Gay Marriage and adoption!

[LoneWolf16]

How would sexual orientation be genetic? If that was true homosexuals would drive themselves to extinction pretty quickly, as they wouldn't reproduce.

OWNED!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, all they'd have to do is sleep with somebody of the opposite sex. Like they couldn't "take one for the team", or even do so before realizing their true orientation?

 

And it's not like the gene couldn't simply be a very dormant, very recessive one embedded in or DNA.

Edited June 8, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[alanschu]

Many homosexuals have had wives. There IS social stigma against homosexuality after all.

 

The "choice" isn't really a choice though. More of a facade.

[Judge Hades]

Add tot he fact that homosexuality only occurs in a small population of 6 billion + humans on the planet. Like I said before it is evolutionary maladaptive but it is a part of our DNA that surfaces. Some may consider this as a broken gene.

[Pidesco]

Actually, all they'd have to do is sleep with somebody of the opposite sex. Like they couldn't "take one for the team", or even do so before realizing their true orientation?

 

And it's not like the gene couldn't simply be a very dormant, very recessive one embedded in or DNA.

 

 

The "take one for the team" bit is true if we are talking about an intelligent species, but if we're talking about, say, homosexual dogs, they would have no incentive to reproduce, and simply wouldn't do it.

 

As such, if you ask me, homosexuality is always a choice, conscious or unconscious. But Hades' links seem to indicate otherwise, so what do I know.

 

Anyway, I still think homosexuality is a perfectly valid choice, for someone.

[alanschu]

How would sexual orientation be genetic? If that was true homosexuals would drive themselves to extinction pretty quickly, as they wouldn't reproduce.

 

Just because something is biological doesn't mean it is genetic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Could you elaborate?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Biology is more than just genes that get passed on. And even then, it's still influenced by the environment.

 

Influences outside of pure genetics can influence how the biology of our body operates.

 

Shizophrenia is a neurological disorder, but it's not just genetic (though there is believed to be a genetic component. Twin studies with identical twins only demonstrate a 28% likelihood that one will get it, if the other does have it though). Environmental factors still play a role. But some think it's an issue with the rate at which dopamine is released in your body (as dopamine blockers can reduce the symptoms of schizophrenia).

 

 

Things such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome result in biological disabilities, but have little to do with genetics. Going back to schizophrenia, studies have shown that pregnant women close to starvation had a higher chance of having a child that would develop schizophrenia. The same goes for prenatal exposure to infections.

 

 

Our biology is not a closed-system that has no outside influences with only our genes to show for it.

 

And even if there is a "homosexual gene", there's nothing stopping outside influences that result in that gene leading someone to become a homosexual.

[LoneWolf16]

The "take one for the team" bit is true if we are talking about an intelligent species, but if we're talking about, say, homosexual dogs, they would have no incentive to reproduce, and simply wouldn't do it.

 

As such, if you ask me, homosexuality is always a choice, conscious or unconscious. But Hades' links seem to indicate otherwise, so what do I know.

 

Anyway, I still think homosexuality is a perfectly valid choice, for someone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the dogs...well...I'd wager that if there's a female in heat, it's on regardless, since, as you say, they're not quite as intelligent as humans, the instinctual part of it would probably take over.

 

Or something. I'm just as clueless as I seem to be.

[alanschu]

As such, if you ask me, homosexuality is always a choice, conscious or unconscious. But Hades' links seem to indicate otherwise, so what do I know.

 

If it's unconscious...how is it a choice? Are you referring to social influences?

 

As for conscious choice, do you think you could right now choose to truly be a homosexual. I guess that depends on how we define homosexuality. It it just our physical actions, or is it more to do with our internal sexual attractions.

 

I suppose I could "choose" to have sex with a man. But if I'm not sexually attracted to him, why would I? If you have sex with a man simply to prove a point, would it make you truly a homosexual? Or just someone that was willing to have sex with a man to try to prove a point?

[Pidesco]

Biology is more than just genes that get passed on.  And even then, it's still influenced by the environment.

 

Influences outside of pure genetics can influence how the biology of our body operates.

