There is no Homo Gene by 6ixStringJack

Well, in the case of behavioral genetic predisposition, that's all it is.. a bias in one direction or the other, as is environment, as is experience, each and every piece plays a part in the decision making process, but ultimately the decision is actually made by the person, cognitively.

Now, that predisposition may lead to experiences that further reinforce it, sure, I accept that, but to say it's a predestination, THAT I do not buy, no.. one can indeed make an active choice in spite of what those pre-loaded instincts are telling them, especially when they know that response is wrong for the situation.

To consider otherwise is to reduce us to mere animals - the gift of sentience is being able to make those choices, to tell your body to STFU when you walk by that taco bell in the mall and it's desires start clanging bells in the back of your brain in animal reaction.

Even long-ingrained reflexes, such as the hypervigilance response of PTSD, can eventually be subverted or retrained by a person with a will strong enough to do so, there's a whole branch of study via CITIVAS that has explored that issue pretty thoroughly.

Behavioral indicators may have a slightly higher impact the younger the test subject is, but as actual past experience becomes added to the mix, they become less and less of an influance on the decision making process because of how the human brain retains decision making data, it tends to bias more towards what has previously worked, rather than mere instinct, and it is those experiences and how they came to us, that refine the decision making process beyond instinct.

I'm with Jack on this one... predisposition, maybe, but predestination, never.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Anyone who believes so or claims so is foolish... even the science types, who undoubtedly know much more about our own Biology than I would ever claim to.

No, there's probably lots of genes that influence sexual orientation. If it's a choice alone, why do people still choose it where culture actively discourages it? I never chose to be Heterosexual, I am heterosexual, and if tomorrow I chose to become homosexual I still wouldn't find men sexually attractive. Sexual attraction is an automatic response, not a decision, like reaction to pain. When was the last time you decided to find fire painful? You didn't, fire is painful whether you want it to be or not. You can decide to override the natural decision to remove your hand, but the pain reaction stems from the genes.

Who you find attractive is probably encoded in your genes, what you do with that is entirely up to you. Our genes effect a lot about who we are, some people are more likely to put on weight than others, some people have blonde hair, some people have blue eyes, none of these things are decisions consciously made. They can all affect our lives in one way or another, but how we respond to those effects is the choice.

Casting everything as a choice is an illusion, often our situation has nothing or little to do with our choices, the choice is how we react to our situation.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:51 PM

Man... glad I don't live in that world.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Man... glad I don't live in that world.

An argument without parrellel I'm sure. So, when did you chose to have White skin, the truth of it is I don't once recall being asked what skin hue I wanted, but since everything is a choice I must have done. Why did you choose to be white jack?

EDIT:
With the inherent cultural issues the colour of your skin has without doubt affected who you are and what choices you have to make. Beyond that it has a bearing on who you choose to mate with, people tend to sleep with people of a similar race.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:19 AM

That last has more to do with how OTHER people react than anything else - believe me, I know all too fekkin well, and how ?

Cause I made the "mistake" of cross-racial dating in school back in the early-mid 80's, when it was pretty damn taboo, I liked the girl, she was a sweetheart, without a lot of the personal issues that make such relationships generally a disaster in progress.

Enter society and it's stupid bullshit.

Enter multiple fights over being a "race-traitor" from one end, and a "damn honkey" from the other, resulting in a level of violence that made the relationship unsustainable.

Enter her parents, who "had issues" with it and harrassed HER, a girl I considered fairly strong, mentally and emotionally, to the point of a bawling fit, then threatened to evict and disown her.

At least the worst I got from my own family was "well, if it makes you happy"... by that time it was pretty obvious to them I didn't give a damn about their prejudices, nor share em.

I just never considered it an issue, no more than that she was Taoist, or liked different music than I did.. people are *different* in so many ways, do we really WANT them to be all the same ?

It's fekking idiotic, and I have always regretted that happy relationship was ended, not by either one of us, but by external forces who had problems with something that was our personal business and not a bit of theirs.

All that bein said, I don't quite think yer gettin where Jack is coming from on this - it's not the pre-loaded biases that determine who we are as much as the decisions we make because of, or in spite of, them.

