|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 21, 2014 02:27 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:34, 21 May 2014.
|
Why does all ignorant people have this special kind of arrogance that just makes you pity them?
Obviously, I was being sarcastic about "drawing you the homosexual gene." This is not Marvel Comics, where one gene changes everything.
The relationship between biology and sexual orientation is a subject of research. A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated; various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation.[1][2] Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are more popular,[1] and biological factors may involve a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[3] These factors, which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation, include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.
A number of twin studies have attempted to compare the relative importance of genetics and environment in the determination of sexual orientation. In a 1991 study, Bailey and Pillard found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[4] 'MZ' indicates identical twins with the same sets of genes and 'DZ' indicates fraternal twins where genes are mixed to an extent similar to that of non-twin siblings. In 2000 Bailey, Dunne and Martin studied a larger sample of 4,901 Australian twins but reported less than half the level of concordance.[5] They found 20% concordance in the male identical or MZ twins and 24% concordance for the female identical or MZ twins. Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. A meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[6] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component.
Bearman and Brückner (2002) criticized early studies of concentrating on small, select samples[7] and non-representative selection of their subjects.[8] They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which they say "does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context."[7]
A 2010 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[9] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences), while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker, but significant effect. Women showed a statistically non-significant trend to weaker influence of hereditary effects, while men showed no effect of shared environmental effects. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results;
Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[9]
Criticisms
Twin studies have received a number of criticisms including self-selection bias where homosexuals with gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for studies. Nonetheless, it is possible to conclude that, given the difference in sexuality in so many sets of identical twins, sexual orientation cannot be attributed solely to genetic factors.[10]
Another issue is the recent finding that even monozygotic twins can be different and there is a mechanism which might account for monozygotic twins being discordant for homosexuality. Gringas and Chen (2001) describe a number of mechanisms which can lead to differences between monozygotic twins, the most relevant here being chorionicity and amniocity.[11] Dichorionic twins potentially have different hormonal environments because they receive maternal blood from separate placenta, and this could result in different levels of brain masculinisation. Monoamniotic twins share a hormonal environment, but can suffer from the 'twin to twin transfusion syndrome' in which one twin is "relatively stuffed with blood and the other exsanguinated".[12]
Quote:
So when it says they were made the same, the idea of equality is opaque, because they could have as well been created the same but inequal. Really! And I'm quoting Genesis, which was written before the new testament, and which took place FROM THE BEGINNING! Can you please tell me one matriarchal society that predates that? No you can't! So I suppose you'll just say the usual "I don't buy into your myths", right? Please do it to ignore the argument, it's your only choice.
So, basically you happen to believe a 3500-3000 year old story is telling the story from the beginning, where 200.000 years of human history is not even a footnote. But I wonder, if it is not so opaque and clear as the bright blue sky, and gender equality is not a modern development but a clear message of the Genesis, why did Christians did NOT practice it for like 1900 years? Were they all too stupid to understand their own faith? Were they too imbecile to read the clear message of their God, that has been right in front of them all along?
Or is it possible that now gender equality is the norm, Christianity also adjusted to that and modified its position?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 02:29 PM |
|
|
Certain mental illness is believed to be inherited. People with this illness are less likely to have children. Yet there's a constant ~1% of the population who has this disease.
There are other factors, such as dormancy, mutation rates and the environmental stress, both in the form of society, but also e.g. from food sources, the weather, etc.
There are periods where people are more fragile than other periods, and sometimes something happens, and we don't know how, why or even when.. we can only see the effect, and say something must have happened at some point in time before now.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 02:34 PM |
|
|
Stevie can choose to be gay, so do it to prove your point then. 
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 02:50 PM |
|
|
artu said:
So, basically you happen to believe a 3500-3000 year old story is telling the story from the beginning, where 200.000 years of human history is not even a footnote. But I wonder, if it is not so opaque and clear as the bright blue sky, and gender equality is not a modern development but a clear message of the Genesis, why did Christians did NOT practice it for like 1900 years? Were they all too stupid to understand their own faith? Were they too imbecile to read the clear message of their God, that has been right in front of them all along?
Or is it possible that now gender equality is the norm, Christianity also adjusted to that and modified its position?
You're mixing biblical creation with evolutionary ages to disprove me, grats on the straw man.
