Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality

page: 13
25
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


Or it is OK for a majority-Christian country to ban homosexual marriage because it makes them happier as a whole, even if it hurts a few individuals?

You asked me where our morality would come from if not god. I replied it would come from many sources. So in this example we can draw from the ethical principles instilled in our constitution and other foundation documents we base our society on. One being a concern for the tyranny of the majority. Government is supposed to protect minority from the majority. Additionally, it's quite clear gays shouldn't be discriminated against under law which is why we are now seeing courts ruling it as unconstitutional.

Aka it's not a "few individuals". We are talking about something like 15+ million people. Hardly trivial.


Why should I care about other's happiness anyway?

That's for you to figure out.

Here is a quote I enjoy about compassion:

“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
― Albert Einstein


if that one guy has his moment of ecstasy right before the bomb goes off, and there is nothing objectively wrong with it, why should he deny himself that, even if it does come at the expense of a few other people?

Clearly he wouldn't deny himself that since he is deranged. We obviously need rules in society. The absence of god doesn't negate that obvious truth. If you're asking why it would be bad for society if someone blows up a building killing innocent people in it…. you're not thinking hard enough about this. People would suffer. That impacts society negatively. Do you really not see how? So we clearly have a precedent for taking measures in preventing that kind of suffereing. Doesn't require objective morality from god.


I don't understand what's so great about other people.

Who cares about other people?

Tell me is this attitude towards your fellow brethren one you got from 'objective morality' If so, again, no thanks.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean others struggle with reasoning for caring about others wellfare. Perhaps it's your limitation?


Oh, sure, once or twice, and lots of people will claim He is today...but I haven't heard a voice from the heavens. Do you think He is running around smushing people He doesn't like?

I don't believe he exists.


I think circumstances, like war, make it morally permissible to do things we wouldn't otherwise do.
It's not supportive of objective or subjective morality, it's just the way I see the world.

"just the way you see the world" and that doesn't support moral relativism.

If you say so
edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy


if that one guy has his moment of ecstasy right before the bomb goes off, and there is nothing objectively wrong with it, why should he deny himself that, even if it does come at the expense of a few other people?

Clearly he wouldn't deny himself that since he is deranged. We obviously need rules in society. The absence of god doesn't negate that obvious truth. If you're asking why it would be bad for society if someone blows up a building killing innocent people in it…. you're not thinking hard enough about this. People would suffer. That impacts society negatively. Do you really not see how? So we clearly have a precedent for taking measures in preventing that kind of suffereing. Doesn't require objective morality from god.


No, no no. I'd agree that negatively impacts society, I just don't see why we should care about society or our fellow man absent some objective morality. (Not necessarily God...though that does leap to mind.)




Tell me is this attitude towards your fellow brethren one you got from 'objective morality' If so, again, no thanks.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean others struggle with reasoning for caring about others wellfare. Perhaps it's your limitation?


I don't have this attitude. I simply think it is a question worth asking. Especially if we reject objective morality.
As far as limitations go, however, the people who care about others are the ones with the limitations.

I don't believe he exists.


I think circumstances, like war, make it morally permissible to do things we wouldn't otherwise do.
It's not supportive of objective or subjective morality, it's just the way I see the world.




"just the way you see the world" and that doesn't support moral relativism.


Oh very good! I suppose I worded that poorly. But then again, I told you I was sympathetic to relativism...from a certain point of view.

But no, I think that there are absolute truths...however, just because a fellow blowing up a bus full of innocents is objectively wrong doesn't mean that I believe everyone must see the world as I do.

edit on 17-2-2014 by StalkerSolent because: I can't spel



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Rosha

BDBinc

Rosha

BDBinc
If people are wanting this gay gene nonsense to be true to make homosexuality - in their mind- "natural" or "not a sin" -that is the bias.


As you are well aware, I was replying to a hypothetical question not to the study so just please stop taking cheap shots at me and twisting my words to suit your platform. Its bad form, so obvious and really low.


Ro.


But I have not addressed you since the time you admitted you have no knowledge or training in genetics to argue the topic and it wasn't a good idea to argue with idiots.
Note my comment was addressed to the thread in general not you , some who keep believing from the thread title that there is a gay gene discovered when no such findings were produced by the study .
And I also kindly provided the reason for the cognitive bias on this media BS which is being eaten up.




