been dealt with long ago. Why wasn't he?
The pedophiles have even attempted to link themselves with gay organizations which has harmed the movement to legalize consensual homosexual sex between legal adults.
Regardless if it is nature or nurture, or whatever, there are articles with many different slants that are trying to justify and legalize pedophilia.
So there you go: Science determining being "born this way" is not sufficient to liberate human sexuality against social and cultural barriers. All your misplaced aggression toward me is pointless.
I am homosexual. I do not support pedophilia. Indeed, I do not know what society will or can do to support or liberate this group or other similarly situated groups.
It does well- establish that being "born this way" as a tool to gain liberty has its limitations and exceptions.
As to science and genetics go, it would not care one way or the other if pedophiliacs branish a flag (in the article picture section beside the homosexual pride flag) or not!
mocowgirl has not been aggressive toward you. She's asked you a question in plain English several times, and you have responded with...non-responses. That's frustrating, Cal. It's like trying to nail Jello to a tree. You've spent more time and effort dancing around answering a simple question, and being offended at having been asked a simple question, than it would have taken to have just answered the question.
No, you are most definitely not making yourself clear. You are refusing to make yourself clear, and accusing those asking for clarification of aggression and looking for a dispute.
Look Sandy, I am the best judge of what I am trying to say as everybody else here. This topic is not about sexual oppression in detail, so I consider going there wholesale with mocowgirl a distraction.
If she, you, or anyone else wants to steer the discussion on the specifics of oppressed sexual masses in America or NAMBLA go for it. As for me I choose not to.
As for our seeder, Tig usually demands people stay on topic. So I did not want to lapse into spiritually, church rules and regulations, phobias, and any other specifics. I challenge myself not to expand the discussion onto tangential areas too deep and not having to do with science, genes, and epigenetics related to this article.
"It's like trying to nail Jello to a tree." This is a old one for me from you and other atheists (yes, I am compelled to go there if only briefly) and I resent you for rehashing it here. It strikes a nerve. So let me set you straight. Sandy, I don't need you to tell me how to speak anymore than I need you to tie my shoes for me. Mind your own business and let mocowgirl carry her own NT comments.
I kindly ask you to back off!
You might be the best judge of what you're trying to say, but when what you're trying to say appears on the page as something nobody can make heads or tails of, you're not the best judge of what you're actually saying. Watching you and mocowgirl was like trying to read halves of two entirely different conversation. She'd ask a question, you'd talk about something else entirely, and then you both end up frustrated, with you throwing in accusations of aggression.
When the fuck have I tried to steer any conversation toward NAMBLA? See, you just did it again. I made absolutely no mention of that organization. YOU did, and accused ME of trying to steer the conversation there. An extremely insulting non-answer to my assessment of the problem with your discussion.
All anybody is asking for is for you to express yourself in reasonably clear English, rather than dance around a really simple question.
It's a public forum, Cal. If I see you wrongly call out somebody as aggressive because you're refusing to be clear, I will call you out on it. And it's got nothing to do with me being an atheist.
If people are repeatedly asking you for more clarification, maybe writing more clearly is a better response than accusing them of aggression.
Miss me with your 'noise.' If you stay out of it everything just might work out okay. Clear enough?
If you have an issue with me - write it in a private note. Aggression will be met with aggression.
Certainly the advice I would offer.
Certainly. /s
"Mr. Always on topic." Now bias runs amok. Anywho, science does not care about all this noise Sandy and Mocowgirl are generating. The topic is about genes, epigenetics, and can expand to service groups that likely can petition courts for freedom from sexual oppression/repression if/when sexuality is proven (through science) to be a matter of being "born this way." That is all I am stating.
If I need to be clearer - ask better questions - get better answers. (And try not to complain when the answer is provided.)
mocowgirl asked which groups you are referring to. How could she improve on that question?
And I asked for clarification to make sure that you were not including pedophiles in the group because pedophiles (regardless of any genetic influence) are and always will be predators preying on children who are not of legal age to give consent. Legal age of consent has to include many factors, but among them is the scientific fact that our brains are not fully mature until our mid-20s.
Pedophiles, that molest/rape children, have no moral compass. None.
If there is any group of people in the US that should and MUST be oppressed/repressed from expressing their sexuality, it is pedophiles.
Scientific explanation for why pedophiles prey on children is not a reason for anyone, anywhere, at any time to condone such behavior.
So although, you refuse to name any group that is currently being sexually repressed in the US, I can and will keep on posting information on why men like the following should never ever be allowed any contact with anyone under the minimum age of 18.
What part of "If you stay out of it everything just might work out okay. Clear enough? " is not clear enough?
I repeat this discussion is about science, genes, and epigenetics, in my opinion. One can only wonder why Tig allows you to derail it over and over again to address pedophilia in detail (maybe it's personal bias? Tig seems to be voting you up all along the way).