 

Shizophrenia is a neurological disorder, but it's not just genetic (though there is believed to be a genetic component.  Twin studies with identical twins only demonstrate a 28% likelihood that one will get it, if the other does have it though).  Environmental factors still play a role.  But some think it's an issue with the rate at which dopamine is released in your body (as dopamine blockers can reduce the symptoms of schizophrenia).

 

 

Things such as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome result in biological disabilities, but have little to do with genetics.  Going back to schizophrenia, studies have shown that pregnant women close to starvation had a higher chance of having a child that would develop schizophrenia.  The same goes for prenatal exposure to infections.

 

 

Our biology is not a closed-system that has no outside influences with only our genes to show for it.

 

And even if there is a "homosexual gene", there's nothing stopping outside influences that result in that gene leading someone to become a homosexual.

 

It's great when I manage to learn something new, especially when I thought I was just wasting time. Alan.

 

 

 

For the dogs...well...I'd wager that if there's a female in heat, it's on regardless, since, as you say, they're not quite as intelligent as humans, the instinctual part of it would probably take over.

 

Or something. I'm just as clueless as I seem to be.

 

But the point is that a genetically homosexual dog wouldn't even react to a bitch in heat.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Soulseeker

[213374U]

Links on a few studies:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/5/...ourcetype=HWCIT

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/89/15/7199...ourcetype=HWCIT

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/2...ourcetype=HWCIT

You didn't even bother reading those, did you? The discussion part on the first and third links is quite interesting. You might want to read everything before you do a search and copy&paste the first result that comes up.

The second link hardly offers anything solid, simply pointing to "links" and relying on other extremely unscientific statements. I asked for proof, not speculation.

 

EDIT: Those studies also rely somewhat on the concept of human pheromones, which, by the way, isn't proven either. Also, I tend not to place much faith on studies published by an organization that subscribes the theory that mankind is behind the climatic change.

 

 

Actually, all they'd have to do is sleep with somebody of the opposite sex. Like they couldn't "take one for the team", or even do so before realizing their true orientation?

 

And it's not like the gene couldn't simply be a very dormant, very recessive one embedded in or DNA.

Even if they "take one for the team" they are a minority. That sort of trait is, as per the Evolution Theory, lost over time.

 

And Hades' links point more towards homosexuality being the result of chemical imbalances during pregnancy than genetic causes. I'm not even going to suggest the implications of that.

Edited June 8, 2006 by 213374U

[Judge Hades]

I do think that Environment does play a role but not that big of a role. I would say that it is 70% biological and 30% environmental, but who knows. In any case if two adults, hetero or homo, who are a couple and fit to be parents they should be allowed to adopt.

[LoneWolf16]

But the point is that a genetically homosexual do wouldn't even react to a bitch in heat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if they "take one for the team" they are a minority. That sort of trait is, as per the Evolution Theory, lost over time.

 

And Hades' links point more towards homosexuality being the result of chemical imbalances during pregnancy than genetic causes. I'm not even going to suggest the implications of that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points.

 

I'll shut up now and get to sleep, as I'm barely awake enough to type correctly, let alone form cohesive thoughts.

[mkreku]

I can choose which girl I fall in love with just about as much as I can choose to become homosexual. I wish it would be that simple, but in reality it's not.

 

Why would anyone ever choose to become a oppressed minority if they had a choice?

[alanschu]

That's what I was thinking.

 

I suppose that there'd be some that would choose it to be a rebel, or maybe they are masochistic or something. But then you wouldn't really get people complaining about being oppressed.

[213374U]

I can choose which girl I fall in love with just about as much as I can choose to become homosexual. I wish it would be that simple, but in reality it's not.

 

Why would anyone ever choose to become a oppressed minority if they had a choice?

That's true. However, where does your perceived "free will" end, and chemical, social, and environmental conditioning begin?

[alanschu]

Wouldn't environmental just be included in chemical and social?

 

EDIT: Besides, he wasn't really making a case for free will, as we don't really have much choice over who we fall in love with.

Edited June 8, 2006 by alanschu

[Judge Hades]

That is true. I would have never chosen to fall in love with a knife wielding schizophrenic but I did. She was the best.

[213374U]

Wouldn't environmental just be included in chemical and social?

No, I meant the familiar environment. Familiar conditioning can vary widely within a given society, and thus, I think it's independent from that.