You did not address me though you used my words quite happily. My comment about arguing with idiots was in reply to your unnecessarily snide comment in reply to me. I do know something about this, only that knowledge is not from a scientific perspective and I do have a stake in scientific outcomes on this, regardless of your opinion of it. In any case, you have already been debunked on your position already. You can keep spewing it out , as much as you like, your free to, it wont change that. You will only ever convince those who already dont read or think, that repetition of a flawed argument is somehow validation of it. Meh..how you waste your energy is your business. Just dont use my words please to bolster your platform. A simple request I am sure you can understand. As I have said quite clearly, I feel sciences best role in this is to remove the current moral disparity, remove the excuse active abusers are using to manipulate fear, to murder and harm other humans. That way at least, when you do choose to abuse and harm another human, it really is all on 'you'....no more blaming ' superior or inferior genes' for giving you right 'right' to do it. It is not much, but it is a start.

done.

Ro.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Rosha because: (no reason given)


Tell me how is it that expect "science" to end corruption remove just the excuses for abusers, people that harm & murderers.
"Science" has been corrupted so how can it bring you morality.
Don't keep waiting for science to bring you morality, or dispel excuses for harming others (when they do not agree with your opinion).
If you want to see those things shouldn't you manifest them as an example.
"Science" can not form a man's character or tell him who he is.

My position on the study remains valid, there was no gay gene discovered, and it was just untrue media claims.
Mainstream media science is not your friend - its a control mechanism.
In time you may understand this and also how the media is used to make people fight, harm, spread fear and abuse one another.


edit on 18-2-2014 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


In all reality homosexuality most likely comes from below average sex hormone levels (androgens) effecting the size of certain regions of the brain throughout gestation and throughout the early years of life.

As we've learned in science the hemispheres of the brain in homosexual men more closely resemble that of heterosexual female, and vice versa.

This decrease levels of androgens most likely causes these changes in the sexual dimorphic nucleus (SDN) located in the hypothalamus.


Is it possible to track androgen levels throughout gestation, as well as the early years of life, creating a "baseline", yes. Would it be possible to correct he homosexual tendency from birth using the baseline measurements and injecting micro doses of androgens to correct the baseline deviations and "cure" homosexuality? Maybe so. It is entirely invasive, and in a culture that embraces homosexuality their is little need. Maybe this "chromosomal anomaly" are directly or indirectly responsible for early androgen levels? I'd have to do some more extensive research on this one, and I have a histology test coming up ahaha.

Let's keep this thread on track and not debate the bible any longer...
edit on 18-2-2014 by EnderMEM because: Typographical edit, stupid iPad



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Bedlam

tothetenthpower

Defect I suppose is a matter of opinion. Luckily fact and opinion are different things
.


Well, fact would be that the purpose of mammals is to reproduce. This behavior is non-reproductive. And this research shows it's a genetic mis-fire that's only conserved because it generally increases the fertility of females whilst occasionally inducing homosexuality...maybe.

But back to the question - if you could fix it by spraying a carrier virus with a gene patch up your nose for $20, what would you do? What would society do? If you were gay, would you do it? Would society mandate it? Ban it?


There are many genetic "defects" that are there for a benefit of the host. Sickle cell trait ( a defect on one copy of a gene)for example gives resistance to malaria. Get two copies and you have sickle cell disease, an abnormal condition.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


If you're into learning more about this, a book called Survival of the Sickest, is a fun read

Edit: I don't think a navy doc needs to read a book a lowly med student read. Carry on.
edit on 18-2-2014 by EnderMEM because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

BDBinc

Tell me how is it that expect "science" to end corruption remove just the excuses for abusers, people that harm & murderers.
"Science" has been corrupted so how can it bring you morality.
Don't keep waiting for science to bring you morality, or dispel excuses for harming others (when they do not agree with your opinion).
If you want to see those things shouldn't you manifest them as an example.
"Science" can not form a man's character or tell him who he is.

My position on the study remains valid, there was no gay gene discovered, and it was just untrue media claims.
Mainstream media science is not your friend - its a control mechanism.
In time you may understand this and also how the media is used to make people fight, harm, spread fear and abuse one another.


edit on 18-2-2014 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)



Sigh.

I am not asking science to bring me morality. My morality was and is, in born. I've never needed any external to know that harming others is wrong...or why it is wrong.

