This thread is gay

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2015, 10:15 AM)GMDino Wrote:

That's even more proof that it is genetic.  

Yes, because not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic.

Good work.

[GMDino]

(09-21-2015, 10:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, because not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic.

Good work.

Yes, because if you are raised with no gay people around you you will decide to "choose" to be gay vs you are born that way and the outside influences didn't affect you.

Solid post.

[BmorePat87]

(09-21-2015, 07:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: Pat's right but that won't stop Lucy from trying again.

As to the rest of his post:  If a woman was raised by lesbians and she is straight what does that say about the influence of parents on your own sexuality?

Every gay person I know was raised by straight parents.  Most of them is a household with multiple siblings who are NOT gay.

(09-21-2015, 09:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yet, it is somehow genetic.

(09-21-2015, 10:15 AM)GMDino Wrote:

That's even more proof that it is genetic.  

(09-21-2015, 10:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, because not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic.

Good work.

It's not proof that it's genetic, it's evidence that it isn't due to how you were raised (learned behavior or nurture over nature). At the same time, saying "yet, somehow it's genetic" sarcastically is just as wrong. The fact that a child has traits not manifested in their parents and siblings doesn't dismiss the notion that it is genetic. 

[Benton]

(09-21-2015, 10:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, because not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic.

Good work.

I agree with him (I know, you're shocked).

If it was  more environmental, then being raised by two straight parents should — most likely — produce a straight offspring. That unit, more specifically that couple, is the one he sees on a daily basis through the years he forms the idea of what a relationship is, how partners are supposed to interact, etc.

But if it's more nature — genetics — then it can skip a generation. Or two. Or ten. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2015, 10:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's not proof that it's genetic, it's evidence that it isn't due to how you were raised (learned behavior or nurture over nature). At the same time, saying "yet, somehow it's genetic" sarcastically is just as wrong. The fact that a child has traits not manifested in their parents and siblings doesn't dismiss the notion that it is genetic. 

Well it damn sure isn't further proof that it is genetic; regarless what some may say and you attempt to support in a round about way.

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2015, 10:44 AM)Benton Wrote: I agree with him (I know, you're shocked).

If it was  more environmental, then being raised by two straight parents should — most likely — produce a straight offspring. That unit, more specifically that couple, is the one he sees on a daily basis through the years he forms the idea of what a relationship is, how partners are supposed to interact, etc.

But if it's more nature — genetics — then it can skip a generation. Or two. Or ten. 

Imangine my shock. Nowhere have I said people are gay because of their environment. Where is everybody getting this from?

[Benton]

(09-21-2015, 10:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Imangine my shock. Nowhere have I said people are gay because of their environment. Where is everybody getting this from?

Ok.

If it's not from nature or nurture... where do you think it comes from?

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2015, 10:55 AM)Benton Wrote: Ok.

If it's not from nature or nurture... where do you think it comes from?

I have said many times before, IMO it is a sort of mental abnormallity (I can't say disorder). Similar to schizophrenia 

[BmorePat87]

(09-21-2015, 10:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's not proof that it's genetic

(09-21-2015, 10:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well it damn sure isn't further proof that it is genetic; regarless what some may say and you attempt to support in a round about way.

lol, what? I just agreed with you that it isn't evidence for and pointed out to Dino that evidence against learned isn't inherently evidence for genetic.

The fact that I disagree with your belief that it is evidence against genetic doesn't mean I agree that it is evidence for genetic. It neither adds to nor detracts from the genetic argument. 

[GMDino]

(09-21-2015, 10:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's not proof that it's genetic, it's evidence that it isn't due to how you were raised (learned behavior or nurture over nature). At the same time, saying "yet, somehow it's genetic" sarcastically is just as wrong. The fact that a child has traits not manifested in their parents and siblings doesn't dismiss the notion that it is genetic. 

That's why I said "more proof".  Or at least more evidence.

(09-21-2015, 10:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well it damn sure isn't further proof that it is genetic; regarless what some may say and you attempt to support in a round about way.

(09-21-2015, 11:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol, what? I just agreed with you that it isn't evidence for and pointed out to Dino that evidence against learned isn't inherently evidence for genetic.

The fact that I disagree with your belief that it is evidence against genetic doesn't mean I agree that it is evidence for genetic. It neither adds to nor detracts from the genetic argument. 

I disagree only that it adds to it.  Its not the missing link or definitive proof but since Larry thinks its an "abnormality" that is neither genetic nor caused by nurturing or environment I'd think it at least shows its more genetic than anything else.

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2015, 11:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol, what? I just agreed with you that it isn't evidence for and pointed out to Dino that evidence against learned isn't inherently evidence for genetic.

The fact that I disagree with your belief that it is evidence against genetic doesn't mean I agree that it is evidence for genetic. It neither adds to nor detracts from the genetic argument. 

Read every other word in your reply besides the 6 you quoted and see if you could see how someone could consider that to be "round about' support.

I will give you credit as you did not say it is further proof that it is genetic, you simply just said it is not proof that it isn't genetic, aka "round about" support.

[Benton]

(09-21-2015, 10:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have said many times before, IMO it is a sort of mental abnormallity (I can't say disorder). Similar to schizophrenia 

So... genetic.

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2015, 11:58 AM)Benton Wrote: So... genetic.

