That is not "hereditary". It is only hereditary if it involves actual genetic material being passed down from parent to offspring. What you're describing is circumstantial, rather than hereditary.
That is not "hereditary". It is only hereditary if it involves actual genetic material being passed down from parent to offspring. What you're describing is circumstantial, rather than hereditary.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,915
- 31,443
- 146
You're not familiar with the way scientific research works, eh? The point is, it would be quite easy to find published research seeking to find such evidence, but the data is inconclusive. Non-conclusive research is published all of the time, this is how science works.
Of course, you could look at the link that I already posted above. Funny. By the time you made this short reply, I had already posted my evidence link, and typed a summary of some recent research not included within that link. This leads me to believe that you did your own google search, and were confronted with the very same piles of evidence that anyone would find. Rather than accept that...you make this comment instead?
Unfortunately for you, I went ahead and linked the evidence, and trumped your semantic BS trolling argument before you could even make it
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Unfortunately for you, I went ahead and linked the evidence, and trumped your semantic BS trolling argument before you could even make it
Oh, the irony...
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,915
- 31,443
- 146
Do yourself a favor. Don't try to tell me what hereditary means. Read the link. That summary in my post is about further evidence not included in that link.
Again, the crux of the anti-biology argument is that it is not a born-trait--that it is a conscious choice. While there is plenty of genetic evidence, there is also biochemical evidence that the source of homosexuality occurs during fetal development (genetic and otherwise), and is present when born. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS.
Again, don't play genetics with me. It will end poorly for you.
So, let's get back to my original statement: "There is little evidence". Provided with your article's meager findings my statement is entirely accurate.
And I agree that arguing genetics with a dunce like you can only end poorly for me. My time isn't very precious, but it's precious enough.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,915
- 31,443
- 146
Would it shame you to know that I work in a transgenics lab at Northwestern Hospital? I am a geneticist by title. The onus is on you to prove that you understand the significance of the genetic evidence that is available, and easily found by anyone. You haven't done that yet.
What are your credentials?
There are no less than 5 people on AT that can back me up that I'm not BSing here, btw.
MmmSkyscraper
Diamond Member
- Jul 6, 2004
- 9,472
- 1
- 76
I don't really care about your credentials if what you're saying is wrong. You could have a P.h.D in mathematics and I wouldn't trust you if you told me 2+2=5. Your inconclusive article already discarded under my criteria (significant evidence), your second description of a study involving the effect of estrogen on a growing fetus is not hereditary, because it is not genetic. At least it is not genetic in any way that relates to the gay child itself. Such a circumstance would be genetic for the mother, but her genes are being passed on to all her children regardless of their birth order, and regardless of their sexuality.
MmmSkyscraper
Diamond Member
- Jul 6, 2004
- 9,472
- 1
- 76
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,082
- 136
Because the religious zealots (who generally make Republicans do their work) believe homosexuality is a choice, and an evil one at that.Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Now 6% of the world has down syndrome (DS) yet 8-10% of the world is gay. (Stats I got from other sites so i don;t know how true they are).Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Why is it that gays get more bs from republicans, religious, and other nut jobs yet those with DS get a pass?
And those same religious zealots believe that incredibly evil things like murder, rape, and being gay should be banned by the government, and people who willfully enage in such events are criminals and should be punished.
Then fix the actual government issues (taxes and such) instead of things government has no right to involve itself in (religion, sex, etc).
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,915
- 31,443
- 146
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Do you really want to go down this line?
Sure.
so the big fat fallacy bomb is a valid method of debate in your experience? I see.
You have yet to:
1)provide evidence of inconclusive developmental (genetic or biological--one in the same really; but you still don't understand that) research. if it currently exists, then it is published. Again, scientific evidence occurs in both the "negative" and "positive." Find it. (this is not a case of "can't prove a negative")
2) provide any logical reason that your interpretation of my evidence is more valid than my interpretation. What is significant, by your definition? I'd wager that if you don't have experience with scientific journals, you wouldn't be able to parse the significance of such data. Explain how my credentials are irrelevant to my ability to provide actual evidence.
3) Explain how hormone-influenced fetal development that imparts characteristics to a child AT BIRTH is somehow irrelevant to the nature vs nurture argument. One argues that homosexuality is influenced by innate biological influences from birth, the other argues that it is only a conscious choice. That is the argument. Try to separate this one (among many) line of evidence from this debate.