Science is being used to justify current abuse. Too many fearing people clinging to it, "science says no gay gene so see its "not natural" and so ' its not natural' becomes a catch cry, one you think you have a right to use in order to abuse people based on your fear and/or your god belief ....' freedom of religion ' hmm.... sure...pfft....only if its your religion.

So yes, it is my hope, yes just a hope, that science can one day, just as easily, can be utilized to ensure this justification and mask of bigotry is removed forever.

Its not a cure all..just a place I personally, think is good to start. It is the Galileo moment to me.

This study was not reporting from media claims and your misinterpretation of the study and your denial of that study's outcomes is just proof that you can enter denial well, not that there is no biological basis for homosexuality.

I dont owe you any explanation in any case..though I try to be kind I cant help freethinking right now.. " go away..I dont care ."
I'm off to have some really good gay sex right now...and I will enjoy it freely because I do accept myself and what I am and am not...and well..stuff you...its your denial..your fear, your crap..your prison....so its YOURS not mine to own...so ..go eat it..eat your fill..I really, dont care anymore.


Ro



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


So do you not believe that their is no biological basis for homosexuality?

So you are in the opinion that 100% of homosexuals make the choice to be homosexuals?

If so, why do you think the evidence that shows otherwise? What do you make of the evidence showing otherwise (eg. all the size differences in specific areas of the brain when comparing heterosexuals to homosexuals)?

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I would be very interested in hearing your opinion on this, and any facts that you may be able to use to back it up,

Thanks



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Rosha

BDBinc

Tell me how is it that expect "science" to end corruption remove just the excuses for abusers, people that harm & murderers.
"Science" has been corrupted so how can it bring you morality.
Don't keep waiting for science to bring you morality, or dispel excuses for harming others (when they do not agree with your opinion).
If you want to see those things shouldn't you manifest them as an example.
"Science" can not form a man's character or tell him who he is.

My position on the study remains valid, there was no gay gene discovered, and it was just untrue media claims.
Mainstream media science is not your friend - its a control mechanism.
In time you may understand this and also how the media is used to make people fight, harm, spread fear and abuse one another.


edit on 18-2-2014 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)



Sigh.

I am not asking science to bring me morality. My morality was and is, in born. I've never needed any external to know that harming others is wrong...or why it is wrong.

Science is being used to justify current abuse. Too many fearing people clinging to it, "science says no gay gene so see its "not natural" and so ' its not natural' becomes a catch cry, one you think you have a right to use in order to abuse people based on your fear and/or your god belief ....' freedom of religion ' hmm.... sure...pfft....only if its your religion.

So yes, it is my hope, yes just a hope, that science can one day, just as easily, can be utilized to ensure this justification and mask of bigotry is removed forever.

Its not a cure all..just a place I personally, think is good to start. It is the Galileo moment to me.

This study was not reporting from media claims and your misinterpretation of the study and your denial of that study's outcomes is just proof that you can enter denial well, not that there is no biological basis for homosexuality.

I dont owe you any explanation in any case..though I try to be kind I cant help freethinking right now.. " go away..I dont care ."
I'm off to have some really good gay sex right now...and I will enjoy it freely because I do accept myself and what I am and am not...and well..stuff you...its your denial..your fear, your crap..your prison....so its YOURS not mine to own...so ..go eat it..eat your fill..I really, dont care anymore.


Ro


Don't go backwards, you said do not understand genetics statistics or the study, I have explained the Media claims on the study are false claims, you do not understand and do not want to understand.
You use science to justify current abuses? If you are not talking about yourself then let someone who uses science to justify their abuse speak about it.
Don't keep waiting for "science" to remove bigotry . Its up to the individuals, as that is where fear and hate is in the minds, with that in mind - how you communicate = does it seek to eliminate or perpetuate bigotry?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

EnderMEM
reply to post by BDBinc
 


So do you not believe that their is no biological basis for homosexuality?

So you are in the opinion that 100% of homosexuals make the choice to be homosexuals?

If so, why do you think the evidence that shows otherwise? What do you make of the evidence showing otherwise (eg. all the size differences in specific areas of the brain when comparing heterosexuals to homosexuals)?