This discussion is not about human morality. If it is, I missed the cue. Science is dispassionate. Morality is passionate.
Moreover, you can post anything you want—it's a free country and if you can get away with it. It does not 'strike fear in my heart,' mocowgirl.
Pedophilia groups can go to court just like any other group—up to and including atheists groups who are now considering using the "homosexual formulate" to win in courts of law too. That too, is a whole other set of discussion, nevertheless!
mocowgirl is not derailing. If you dislike where she is heading you can always not participate.
You have repeatedly stated that if science says there's genetic evidence for homosexuality that science should liberate other groups who are born that way.
Consensual sex between adults has NOTHING in common with adults preying on children. Genetics to explain harmful behavior is just genetics explaining harmful behavior.
However, I have spent this afternoon doing further research on the mindset of pedophiles and the arguments they tell themselves to justify to themselves why society should allow them to use our children for sexual gratification.
Is there an atheist gene?
I have spent the afternoon watching a pedophile make assorted arguments on why society should allow pedophiles to have sex with children.
This man covered almost every conceivable argument that I have seen elsewhere including the "born that way". He considers himself a militant pedophile (his words). He is attracted to 10 year old boys and always has been since he was 10 himself. He has taken and lost jobs working with children because he "falls in love" with his 10 year students and society always objects.
This is taped in the UK. I watch BritBox and Acorn and often have to use closed caption to understand some of the words because of the accent. I can mostly understand these men, but closed caption is an option.
This is a rather long, in depth interview that should answer many questions that some of us may have about the type of mindset that society is dealing with when it comes to the men who believe that children actually benefit from having sex before they even reach puberty and undergo any natural sexual awakening as the body prepares for sex before the mind matures enough for a sexual relationship.
Why this comment?
[deleted]
I have not considered that! My having been an atheist once; I doubt it. Still, the homosexual court model is serviceable to groups to attempt a successful court victory.
Why not? (Rhetorical.)
So what are you sharing all this pedophilia stuff with ME for. I am homosexual. It is NOT the same thing as pedophilia. Furthermore, I explained to you above that I am not into children or supportive of pedophilia.
Science is the topic here. Science does not care where grown people touch their private parts. That is not a moral discussion. A moral discussion is definitely not having (together) on this thread.
Is that clear now?
Here are a series of people, "born this way" and their long 'drive' to sexual liberty: (There are more groups. But you can look them up yourself if you wish.)
I watched the majority of the video.
So you believe that science will find a genetic link why
1. some men prefer sex with silicone dolls vs. women?
2. some children prefer to be married as children?
3. some men indoctrinated in the Jewish or Arab religion prefer to practice polygamy?
As far as monogamy, I have read that humans have evolved to be somewhere between a tournament species and a pair bonding species. Monogamy is an area where it does indeed get complicated.
Which of the above groups are being sexually repressed/oppressed?
Watch the rest of it. And, deal with it. I only provided this because you needed something to hold on to. Other than that, I'm out.
I did. It basically started over.
The video had nothing to do with genetic motivated behavior except for the bit on monogamy.
Whatever, mocowgirl. I get ticketed—you don't. I am out. And, I no longer care about it.
I completely forgot about one group of sexually oppressed people --- most likely it is because it is so taboo that few people can allow themselves to think about it, much less discuss it.
It is the necrophiliacs. Is there a genetic link or is necrophilia a fetish? Do fetishes have genetic links? I don't know, but maybe someday science will. Will we able to accept scientific explanations, and how will it change our society as we gain understanding of genetic influence on human behavior? Does scientific discovery mean that in the future that necrophilia will become an acceptable sexual lifestyle because necrophiliacs are "born that way"?
The slippery slope I see is genetic cherry picking.
IF they were to find a specific 'gay gene' how long before rich fuckers start testing so they ensure they have straight kids?
Dulay,
As a parent, and someone who could afford to make such a change, I would never do that. Why would you think that would be the norm?
If anything, I would think that those who are religiously opposed to gay marriage (and not necessarily rich), would be more inclined.
Where did I say it would?
That is what you said. It suggests that it would be the norm for rich people. If I misrepresented what you said, please tell me what you meant.
Actually, it doesn't.
I didn't say 'ALL' rich people or even 'MOST' rich people.
I didn't say it would be the norm, or 'usual' or even 'typical'.
I said what I meant.
Your interpretation of my comment is highly flawed and unworthy of discussion.
Do you have any evidence at all to even suggest that rich people are more opposed to having gay kids than other economic classes?
And what exactly makes them rich fuckers?
I just figured it was an extreme case of class envy!
Then address it's flaws but do so cogently.
Refusing to accept your flawed interpretation isn't a deflection BF.
I wasn't trying...