That's really what being self-aware is all about, innit ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:34 AM

STORYMARK

So, just so I'm getting this right, Jack: Anyone who believes that genetics determine preference is a loon, even if science supports it? And you base this on what exactly? You sole and un-refrenced insistance that sexuality is purely a matter of choice?

Sorry, but if the choice is between believing scientists who have done the research, and some guy waving his arms going "Nuh-uh", it's a pretty clear choice.

I can't believe you had to start a new thread for this, when you'd already said the exact same thing in the other thread.

Wave your arms a bit harder, maybe more folks will listen to ya.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That last has more to do with how OTHER people react than anything else - believe me, I know all too fekkin well, and how ?

Cause I made the "mistake" of cross-racial dating in school back in the early-mid 80's, when it was pretty damn taboo, I liked the girl, she was a sweetheart, without a lot of the personal issues that make such relationships generally a disaster in progress.

Sure, but often people choose not to, internally regardless of outside disagreement. Skin colour is, as they say merely skin deep, and it's an entirely genetic trait, no one chooses their skin colour. It also affects who we are, and who we associate with, some of that’s cultural undoubtedly, some of it's not.

Like homosexuality, sure we can decide to ignore our drives, part of being a grown up is not giving in to each and every little urge, but it's genes that describe who we find sexual attractive.

Quote:
All that bein said, I don't quite think yer gettin where Jack is coming from on this - it's not the pre-loaded biases that determine who we are as much as the decisions we make because of, or in spite of, them.

That's what I said, Frem. Sexual attraction is an automatic response we can not control; we control how we act on it. Jack suggests there's no 'gay gene' in the one breath saying there’s no genetic component, in the next saying there is. The confused wording aside, Jack seems very big on ‘everything is a choice’. It’s plain that who we are physically attracted to, is largely genetic, but how we act on that is up to us.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:54 AM

I think that is exactly what he was tryin to say, Cit, that how we act on it *is* up to us, he just didn't seem to get it across very well is all.

So I really think we're all in agreement here, barring some confusion over terminology.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:18 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Anyone who believes so or claims so is foolish... even the science types, who undoubtedly know much more about our own Biology than I would ever claim to.

Hunh.

A friend of mine was teaching lit in the Bible belt, and had a guest speaker visit the class. I forget the topic, but it was something marginally not approved of in the good book. After the speaker left, the teacher asked why the students hadn't asked more questions. They replied, "Oh, he's too smart, we can't argue with him. Besides, we know we're right."

My point being: Jack, you have reached Bible belt mentality with this post. Congrats!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:44 AM

FREDGIBLET

Since this thread is more popular then the original I'm reposting this here:

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
There is no homo gene. Anyone who believes so or claims so is foolish... even the science types.

Um, how exactly would you know that? Are you saying that you understand the functions of every gene in the human genome? 'Cuase if you do you could make a lot of money by writing up a list and selling it.

Quote:
I won't go so far as to say that genetics itself doesn't play a part though.

Contradicting your previous statement.

Quote:
Think about any of the extremely important decisions you've ever made in your life.... how many of them would you ever attribute to one experience you've had prior... one mistake or one triumph....?

Implying that homosexuality is a decision, while it is true that some make a conscious effort to override their sexuality the vast majority of people are the way they with no conscious choice involved.

Quote:
On that same note, why would somebody blame (or even praise) one single gene which was the basis for any decision?

We blame the breast cancer gene for breast cancer because it causes breast cancer, if the research pans out and it turns out that there is a specific gene which causes homosexuality in humans then what would you suggest we do? Ignore it? Humans are capable of overriding instincts consciously but the instincts are still present. No one that I'm aware of is suggesting praising the gay gene, though there will doubtless be people who will blame it.

Quote:
What is the point of being if all of our decisions are genetically encoded?

They aren't, all that's encoded in our genes is tendencies, your tendency to get a hardon while looking at naked women, a desire to protect people who are close to you. Without genetically encoded instincts to motivate us we wouldn't exist, the creatures with no instinctual drives die out from lack of reproduction, the ones with strong drives are the ones that survive.

Quote:
I don't believe pre-determined destiny in a religious aspect, and I'll be damned if I believe it in the scientific realm.