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but I would be very interested in hearing your opinion on this, and any facts that you may be able to use to back it up,

Thanks

I am on topic explaining the media release is untrue as there were no gay genes found in the study.
All brains are individual the different brain areas ( volume increase) is due to increased neural activity . Areas that are ( heavily) used increase in size ( and it makes no difference if you are gay or not) its the brains neural network in action.
Sorry you will have to find another member who wants to discuss their opinions on homosexuality .



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Ha. Well the estimation was 10-20 years to get that part done, so I guess they managed in 10 years.

Now, I wonder if the Chimp Hands is still a cut-and-paste from Human Hands without actually doing the work. (I know this was done for a while...)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Sure. But at the same time, if 2 twins who are otherwise identical can have separate gender preferences, that means that they're not 100% caused by the gene. Which was my point. I wasn't trying to deny that there is NO higher tendency in an identical population. It's not purely genetically driven.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


To the military lineage? That was first and foremost me teasing about it. Secondly, I doubt people bothered to keep track of such things throughout history, so if there was a lineage, we'd both be unlikely to find it and would have to do a ton of research through bloodlines in histories that were long misplaced.

The quote? The quote is a link.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Phage
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 




Disclaimer, I do not like the TONE of this crud at all, but it does make the point I wanted:

No. It doesn't.

Actually, it did:


the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm

All I wanted was that there was a higher tendency for homosexuality in homosexually-raised kids. I had already pointed out that homosexuals have children--and is rather a common occurrence, around me. There's the complete potential, with these 2 things to start talking "lineage"--whether or not we'd ever be able to 100% prove it.

Which is all that I wanted.

Simply: if homosexuals procreate, and there's a long history of homosexuals procreating, and there's a higher chance of homosexuality from homosexual parents, there's bound to be some "homosexual lineages".

I just think that a proof of this mess would be damn near impossible to lay out.

But then, this type of "arguement" is more likely when I'm sleepy and not being too detailed about what I'm aiming for.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


While neuroplasticity does occur it doesn't change the gross anatomy of the brain. When we discuss the differences between the heterosexual brain and the homosexual brain we are talking about differences in gross anatomy.

I will admit you are partly right. There is no singular gay gene. However to then seemingly imply genetics plays no role in sexuality is ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


Yes, all brains are individual, but the structures throughout the brains are similar from person to person.

Are you saying that homosexuality caused an increase neural input that caused the differentiation? So the individuals changed the size of their hemispheres and brain structures simply because they were homosexual?

What is your standpoint on homosexuality? Do you believe that homosexuals make the choice to be homosexual, or that their biology dictates sexual orientation.

To be clear on my standpoint: I believe that homosexuals are born homosexual and it is directly tied to their biology. I believe this due to multiple studies on brain (eg, measurements, fMRI, etc.) that I have gone through when I studied behavioral neurosciences as an undergraduate. I have dissected many brains, and have held them in my hands.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Xcalibur254
reply to post by BDBinc
 


While neuroplasticity does occur it doesn't change the gross anatomy of the brain. When we discuss the differences between the heterosexual brain and the homosexual brain we are talking about differences in gross anatomy.

I will admit you are partly right. There is no singular gay gene. However to then seemingly imply genetics plays no role in sexuality is ridiculous.

Since every single brain is different why are you separating different human brains into hetrosexual and homosexual? Whose brain are you referring to when you talk about differences in gross anatomy? How a woman's and a man's can be similar yet different how all are different in form.
I did not use the word "neuroplasticity" in reference to the different sized areas that develop in an individual's brains as that term covers changes .
"Neuroplasticity, also known as brain plasticity, is an umbrella term that encompasses both synaptic plasticity and non-synaptic plasticity—it refers to CHANGES in neural pathways and synapses which are due to changes in behavior, environment and neural processes, as well as changes resulting from bodily injury.[1] Neuroplasticity has replaced the formerly-held position that the brain is a physiologically static organ, and explores how - and in which ways - the brain changes throughout life."
You seem to be implying whatever you like from my exposure of the medias lies about "gay genes".
I am not disputing the differences between every individuals brain its obvious we are different in form and name what are we the same in and why is there a focus on separating human beings into "gay" and not gay.
edit on 19-2-2014 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   

EnderMEM
reply to post by BDBinc
 


Yes, all brains are individual, but the structures throughout the brains are similar from person to person.

Are you saying that homosexuality caused an increase neural input that caused the differentiation? So the individuals changed the size of their hemispheres and brain structures simply because they were homosexual?