Gee, I wonder how long before poor fuckers start testing to determine if their offspring are gay?
It would work in both scenarios. Anybody who can think to get rid of the 'troublesome' gene ahead of time would. Afterall, who really wants to experience life on the 'outs,' or on the defensive, or strung out, for the duration? Forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety, years of what could have been a done deal?
A large percentage of the sophisticated nations have been bothering (destroying) homosexuals and homosexuality largely for eons! It has not been a romanticized existence in the United States until recently. And now, even that is not saying too much.
Again, where did I say they are?
Your question proves that you recognized that I meant that they would use their wealth to do some genetic cherry picking. Now you pretend ignorance. Why?
Your whole premise is basically flawed. You ASSUME rich people would cherry pick based on no facts.
No rational person would do that.
As usual, your assumptions are wrong.
I make a pretty good living off of rich fuckers who own million dollar properties that I maintain. One of my rich fucker clients decided that she didn't like her kitchen anymore and ripped it all out. She gave me all of her 1 year old appliances. The same shit with washer/dryers from another client. I haven't bought a major appliance in decades. Hell, I even got my 1989 Jeep Wrangler from one of my rich fucker clients for FREE. I LOVE rich fuckers.
I didn't read it that way. IMO, Dulay seemed to be saying that rich people would have the opportunity to cherry-pick, if they were so inclined. An opportunity that others who were also so inclined would not have. No assumption that rich people would, just because they're rich. Just that they could, whereas other equally bigoted people could not.
Obviously we disagree on our interpretations of what he stated.
Excellent examples of trickle down economics making life better for the little guy.
Actually, it's more an example of how the rich fuckers are still capable of having trust, affection and respect for people who work hard for them.
Some folks are happy with the crumbs from the rich!
So do I but I don't get a tax receipt for it.
Good for you...
And these are the same rich fucks you wonder when they will start testing to see if their kids have the gay gene?
LMFAO!
It seems very ungrateful to me to call people who willingly give you things "fucks".
Thankfully I was raised better.
Actually, no.
Some of them ARE gay, one couple has a gay kid.
There ARE a few that I have worked for in the past that I wouldn't put it past.
BTFW. I said rich fuckers, not rich fucks.
I wouldn't think rich fuckers would discuss intimate things with the hired help, do you?
Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they would test for it.
So just speculation on your part based on your feelings about a few people.
Really not any appreciable difference. Call someone a fat fuck and a fat fucker. See if they discern any difference.
Those rich fuckers who are my clients do not view me as being disrespectful for calling a spade a spade. In fact, they count on me to do just that.
Ironically, I beleive that I have enjoyed a long and lasting relationship with many rich fuckers precisely because I don't genuflect because they're rich fuckers.
I have worked for some of my clients for over 20 years. I am entrusted with their homes, their animals, and their possessions without hesitation. I manage major building projects, repairs and renovations and they authorize me to hire contractors and sign off on major expenditures. I am the emergency contact person with the Sheriff of the town. I've attended many a wedding of their children, who I have watched and helped come to maturity. My Christmas bonuses are off the charts. In short, they TRUST me with shit and NONE on that is because I 'yesum massa' them.
I'm sure that it comes as no surprise to you that I could not care less what you buy BF.
Why yes, YES Tex. Just like the vast majority of your comments.
Thank you for admitting it.
And I am sure your cards thanking them for their generosity are always addressed to "Dear Rich Fucker".
Tell it like it is! Emphatically.
I don't send thank you cards. I cook...Chili, Bolognese, Pork Verde and Smoked Salmon are my thankyous.
That's very nice.
What is it like--"Here, rich fucker, I made you something as a token of my deep appreciation for your gifts"?
Touching.
I've seen your bod. It takes work to keep it like that and 'work' doesn't include eating sausage balls on thick potato bread slathered with greasy fried onions. Common...what's the most bizarre thing you've ever eaten just to boost a work-out, or the results of a work-out?
That actually sounds yummy.
Okay Sister MAAB you can't just throw out something like that and let it lay. We need proof-pics! (Smile.)
It does sound, "Yummies."
Okay now hey! Er, nice. . .tattoo. What? Did I say something wrong? I will be writing a little sonnet about the fish missing in my 'diet' a bit later today! Carry on. . . .
Sister, the fish exposed himself to me (like he did to others here). It looks like a quantum diet of some kind that's dialed up a notch, or THREE! I would die for that tummy tone regimen. Sorry, Moi is distracted?
Get a hold of yourself! Um. Uhh. Well. I...
Here, watch this. It's an excellent thought re-director.
Great hair, great style, great sound, but what the heaven is that little diddy about again? Nothing bare but naked teeth and knuckles! You're right, Sister, I can contain myself once more. I think I will be fine, now.
Or it could just remind you of Patrick Swayze in Ghost...
Simply rated: Spanking HOT!