No one is suggesting that our genes dictate our entire lives, they encode tendencies into us, nothing more. Your genes don't determine whether or not you will be success in life, they don't determine whether or not you will get a great job, and they surely don't determine our choices for us. Our genes are the hand that dealt to us, what we do with it is up to us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 8:40 AM

JONGSSTRAW

I think we're all born gay. Our early childhood friendships form strong social bonds within our own gender group.
I don't know how it works out for females later on, but for guys, if you don't get a boner from hell in school by the 6th grade, you're probably gonna be gay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I think that is exactly what he was tryin to say, Cit, that how we act on it *is* up to us, he just didn't seem to get it across very well is all.

So I really think we're all in agreement here, barring some confusion over terminology.

Not exactly, I think people can decide how to act and behave, but not what sexual orientation they have, any more than one can chose to be male or female (at least without major surgery). Sure you can deny it, but it doesn't change the reality.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, just so I'm getting this right, Jack: Anyone who believes that genetics determine preference is a loon, even if science supports it? And you base this on what exactly? You sole and un-refrenced insistance that sexuality is purely a matter of choice?

Apparently you didn't get it straight there. Go back and read the part where I don't entirely discount genetics, but I will not believe that we can just blame our quirks and problems and choices on our genes alone.

Who made the "experts" experts anyhow? They're always changing their minds and I have no doubt that in my lifetime I will hear conflicting evidence on this issue many many times, just like I do with everything else in the scientific realm.

Hey Cit... how do you explain genetically a desire some men have for leather and PVC and an inability to react sexually in a "normal" relationship. I'm sure 200,000 years ago women weren't walking around with fishnet stockings and crotchless leather getups.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Hey Cit... how do you explain genetically a desire some men have for leather and PVC and an inability to react sexually in a "normal" relationship. I'm sure 200,000 years ago women weren't walking around with fishnet stockings and crotchless leather getups.

I'm not the black and white extremist here Jack. Homosexuality is nothing like a predilection for leather, and it rather sounds like a bias of your own that you wish to make it seem as so. The two situations are entirely dissimilar; one is "who are you attracted to" (an automatic reaction, that no one 'decides') the other is a concious decision of how you choose to express that attraction. So at the very base issue, if you really think sexual orientation is a choice, at some point you must have made a concious choice for your own. When was that, jack? And if not, what does that say for your theory?

I'm not suggesting nothing is a choice, or that everything is genetic, I'm suggesting that sexual orientation is genetic. The same way that being born male or female isn't a choice, unless you think your sex was a choice as well?

EDITED for clarity.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:27 PM

I don't see any difference between sexual orientation and sexual fetishes. Seem exactly the same to me.

meh... whatever gets you off.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:35 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
I think that is exactly what he was tryin to say, Cit, that how we act on it *is* up to us, he just didn't seem to get it across very well is all.

I don't think *anyone*, not even the most outspoken gay activist, feels like a gene for X means we are predestined to X behavior. At least I've never heard it.

Here is the debate on homosexuality:

1. Is the sexual preference learned or biologically determined, or a little of both?
2. Is the sexual preference, be it from nature or nurture, pathological? Should it be treated or changed?
3. If it exists and cannot be changed, should it be acted upon? It is morally or otherwise offensive to act upon these sexual preferences?

Gay activists argue that sexual preference is biologically determined (genetic). And even if it isn't genetic, who cares? They advocate that there is nothing wrong with it, so it should not be treated or inhibited.

Homosexuality opponents argue that it is learned in whole or in part. They view homosexuality as a pathological act that should not be induldged, akin to pedophilia.

Then there are people in between. I know a saint of a woman who believed it was a biological birth defect that shouldn't be acted on.

But if it is indeed biologically determined, it is a hell of a thing to ask someone to be celibate forever and not know the joys and fulfillment of sexual intimacy, just because it offends some people otherwise. Is it the place of anyone else to make such an enormous request?

If it is not biologically determined, it is assumed that people who can learn the preference can unlearn it. But if it isn't hurting anyone, why put these folks through the ordeal?

How would we feel if someone determined that Firefly was offensive and wanted to put us through reeducation camps to unlearn our love of Firefly?

My position is: why is it their business? Does it matter if my love for vanilla ice cream is learned or biological? What's it to them?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:54 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't see any difference between sexual orientation and sexual fetishes. Seem exactly the same to me.

Whether you use leather or not doesn't have to leave the bedroom. Who you choose to mate with does.