"But I wonder, if it is not so opaque and clear as the bright blue sky, and gender equality is not a modern development but a clear message of the Genesis, why did Christians did NOT practice it for like 1900 years?" you say... Jews practiced it long before Christianity, so that was hardly news for them. But it took a while for the pagan gentiles, which is normal.
AND, if you think the fact that women couldn't vote 100 years ago is a counter argument, you are probably mixing equality with authority again. Since in the past, society was considering the family more important than the individual, and the highest authority in a family was the man.
"Or is it possible that now gender equality is the norm, Christianity also adjusted to that and modified its position?". Yea, it adjusted to the norm with Moses writing Genesis 3500 years ago, recording events that happened from the beginning. Do you even realize the stupidity of your question? Our moral code doesn't change unlike your evolutionary story.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 02:52 PM |
|
Edited by Neraus at 18:06, 22 May 2014.
|
artu said:
Why does all ignorant people have this special kind of arrogance that just makes you pity them?
I admit being arrogant and ignorant, but are you sure you are the one intelligent?
(Apologies then, but I think that statements like that can create some
fights, so I'll keep that.)
About that study...
How can it be accurate if it's done on adult twins? The enviroment has already left its mark, they have already made their choice.
As such it can't be reliable. Also, as it was already stated in the criticism, couldn't they have chosen gay twins just to prove their point?
I propose we do one thing, we take a pregnant women with twins, we make her birth them, we separate the twins and let them live separate lives, at the age of 20 we see if they have the same orientation, that's the only way to ensure the sibiling didn't influence the other or they had the same influences.
Addendum (because I'm slow)::
Stevie said:
"Or is it possible that now gender equality is the norm, Christianity also adjusted to that and modified its position?". Yea, it adjusted to the norm with Moses writing Genesis 3500 years ago, recording events that happened from the beginning. Do you even realize the stupidity of your question? Our moral code doesn't change unlike your evolutionary story.
Actually Hebrews weren't so kind with their women, they could divorce them when they wanted and the husband decided who should marry the woman, and of course if found guilty of adultery, lapidation.
EDIT:: Next post deleted because I accidentally quoted this whole post, also clarified a concept.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 02:53 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:55, 21 May 2014.
|
That wasn't directed at you Nearus.
And there is not just one absolute reason that causes "gayness." That's not how it works.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 02:54 PM |
|
|
xerox, the conclusion you've come to is sheer poppycock. 
but seriously, i was into girls as soon as i learned to walk. care to explain that? i have photographic proof of this, as well(i just have to find the goddamn picture, i haven't seen it in forever). of course, i'm sure one can look around the internet for pictures of walking babies lifting up skirts. i did this all the time when i was very young. my mom told me that i used to run up to the t.v. when there was a woman in a skirt, and try to look up it. seriously, i started off young. i've always had the same thing for females, and that never changed.
so, explain that. if you can.
(inb4 "if guys had skirts you'd be looking up them; it's just the skirts" )
(thought that maybe this belonged in here)
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 03:01 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:10, 21 May 2014.
|
Quote:
You're mixing biblical creation with evolutionary ages to disprove me, grats on the straw man.
That's not a straw man. Straw man is when you distort the other person's argument, not when you present your own. And even most evolution deniers do not think humanity is 6000 years old. There are cave paintings that are around 30000 years old. You can not expect a slightly educated person to believe that the world is 6000 years old.
Quote:
AND, if you think the fact that women couldn't vote 100 years ago is a counter argument, you are probably mixing equality with authority again. Since in the past, society was considering the family more important than the individual, and the highest authority in a family was the man.
All men and women are equal but some are more equal than others.
Quote:
Do you even realize the stupidity of your question? Our moral code doesn't change unlike your evolutionary story.
500 years ago, Christians DIDN'T support gender equality applying to Genesis or any other verses from the Bible.
Today, they do.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 03:14 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 20:57, 21 May 2014.
|
Neraus said:
Actually Hebrews weren't so kind with their women, they could divorce them when they wanted and the husband decided who should marry the woman, and of course, lapidation.
"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. (Deuteronomy 24:1-2)"
I do not know whether they did what you said, but if they would, it wouldn't be as God commanded.
artu said:
That's not a straw man. Straw man is when you distort the other person's argument, not when you present your own. And even most evolution deniers do not think humanity is 6000 years old. There are cave paintings that are around 30000 years old. You can not expect a slightly educated person to believe that the world is 6000 years old.
