This thread is gay

[GMDino]

(09-22-2015, 12:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, this is what I have meant and said throughout the entire thread so you, benton, breech, or whomever can quote it and show me where I am "wrong":

The assertion that if a trait is not shared it is more proof that it is genetic is a ridiculous statement.

Folks have tried to turn that into me saying a great many thing and argue I only didn't say those thing because I didn't say those things and we really want you to have said those things so we're going to say you said those things.

I think where you are going wrong (or trolling, I'm never sure) is that you are saying if the PARENTS don't show the same traits it cannot have been passed on by the parents.

Whereas my initial post was pointing to the fact that if no one in the home is gay then it would point against "nurture" and toward "nature". I later clarified that to not necessarily mean "proof".

(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.

You then got sarcastic (again I assume).

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

Since I knew what I meant and that you had gone to far to the other side I responded.

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

That's even more proof that it is genetic.  

And here is where you went astray with the notion that nothing genetic can be passed on without the parents also being affected by the same trait.

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

Good work.

In response I used your own full throttle to one side type argument and a dash of sarcasm.

(09-21-2015, 10:42 AM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

Here you are stuck on the word "proof" which was already debated and altered.

(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.

And then you throw in this: Where you attempt to say it is neither nature (genetics) or nurture but some "abnormality" that magically appears without rhyme or reason.

(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?

(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 

Then you say this "abnormality" shows MORE of a genetic link...but dismiss homosexuality (which you compared to the abnormality) as genetic because there is some debate about the abnormality.

And you are still hung on the word "proof" which was already discarded much earlier in the thread.

(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.

And again you use the defense that since there is no consensus that mental disorders are genetic no one can say homosexuality is.

And you finish it with an analogy that shows you don't understand recessive genes...and which leads me to believe you are not understanding that the parents do not have to show the traits for them to be passed on to their children.

(09-21-2015, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

If your story was applied to being gay then it would have to be more likely that you had a gay mailman...who had sex with your mother.

But I want to copy something from this very post so it isn't missed:

Quote:

Quote:I think where you are going wrong (or trolling, I'm never sure) is that you are saying if the PARENTS don't show the same traits it cannot have been passed on by the parents.

Whereas my initial post was pointing to the fact that if no one in the home is gay then it would point against "nurture" and toward "nature". I later clarified that to not necessarily mean "proof".

This where I think you are not understanding genetics. (Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt there.)

Well...that was fun!