Marriage is a social institution as well as a private contract. Who you take to all the company picnics, Thanksgiving dinners, and PTA meetings for a child matters. It is nice to be able to do all those things without people looking askance at you.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I swear people are born with "personalities". You can have identical twins raised in the same environment and they'll behave very differently. So of course it's not genetics.... it's all about prenatal development!

www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_peop
le_gay/

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:20 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_peop
le_gay/

Thanks for the article. How interesting!

And it brings up a good point I failed to mention. Gay activist seek to determine the innateness of homosexuality to seek civil rights protections under the law. If it isn't a choice, then they can't be discriminated against. This is a huge part of the debate, actually.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., founder of homeopathy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't see any difference between sexual orientation and sexual fetishes. Seem exactly the same to me.

meh... whatever gets you off.

You can't see the difference between an attraction and an expression of attraction?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:01 PM

Not by your apparent definitons and differentiations of the two.

I suppose a guy who likes hitting sheep from behind is just expressing his attraction then?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:41 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

In my opinion, Roleplaying games (like Cyberpunk or D&D) have always been a good analogy to genetic predisposition versus choice/life experience.

Let’s say you have a character with an Intelligence of 10 and a Strength of 18. He is predispositioned to be a good Fighter. However, you can choose to make him a Mage, in which case his spellcasting potential is truncated and his strength goes largely untapped. It would be an easier life for this character to be a fighter, but you can choose to go against the grain and make him a Mage if you want.

Similarly, a Neutral Evil character is Narcissistic and self-centered, with perhaps some sadistic overtones. Yet despite these inherent character traits, he may risk his life to save someone he loves. This goes against his predisposition, but is a choice he could choose to make.

Further, a Neutral Evil character who continues to perform good acts risks a change in alignment. This change is difficult, and involves making many good choices over a period of time. Eventually, however, he can change his demeanor and outlook based on active attempts to change the choices he makes.

I equate stat-blocks and alignment to ‘genetics’ while leaving the option open for life choices and experience to take the individual in an unexpected direction (becoming a mage, changing alignment.)

The reason I think people tend to follow their genetic profile more often than not is because it is the path of least resistance.

Incidentally, I think the movie Gattaca deals with this issue rather well.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:45 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

As an aside, if Homosexuality turns out to be a genetic predisposition, then the near-eradication of Homosexuality might be achieved by religious extremists if they simply do the following:

Embrace the idea of homosexuality, treat homosexuals as valued equals, and promote gay marriage.

By not encouraging homosexuals to enter sham relationships and marraiges, you promote the elimination of the ‘gay gene.’ Essentially, the gene would be largely bred out of existence.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:53 PM

Good movie, rather chilling, but good.

As for the rest, that's why I always got a bang out of Chaotic Neutral - you can do anything, anytime, anywhere, and never have to answer to your divinities over it.

-F

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As for the rest, that's why I always got a bang out of Chaotic Neutral - you can do anything, anytime, anywhere, and never have to answer to your divinities over it.

Like hitting a sheep from behind... just for the feck of it.

Giggity, Giggity... Giggity, Goo

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:10 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/13/japan.mouse.ap/index.html

Using genetic engineering, scientists at Tokyo University say they have successfully switched off the rodents' instinct to cower at the smell or presence of cats -- showing that fear is genetically hardwired and not learned through experience, as commonly believed.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I suppose a guy who likes hitting sheep from behind is just expressing his attraction then?

Usually they're expressing desperation. I also think you're going down a bad road trying to draw parallels between a natural sexual attraction between consenting adults, and a perversion like beastiality. There are reasons nature would find it advantages to code for varying sexual orientations, there are not for things like beastiality.

You don't choose who you're attracted to, you either are or you aren't; that's true no matter what sex you go for. How you choose to express that attraction is a choice consciously made. Attraction is based on various physical factors, the mechanisms based on providing the best possible genetic match for viable off-spring. Different species can't be coded for in that way, but same sex relationships can be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
By not encouraging homosexuals to enter sham relationships and marraiges, you promote the elimination of the ‘gay gene.’ Essentially, the gene would be largely bred out of existence.