 

 

EDIT:  Besides, he wasn't really making a case for free will, as we don't really have much choice over who we fall in love with.

No, but the act of "deciding" doesn't really need to be a conscious one, and even when we think it is, to what extent are we actually choosing instead of acting reflexively due to the effect of our conditioning?

[alanschu]

Meh, I still think familiarity could be classified under social, but whatever.

 

No, but the act of "deciding" doesn't really need to be a conscious one, and even when we think it is, to what extent are we actually choosing instead of acting reflexively due to the effect of our conditioning?

 

You're going all BF Skinner on me here. I have kind of mixed feelings about the existence of free will.

[213374U]

You're going all BF Skinner on me here.  I have kind of mixed feelings about the existence of free will.

Wha...?

[alanschu]

BF Skinner is a behavioural psychologist (many consider him to be the biggest name in psychology) who concluded that free will is an illusion. Decisions are made based on conditioning.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.F._Skinner

Edited June 8, 2006 by alanschu

[metadigital]

Minorities shouldn't be adopting white children, really. And white parents shouldn't be adopting minorities, generally. I mean, they should be allowed to adopt children of a different ethnicity, but parents of the same ethnicity should be given preference.

 

True, but race isn't really the crux of my argument.

 

Non carcasian isn't the only minority. Should muslims have equal adoption rights? Is it fair to give the child to a family that will force it to pray 5x a day to a brick?

 

Obviously not. Minorities aren't ideal candidates imho... it just makes life unnecessarily harder for the child.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This attitude just entrenches bigotry, congratulations.

 

Rather than change what's wrong with society, you would have the (innocent) individuals change their behaviour, because the majority don't agree with it (this is known as the tyraany of the majority).

 

Remeber Ghandi's advice to the Hindu man who's son was killed by a Muslim lynch mob? Probably not, so I'll tell you: he said "Go and adopt a Muslim boy, and raise him as a Muslim." I wonder if you can work out why.

 

Homosexuality exists in about 10% of populations, pretty constantly. This includes higher primates, whales, and (AFAICR) all mammals.

 

The genetic information is not perfectly clear, either: there is no "gay gene", however there is indications that there might be a series of useful traits that, if all are active, may induce homosexuality. Of course, nothing is completely hereditary or purely environmental, and people smarter than me have been arguing about that longer than I have been alive with no result.

[Blarghagh]

I voted Yes, Of Course because I believe everyone should have equal rights, but my actual opinion on the matter is that marriage should be abolished and replaced with a non-religious institution in the first place.

 

And before anyone asks why, I'm just going to come out and say it: Religion is pretty much stupid. I'm sorry if I offend you by saying this but this is how I feel.

Edited June 8, 2006 by TrueNeutral

[astr0creep]

I voted Live and let Live.

 

This issue is getting very old. The fact of the matter is that every familly is different and having laws and regulations to control such private matters will always make trouble for a lot of people.

 

Another fact is that a child has the same chance of being messed up from a Homo familly as he/she does from a Hetero familly. How many Hetero parents abuse their children?

 

Third, we are in somewhat of a transition period. I'm pretty sure if we let things go, having Homo parents will be just as socially normal as having Hetero parents.

 

Marriage is a luxury. There is a wedding industry, a very big one and a very useless one. It's like buying a big screen TV. It's nice to be able to have one but you don't really need it.

 

I think that if you are a couple living together, you should have the same rights, privileges and obligations as all the other couples, wether you are Homo, Hetero, married, civil unioned or just under the same dwelling for at least one complete fiscal year.

 

Period.

[Hurlshort]

You know, the Catholic church actually supported the claim that homosexuality is a dormant genetic trait. Even the bible is quite clear that it isn't homosexuals who are bad, but rather their actions. This doesn't mean they support homosexuality, it just means that someone who is gay is not inherently evil. They expect abstinence.

 

I don't think it's fair to expect that from someone, but I was happy when they released that statement (It was in the early 90's, if I remember correctly.) I'm just disappointed most other Christian churches ignore the science.

[Judge Hades]

Science is the devil to them. Frankly I find religious types, Christian or otherwise, to be annoying. Except the bhuddists. They don't bother me with literature.