Actually Schizophrenia shows more of a genetic link than homosexuality and scholars still debate if it is hereditary; but I do feel they function simalarry in the brain. So if you are of the opinion that mental disorders are genetic then yes. If you are of the opinion that there is no mental disorder gene then no.

But regardless how many times you and others say it; the fact that your relatives do not have it is not more proof that it is genetic. I cannot believe I actually have to repeat this.

[Benton]

(09-21-2015, 12:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually Schizophrenia shows more of a genetic link than homosexuality and scholars still debate if it is hereditary; but I do feel they function simalarry in the brain. So if you are of the opinion that mental disorders are genetic then yes. If you are of the opinion that there is no mental disorder gene then no.

But regardless how many times you and others say it; the fact that your relatives do not have it is not more proof that it is genetic. I cannot believe I actually have to repeat this.

Then... yes.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2015, 01:01 PM)Benton Wrote: Then... yes.

LMAO.  I would say give him time, but he'll never get it or won't admit if if he does.

Uses schizophrenia as an example of mental disorder which he later refers to as genetic to show homosexuality isn't genetic although he claims they work similarly.

Classic.

[BmorePat87]

(09-21-2015, 11:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's why I said "more proof".  Or at least more evidence.



I disagree only that it adds to it.  Its not the missing link or definitive proof but since Larry thinks its an "abnormality" that is neither genetic nor caused by nurturing or environment I'd think it at least shows its more genetic than anything else.

If it's not proof at all, it isn't "more proof". It's evidence that it ISN'T learned behavior.

(09-21-2015, 11:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Read every other word in your reply besides the 6 you quoted and see if you could see how someone could consider that to be "round about' support.

I will give you credit as you did not say it is further proof that it is genetic, you simply just said it is not proof that it isn't genetic, aka "round about" support.

You're so stuck on this concept that I have to always disagree with you that you are apparently seeing things that do not exist. I thought this was an easy concept to explain, but maybe it isn't.

 It is neither proof that it is genetic nor proof that it isn't genetic. I made this clear so that neither side believed I was arguing in their favor. It lends support to the idea that it isn't a learned behavior, but evidence that something isn't learned does not create evidence of a genetic origin.

Imagine if two people were debating whether or not global warming is occurring. Someone presents evidence that global warming occurs naturally without human involvement. The fact that it occurs naturally neither proves it is currently occurring nor disproves that it is currently occurring, it just shows us that it can occur and isn't always man's fault. 

[GMDino]

(09-21-2015, 03:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If it's not proof at all, it isn't "more proof". It's evidence that it ISN'T learned behavior.


You're so stuck on this concept that I have to always disagree with you that you are apparently seeing things that do not exist. I thought this was an easy concept to explain, but maybe it isn't.

 It is neither proof that it is genetic nor proof that it isn't genetic. I made this clear so that neither side believed I was arguing in their favor. It lends support to the idea that it isn't a learned behavior, but evidence that something isn't learned does not create evidence of a genetic origin.

Imagine if two people were debating whether or not global warming is occurring. Someone presents evidence that global warming occurs naturally without human involvement. The fact that it occurs naturally neither proves it is currently occurring nor disproves that it is currently occurring, it just shows us that it can occur and isn't always man's fault. 

I think you nitpicking.  If it is evidence away from learned behavior it adds more weight to the natural side of the discussion.  I get that its not "evidence".  Perhaps that a poor choice of words.

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2015, 01:01 PM)Benton Wrote: Then... yes.

That is your opinion and there is data to back up both lines of thinking. Too often folks pretty much say "I'm not sure what it is, I'm just sure you are wrong". As I have said there are studies that show no genetic link to certain types of mental disorders. 

Of course you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your point of view as scientific fact; as you have already claimed that the lack of a shared trait is more proof that something is genetic.

Let's see if I can provide an analogy (always willing to "dumb it down").If everybody in your family has dark hair and complexion; yet, you have fair skin and blond hair, is the fact that you do not share these traits with the rest of your family more proof that skin and hair color are genetic?

No it is not. It is just more likely that you have a blond haired, fair-skinned mail man. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2015, 01:14 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: LMAO.  I would say give him time, but he'll never get it or won't admit if if he does.

Uses schizophrenia as an example of mental disorder which he later refers to as genetic to show homosexuality isn't genetic although he claims they work similarly.

Classic.

Once again; imagine my surprise.

However, I see you have no issue with the assertion that a non-shared trait is more proof of something being genetic. Does that get a LMAO or is it something you agree with?

As I said before there is no definitive proof that schizophrenia is genetic, my assertion is there is a similar process in the brain.

If you follow Benton and Dino logic, then the fact that others in the same family experience the illness is more proof that it is not genetic. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2015, 03:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again; imagine my surprise.

However, I see you have no issue with the assertion that a non-shared trait is more proof of something being genetic. Does that get a LMAO or is it something you agree with?

As I said before there is no definitive proof that schizophrenia is genetic, my assertion is there is a similar process in the brain.

If you follow Benton and Dino logic, then the fact that others in the same family experience the illness is more proof that it is not genetic. 

It gets another LMAO because you don't understand basics such as phenotype, genotype, and autosomal recessive without getting into the complicated stuff such as gene expression and suppression.

Example:  Two parents without autism have a child with autism.  According to your logic, autism can't be genetic in nature because the child has a trait the parents don't.