Not really, it's a different functioning of how a series of genes we all have operate, not a 'gay gene'. Homosexuals are most often born to Heterosexual couples, and I doubt that is because on or both of the partners are in 'sham' relationships.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I suppose a guy who likes hitting sheep from behind is just expressing his attraction then?
Usually they're expressing desperation. I also think you're going down a bad road trying to draw parallels between a natural sexual attraction between consenting adults, and a perversion like beastiality. There are reasons nature would find it advantages to code for varying sexual orientations, there are not for things like beastiality.

So says you. I don't think you're in any position to say if a sheep-banger is doing so out of attraction or out of desperation, unless you yourself were a sheep-banger. I'm not convinced that they are the akin to each other, but I'm also not convinced that beastiality or pedophilism is any different than homosexuality, as far as perversions go.

I'm not judging... Personally, I don't care what gets your rocks off... and I'm certainly not going to string anybody up by their gonads for their choices. I'm just saying that it's funny that we can somehow justify homosexuality today with genetic code but we can't justify the others with it. Seems more like political correctness run amok to me...

Just you watch... I bet it won't be long before we're justifying pedophilism and beastiality by blaming them on genetics too, just like homosexuality and obesity. We just haven't gotten to that point yet. Still a lot of envelope to push before we get there. Still a lot of less extreme quirks, problems and eccentricities that we need to get the general public to believe isn't the consequences of their own choices before we start tackling the REAL controversial topics.

I suppose there needs to be just a bit more church bashing taking place before the proles get to that point too. Don't fret.... It won't be long now kiddies.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 3:59 AM

Quote:
I'm just saying that it's funny that we can somehow justify homosexuality today with genetic code but we can't justify the others with it. Seems more like political correctness run amok to me...

Or maybe people don't see sexual predators praying on Children as equivalent to an equal relationship between consenting adults, even if those adults do happen to share the same sex. It's not funny at all, research shows that one is genetic, and the other is not; you're putting the cart before the Horse and then saying "it's funny how everyone thinks horse have something to do with carts". What really is funny (funny bizarre) is that you say in the one breath you've got nothing against homosexuality, and in the other are trying to pass it off as simply a choice that is akin to the choice of paedophilia.

Quote:
Just you watch... I bet it won't be long before we're justifying pedophilism and beastiality by blaming them on genetics too, just like homosexuality and obesity.

Not really. We 'blame' hair colour, eye colour and most other physical traits on genetics too, oh no we've opened the door to saying serial killers are genetic! Slippery slope fallacies are fun and all, but not only have you failed to disprove the real science here, you've failed to show any compelling link between it and paedophilia or bestiality, or any evidence that the scientific evidence is merely made up in the name of 'political correctness'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:17 AM

Cits's post..... (above)

.... Meanwhile....

We're gladly giving all of our personal liberties to our Masters because we are incapable of making decisions for ourselves about our weight, the way we pass time when we're not at work and basically anything else that the religious world would call a sin. We are allowing our governments to legally say that what used to be called a sin (a byproduct of personal choice) is punishable by law.

This situation hasn't improved with our scientific "awakenings". Look around you Cit. You live in the UK so you know at least as well as I do that your life is being much more micromanaged than peoples lives could ever possibly be 200 years ago. Sure, we're not burning witches anymore, but what's to say that the powers that be won't start again one day, based on any demographical whim (with no way to stop them, due to technology and centralized power)? Enjoy the party while it lasts.

You're intentionally misreading what I'm saying Cit because you see me in a particular light already and wrap my words around the mold you have of me in your mind.I'm not arguing anything with you here and I'm not attacking homosexuality. You misread my intentions here.

But you hit the nail on the head... it is a slippery slope indeed.

I am neither a slave to my genes or religion, at least I choose to believe so. But I did speak to a pastor once who said that people always need something to follow. If it is not God, than it will be something else.

There just aren't many born leaders, and I seriously doubt if you or I are one.

Trust me... I'm in by no means calling myself a saint. If there is an afterlife, and we are judged soley on our actions, I have little doubt that I wouldn't be passing that exam right now. Some of my extracurricular activities in my short life make homosexuality look like Candyland. Of course it's all among consentual adults, mind you, but homosexuality is simply the surface of the rabbit hole that is visible to the majority of the proles. It gets a lot deeper, and you never read about it in Encyclopedia Britannica....