What is your standpoint on homosexuality? Do you believe that homosexuals make the choice to be homosexual, or that their biology dictates sexual orientation.

To be clear on my standpoint: I believe that homosexuals are born homosexual and it is directly tied to their biology. I believe this due to multiple studies on brain (eg, measurements, fMRI, etc.) that I have gone through when I studied behavioral neurosciences as an undergraduate. I have dissected many brains, and have held them in my hands.


To be clear I have not given you a standpoint.
No I am not saying what I have not said and you can make up an argument on your own ideas & opinions but its with yourself as my point was clearly that the media release was untrue and there was no gay gene found.

All brains are different and the lobes can be( remarkably) different INDIVIDUAL to individual even in the same family.
And what latest evidence in neuroscience makes you believe what you believe.
Is there an idea babies are gay, how many gay babies brain MRI's and measurements from the study have your done. You know from behavioural neuroscience that it is impossible in human beings ( babies are not in a lab) to isolate the causes in brain differences to determine which was input from environment and which was hereditary.
Isn't this the problem we focus on the differences instead of the similarities.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


I agree that the ruling is still out on Xq28, although I'm not willing to throw away the possibility that something in Xq28 could contribute to homosexuality. The jury is still out at his point.

We do look at similarities in science, in this particular case we notes the similarities between heterosexual women and homosexual men in the hypothalamic region known as INAH-3 (these studies can be found in the journal of hormones and behavior). So the real question we have is a chicken and the egg type of question. Does the brain, in particular INAH-3 in the hypothalamus, dictate sexual orientation, or does sexual orientation dictate the size or INAH-3? What is your opinion on this? I believe that the levels of testosterone, or lack thereof, throughout gestation and early childhood will dictate the size of INAH-3, and thus cause homosexuality.

As for "mainstream science" being corrupt: a lot of this research happens at he university level. PhD students working with doctors in the field tirelessly on these findings. These findings are then presented to other scientists in the field, and get picked apart quite vigorously. If they ever make it to a journal then they have been picked apart by some of the leading experts in the field by many universities. Maybe the mainstream media will semsationalize this kind of report, but science uses it as just another stepping stone.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   

EnderMEM
reply to post by BDBinc
 


I agree that the ruling is still out on Xq28, although I'm not willing to throw away the possibility that something in Xq28 could contribute to homosexuality. The jury is still out at his point.

We do look at similarities in science, in this particular case we notes the similarities between heterosexual women and homosexual men in the hypothalamic region known as INAH-3 (these studies can be found in the journal of hormones and behavior). So the real question we have is a chicken and the egg type of question. Does the brain, in particular INAH-3 in the hypothalamus, dictate sexual orientation, or does sexual orientation dictate the size or INAH-3? What is your opinion on this? I believe that the levels of testosterone, or lack thereof, throughout gestation and early childhood will dictate the size of INAH-3, and thus cause homosexuality.

As for "mainstream science" being corrupt: a lot of this research happens at he university level. PhD students working with doctors in the field tirelessly on these findings. These findings are then presented to other scientists in the field, and get picked apart quite vigorously. If they ever make it to a journal then they have been picked apart by some of the leading experts in the field by many universities. Maybe the mainstream media will semsationalize this kind of report, but science uses it as just another stepping stone.


Xq28 is not a gay gene - the jury is not out on this.
The media does not usually correct its false claims.

I understand what you have been taught.
The field of science is corrupt and I am sorry you have yet to experience this. Of course science students memorize information given to them and work hard -no doubts there- but the hard genuine work at the bottom of the funding triangle does not stop the corruption at the top.
Science uses the media's sensational lies as a stepping stone?
Maybe it does and there is a symbiotic sick relationship where the public get fed untruths by the media (and real "science" doesn't think its in its interest to discredit the media).



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


Obviously I never said Xq28 was a gay gene, rather I sad that it could possibly be linked to homosexuality with more research. You are saying that no matter what, Xq28 is in no way related to homosexuality. You are very closed minded.

You do an excellent job evading questions too. I find no point in discussing any of this with you since you are unwilling to answer simple questions that I have asked you.

One thing go you clearly don't understand about science is an experiments reproducibility. I can do an experiment, write it down with my findings, and someone else can repeat it and try to debunk my findings. This literally happens all the time, and is the essence of scientific experimentation.





new topics




 
25
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join