So people like Newton and other were uneducated. I said it before, If believing the truth means that I am to be called uneducated, I'll gladly accept that.
artu said:
All men and women are equal but some are more equal than others.
When a police girl stops your car, does she do that because as a human she's superior to you? No, it does so because she has AUTHORITY!
artu said:
500 years ago, Christians DIDN'T support gender equality applying to Genesis or any other verses from the Bible.
Today, they do.
You don't get it that it was crystal clear throughout history that Jews and later on Christians were declaring equality with Genesis? And not only Genesis, as Neraus said, "love thy neighbor as thy self" doesn't make a difference between your neighbor being male or female, black or white, emperor or slave.
Let's stop now Neraus. I'm not throwing my pearls to pigs. Whoever has ears, let them hear.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 03:16 PM |
|
|
Just a 10 cent addition here regarding 'gay animals'.
Animals mate for very simply primitively driven desire to procreate. However, many animals (the social kind that live in communities) often have either a male dominated 'silverback' society or like wolves, have one breeding couple dominating the pack.
Homosexual activity is prevalent with males who have no mating privileges themselves. And is used to show dominance over other subordinate males (think prison sexual activity here too). These males cannot mate with the females as they are part of the silver back's harem. But they do try, and risk death in doing so. Or the other thing is to get massive and take on the silver back.
So its kind of a moot point and a very hazy comparison to try and prove that the animal kingdom has homosexuality the same way we do.
Large populations of males with no access to females, will have a percentage of homosexual activity. But that doesn't make them homosexual.
Like what Watcher said. Lions can't jerk off. Neither can zebra's or stags. So yeah forget including animals.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 03:18 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Neraus said:
Actually Hebrews weren't so kind with their women, they could divorce them when they wanted and the husband decided who should marry the woman, and of course, lapidation.
"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. (Deuteronomy 24:1-2)"
I do not know whether they did what you said, but if they would, it wouldn't be as God commanded.
I mistyped that part, but somehow I forgot to rephrase that since I was in a hurry to finish that post, by lapidation I meant that if a woman was charged of adultery she would be lapidated while now they can get away with it.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 03:22 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:46, 21 May 2014.
|
Quote:
So people like Newton and other were uneducated.
Newton lived in the 17th century. Even his knowledge can be considered contemporary compared to yours though.
Quote:
When a police girl stops your car, does she do that because as a human she's superior to you? No, it does so because she has AUTHORITY!
A police girl and I both have the same constitutional rights. Both a woman and a man can apply for the job under equal circumstances and she doesn't have authority over me by ontological reasons, she REPRESENTS the state.
Quote:
You don't get it that it was crystal clear throughout history that Jews and later on Christians were declaring equality with Genesis? And not only Genesis, as Neraus said, "love thy neighbor as thy self" doesn't make a difference between your neighbor being male or female, black or white, emperor or slave.
That is just incoherent rambling.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 03:29 PM |
|
|
"Straw man is when you distort the other person's argument."
dear god. 
(couldn't help myself. )
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 03:36 PM |
|
|
|
It's okay Fred, I know you cant help yourself.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 03:39 PM |
|
|
huh? what was that? is anybody there?
seriously though. i know i'll never reach you. but man, you should really hold up a mirror when you mention "straw man".
that's enough out of me. i don't want to argue today. 
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 03:59 PM |
|
|
Animals are gay, ergo gay animals.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 04:31 PM |
|
|
|
Wait, Stevie, are you seriously trying to say that men and women have been equal for the past 2000 years?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 04:57 PM |
|
|
meroe said:
So its kind of a moot point and a very hazy comparison to try and prove that the animal kingdom has homosexuality the same way we do.
Animals don't have "genders" like we do but
a)Dissociating mating and having sex completely is kind of like dissociating eating and cooking.
b)Since there are traces of biological reasons causing homosexuality, not just environmental ones, these tendencies suddenly popping up in the human species and having no prior development in our ancestors or our mammal relatives is quite improbable.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 04:58 PM |
|
|
That is guesswork Artu at best. You are surmising again.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 05:01 PM |
|
|
Having to post twice, because I have no edit function ????
And of course animals have genders, otherwise they would be humping the nearest thing to them. Shockingly enough they actually build up family units too!!!
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