There are dark things down here that a lot of people don't want to see, and probably shouldn't. Unfortunately for most, there are also wonderful pleasurable addictive things that are helping a movement slowly creep forward and gain momentum.

Once they've broken the surface, ain't no way you or I are going to be able to put that shit back in the horse, assuming at that point that we even wanted to.

Maybe we should discuss the worship gene, if there is one. You know, the one that makes us believe so strongly in whatever material or ethereal entity which tells us what to believe, think and follow.

EDITED TO ADD: Do whatever you want to do people, just don't let somebody tell you that you're doing it because you have been pre-programmed to do it. Sure, it may be convenient to say that you are fat because you're predisposed or you are an alcaholic because you're predisposed, but to just give up and go with that flow is to say that your mind doesn't matter and your desires don't matter.

I have plenty of things that I'm not proud of, but I will not allow myself ever to say that they were done because I didn't have a choice. That's something that the Son of Sam would say....

You don't have any imaginary dogs telling you what to do, do you?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:32 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've seen too many examples of people reacting to changes in their brain chemistry and not even knowing it - to say that your brain doesn't determine who you are.

Maybe some of it is genetic, some environmental and some self-induced. But your brain is who you are.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You're intentionally misreading what I'm saying Cit because you see me in a particular light already and wrap my words around the mold you have of me in your mind.I'm not arguing anything with you here and I'm not attacking homosexuality. You misread my intentions here.

I'm reading what you're writing here, not what you wrote before. I'm laying out what I'm saying more than telling you what you are saying. I've actually asked you a few questions throughout the thread that would have helped understanding immensely, but you ignored them. If I've misunderstood your intent, it's not through lack of trying on my part.

Quote:
But you hit the nail on the head... it is a slippery slope indeed.

The slippery slope is a fallacy. You seem to have hand waved some link between homosexuality and the fall of freedom in there somewhere, but saying "X leads to B" doesn't make it so.

Quote:
There are dark things down here that a lot of people don't want to see, and probably shouldn't. Unfortunately for most, there are also wonderful pleasurable addictive things that are helping a movement slowly creep forward and gain momentum.

I take it I'm missing some deep hidden truism that you have gleaned though your education in the 'University of life', that I could never hope to understand as I learnt everything I know from the 'encyclopaedia Britannica'...

Quote:
Maybe we should discuss the worship gene, if there is one. You know, the one that makes us believe so strongly in whatever material or ethereal entity which tells us what to believe, think and follow.

There's a 'God Spot' in the brain that is active in religious belief, if that's what you mean. Beyond that I haven't a clue what you’re trying to say, or think that this proves.

Quote:
Do whatever you want to do people, just don't let somebody tell you that you're doing it because you have been pre-programmed to do it. Sure, it may be convenient to say that you are fat because you're predisposed or you are an alcaholic because you're predisposed, but to just give up and go with that flow is to say that your mind doesn't matter and your desires don't matter.

So to suggest that Women are Women and Men are Men because of genetics is to suggest our minds don't matter? Or are something’s being genetic ok, and only the things you've arbitrarily decided are a choice not to be questioned? If the latter I must ask, what does God need with an internet forum

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:48 AM

Without even reading the rest of your post (which I will do after posting this), please lay out your questions to me which I ignored. I have no clue what you're talking about.

EDITED TO ADD: As for the rest of it, you should try stand up. In fact, I got Russel Simmons on the phone and wants to know if you want to be a part of the Def Comedy Jam revival.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:16 AM

I asked why people still 'chose' to be Homosexual even where culture actively discourages it. That is, if it's only a choice, and theres no specific reason for someone to be Homosexual over Heterosexual, why would people choose to put themselves in to a position to be persecuted. I can see it if it's not a choice, but if it is why purposefully choose to be persecuted?

I also asked whether you ever had to conciously decide to be Heterosexual, and if not what the implications of that were.

And:
So to suggest that Women are Women and Men are Men because of genetics is to suggest our minds don't matter?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:30 AM

I believe I put myself in a position where I'm at the very least judged severely, if not persecuted myself on a regular basis here. I fail to see where you're getting at here.

I didn't consiencly decide if I was hetrosexual. Hetrosexuality has always been natural... although, I myself have been a victim to 28 years of advertizing and media, so who knows how much of that was my choice and how much of it was implanted over the years. I did however spend years, and continue to spend years, doing things that society would never consider the "norm", and would even consider to be less "normal" than homosexuality if it were ever put to a Gallop poll.