I will not address you again until you provide a relevant argument, and a reason for anyone to see you as capable of handling this debate (Ooo, see how I did that? With one statement, I can just as easily discount your reasoning with the "your logic is wrong" qualifier. It is no less significant than when you used the same tactic. I didn't even need evidence, this time
) ...even though the evidence is still there for you to address.And here I thought I was the only person who espoused a partly-genetic, partly-cultural, and partly-personal view of sexuality, which I think makes a LOT more sense than the grimly deterministic view most people claim. You don't get to choose the raw material (not just talking about homosexuality here, but every aspect of personality), but the way that it is shaped and the way that it is wielded will affect the final outcome.
Ns1
No Lifer
- Jun 17, 2001
- 55,420
- 1,600
- 126
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Do you really want to go down this line?
Sure.
so the big fat fallacy bomb is a valid method of debate in your experience? I see.
You have yet to:
1)provide evidence of inconclusive developmental (genetic or biological--one in the same really; but you still don't understand that) research. if it currently exists, then it is published. Again, scientific evidence occurs in both the "negative" and "positive." Find it. (this is not a case of "can't prove a negative")
2) provide any logical reason that your interpretation of my evidence is more valid than my interpretation. What is significant, by your definition? I'd wager that if you don't have experience with scientific journals, you wouldn't be able to parse the significance of such data. Explain how my credentials are irrelevant to my ability to provide actual evidence.
3) Explain how hormone-influenced fetal development that imparts characteristics to a child AT BIRTH is somehow irrelevant to the nature vs nurture argument. One argues that homosexuality is influenced by innate biological influences from birth, the other argues that it is only a conscious choice. That is the argument. Try to separate this one (among many) line of evidence from this debate.
I will not address you again until you provide a relevant argument, and a reason for anyone to see you as capable of handling this debate (Ooo, see how I did that? With one statement, I can just as easily discount your reasoning with the "your logic is wrong" qualifier. It is no less significant than when you used the same tactic. I didn't even need evidence, this time
I rate this 5* ownage, pending rebuttal
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Do you really want to go down this line?
Sure.
so the big fat fallacy bomb is a valid method of debate in your experience? I see.
You have yet to:
Good thing you did that for me. You were even so kind as to concede that the research was inconclusive.
Significant evidence is evidence that provides a clear, decisive link between genes passed down from gay parent to child that increase the chances of that child being gay compared to if that child were born from a straight parent. I've only taken undergrad biology, but that's enough to argue this very broad point.
The question here isn't "nature vs nurture", because hormonal influences during fetal development would be "nature". They would not, however, be hereditary. The effect of hormones on a developing fetus does not impart that fetus with genetic material from the mother causing it to be gay, which can then be passed on from the fetus to its potential offspring.
Just because something is genetic doesn't mean it's hereditary either. Hypothetically, if there was a gene in all people that could make that person gay given certain conditions in the womb, does that mean homosexuality is hereditary? Well, in a very broad sense then yes. It would be hereditary. So would having feet be hereditary, but I'm using a definition of hereditary that should hopefully exclude genetic traits that every member of a species has. While technically hereditary such traits serve no practical purpose in a discussion of whether homosexuality is hereditary or not.
Part of the anti-gay parent argument relies on the concept that a gay parent is likely to pass on his "gay gene". In other words a distinct genetic trait that is specific to a certain portion of the population rather than the entire population. I see no compelling evidence that such a gene exists, and that homosexuality can be passed from a homosexual parent to their offspring. No, I have not gone searching through every scientific journal in search of the lack of evidence, I've posed this question over and over again looking for somebody to provide evidence that homosexuality is hereditary, and have never been given any.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,915
- 31,443
- 146
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Saint Michael
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Do you really want to go down this line?
Sure.
so the big fat fallacy bomb is a valid method of debate in your experience? I see.
You have yet to:
Good thing you did that for me. You were even so kind as to concede that the research was inconclusive.
You really have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you? In no way did I concede that the research I provided was inconclusive. I challenged you to find inconclusive research that supports you argument. and that is exactly what I said
Why should I read the rest of your retort when you have proven time and again that you are grossly incapable of logical debate, or parsing salient information.
In fact, I won't read your argument, b/c you haven't read mine.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter