For sure. I always assumed "gay gene" was just a simplified headline version of something like "genetic disposition to be more likely to be homosexual". Anyways I was thinking about this topic because I recently came to know a huge family with a high percentage of homosexual males (but not females). All of the males are different, from different types of upbringing/backgrounds, and generally don't really even have that much in common except that they're related and gay. Made me think, "gay gene: confirmed!" but then I was like, is gay gene even a thing anymore? I never hear anything about it. And further, can I ask about this? Is it taboo (or perhaps just plain wrong)? So that's what this thread came from.
I asked the new associate attorney in my office what he thought.... and he told me the gays need to not use public restrooms. Six years of college and three years of law school at Yale... and that is his answer.
Yes No Doesn't matter and don't care what science said, other then for knowledge. People be whatever they want and hopefully it makes them happy. Just don't force your views and I have no rights to force my views either.
That's EXACLTY what I'm saying, read my post again. I didn't choose my skin color, my eye color, my personality (as a child) my genes were programmed to build exactly what they built. If you disagree with that than you are implying gayness is a choice and I disagree wholeheartedly with that. My skin color, my eye color, my hair color, etc.. no personal choices involved there. That means there is either a hetero gene and/or a gay gene and if they are on or off determines your persuasion. Again, no choice involved.
A certain segment of the population believe that one can pray the gay away. If there is a genetics disposition causation, this same crowd would want a cure via gene therapy. Ok, how about this question instead? Is there a reason why people are straight? We should look into this, to understand scientifically. I posit that most people would not care. Most contexts on the "why is little Johnny gay" question is in the search to find someone to blame, in addition to Johnny and his morality. I can see where most gays don't care about the why, as most straights don't care about the why of their sexuality. I can also see that gays do not appreciate straights looking for whom to blame for the gays being gay. The gays that I have known felt that they were born that way. Works for me.
They probably would. Some racists support abortion because they think it disproportionately impacts black people. This doesn't seem to phase nonracist pro-abortion folk. I would care! Although I think the need to procreate provides enough explanation for most. But if we were able to get a better answer I'd like to know it. This has nothing to do with that though. No issue of morality here, just for the sake of getting a better understanding of our species, life, etc. Also isn't saying one was born that way the same as saying they had a genetic predisposition for homosexuality?
Here's the Wikipedia article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
The research so far seems mixed, muddled and varied...by both sides.. IMO, sexual identity and sexual orientation are two different things where the binary attributes of identity (cis-male/female) bleed heavily into orientation (homo/heterosexuality). For example, in the Roman/Greek/Japanese cultures, homosexual liaisons were considered power roles (like prison), strong bonds of fraternity, or an unfortunate rite of passage with boys (that might've spooked out Paul in his homophobic writings). Even in those societies, it wasn't a black mark to engage in homosexuality or be homosexual, but it was to be effeminate or a "sissy". I think women wired to be highly butch or vice versa is a genetic thing. If there was a 2 dimensional spectrum, that would be the Popular Preconception of being born gay...except forming an trans identity against one's biological gender doesn't necessarily mean that person will be homosexual. An extremely butch woman liking men would, by appearance, appear to be by "choice" or "repression", though outside that person's honest intent, who the **** really knows or cares? I once knew a co-worker who had a twin who came out in college, and that screwed with his head big time because he was straight but wasn't truly sure of his own sexual orientation. They grew up playing sports together, partying together, and having the same interests, except for one. The nurture part also complicates things like heavy childhood traumas like sexual assault or something similar. A rape victim could definitely switch sides and the brain wouldn't feel one bit of conflict. What the moralists are afraid of is the primal pull that sexuality is a lot more fluid than people assume. Except this fluidity is probably like appetite where it isn't fixed or constant.HORNY.ALL.YEAR.LONG. We make choices with what we have and what we want right now, and we go with it. We're in an era where people judge yet innately shrug it off. Science and statistical studies with homosexuality deserve major credit for making social headways into it. Which is why you still have culture wars underpinned with "It's not a choice, it's genetic." I think the current angst lies more upon how we're still a sexually repressed society where its angrier and frothing members still don't know how to enjoy to the fullest with what they have. EDIT: Forgot to answer the question. There's no single gene for skin color. Scientists have given up isolating genes for race. Homosexuality seems to be more about a confluence of behavior and the wiring of the brain. Except the brain doesn't fully develop until you're in your early twenties yet puberty begins years before that. If there are genes determining sexual identity, there's likely a blend of them, and who knows what epigenetic markers (like birth order, previous siblings, mother's choices, childhood environment) trigger them. So yeah, bonobos in more rigid cultures and social structures.
Obviously you're anti-abortion. Why would "pro-abortion folk" be fazed if black people were "disproportionately impacted" by a practice that is not bad? Why would they care what racists like? Easy answer to the gay gene question: many of you have probably known people who definitely are gay, and who definitely did not want to be gay. I have a friend who 100% absolutely did not want to be gay, but he is. Whether it's a gene or not, it's not always a choice.
How did you reach that conclusion? And how is it that at all relevant? Is "pro-abortion folk" offensive? I have trouble keeping up with these things, hence this thread. First of all: that's the second time I've spelt fazed wrong in like 3 days. I don't know what the hell is wrong with me. I know how to use the word, I swear. Second: agreed! That's the point I was trying to make! Scientific research should not be based in the whims of bigots. Agreed with that as well. I don't believe it's a choice, but the thing about the so-called "gay gene" is it could prove that it's not a choice. That would be interesting.
Your previous post implied that pro-abortion people might be fazed by abortion's "disproportionate impact" on black people. . . . Why would they be fazed? They don't think abortion is bad. Anyone feeling fazed must think abortion is bad. . . . You're the one who brought up abortion in your own thread. Now you're asking me how it's relevant?
No, my post did not imply that. If anything it was saying the opposite. And really, it was just an example of the logic I was using to say we shouldn't oppose discussion of a gay gene on the grounds that some hateful people might twist that discussion. So we're not even in disagreement on anything. I don't know what you're going for here.
I don't get this attitude. There are some things about the world you would like to avoid getting answers to because we might use those answers to do the wrong things. Now, of course we'll do wrong things; that's what we do as a race -- with or without knowledge. I want to know everything about everything. I can't comprehend someone saying we should choose to not know.
All I'm going for is that I do not understand your logic. "pro-abortion people might be fazed because abortion is impacting black people." Huh? So you were comparing the abortion debate to the gay gene debate, and . . . ?