I do not blame predestination for that in a religious or genetic sense. My decisions have been my own and I just don't take too kindly to somebody telling me that I am a slave to my genetics.

Quote:
And:
So to suggest that Women are Women and Men are Men because of genetics is to suggest our minds don't matter?

Any transexuals on this board? You don't have to out yourself for this question, and I would never suggest you do, but I would think very carefully about this question....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I believe I put myself in a position where I'm at the very least judged severely, if not persecuted myself on a regular basis here. I fail to see where you're getting at here.

You've hardly been murdered, strung up or hounded. Calling the odd cross word on this forum 'persecution' is hardly a realistic statement.

Quote:
I didn't consiencly decide if I was hetrosexual. Hetrosexuality has always been natural...

And what makes something natural? You're say so? Pronouncement from a divine being? Our genes? What? What basis do you have for saying Heterosexuality is natural, and Homosexuality isn't?

Quote:
I do not blame predestination for that in a religious or genetic sense. My decisions have been my own and I just don't take too kindly to somebody telling me that I am a slave to my genetics.

I was born Male, and white, this was not my choice, but that says nothing beyond that; just as your paragraph neatly says nothing about Homosexuality. So you don't 'blame' your choices on your genes, wonderful give yourself a gold star, that doesn't mean Homosexuality isn't genetic, or for that matter natural.

Quote:
Any transexuals on this board? You don't have to out yourself for this question, and I would never suggest you do, but I would think very carefully about this question....

Not really. A transsexual operation isn't simply a 'choice' as you blithely suggest Homosexuality is. One can't wake up in the morning and say "you know what, I choose to be a Woman today" and bam, there goes your external genitals. It's a lengthy and harrowing operation, not just simply a choice.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:14 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
By not encouraging homosexuals to enter sham relationships and marraiges, you promote the elimination of the ‘gay gene.’ Essentially, the gene would be largely bred out of existence.
Not really, it's a different functioning of how a series of genes we all have operate, not a 'gay gene'. Homosexuals are most often born to Heterosexual couples, and I doubt that is because on or both of the partners are in 'sham' relationships.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Hello,

Are you suggesting it is a genetic trait that is not hereditary, even in a recessive capacity? A random genetic mutation of some kind?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Are you suggesting it is a genetic trait that is not hereditary, even in a recessive capacity? A random genetic mutation of some kind?

Perhaps it's a mechanism similar to sex determination? I don't know, but parents don't have to be Homosexual to have Homosexual children, and Homosexual parents (assuming a lesbian had a child with a gay man) won't necessarilly have Homosexual offspring.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Are you suggesting it is a genetic trait that is not hereditary, even in a recessive capacity? A random genetic mutation of some kind?
Perhaps it's a mechanism similar to sex determination? I don't know, but parents don't have to be Homosexual to have Homosexual children, and Homosexual parents (assuming a lesbian had a child with a gay man) won't necessarilly have Homosexual offspring.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Hello,

There are many genetic traits that are 'not necessarily' prominent in the parents that are nontheless passed on as part of the genetic code.

There are numerous genetic traits that, even if present in both parents, will only be prominent in a percentage of the offspring.

They are no less hereditary.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There are many genetic traits that are 'not necessarily' prominent in the parents that are nontheless passed on as part of the genetic code.

There are numerous genetic traits that, even if present in both parents, will only be prominent in a percentage of the offspring.

They are no less hereditary.

If you want to be that inclusive, then all genetic traits are hereditary. Suppressed or Active genes notwithstanding.

What I meant is that nature through some bizarre balancing act manage to even out the number of Women to Men, it's possible that Homosexuals have a natural niche in Human society that means nature throws up a certain percentage to that end. So not necessarily hereditary more than the sex of the child is hereditary.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:50 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

So you believe that homosexuals may possess some species-needed talent or trait, and that is why they keep surfacing in nature?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 6:54 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

No homo gene?

well what do you call this?

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/1481857021078586425TAJqkm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:00 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I believe I put myself in a position where I'm at the very least judged severely, if not persecuted myself on a regular basis here.

Going against the norm.

Quote:
I didn't consiencly decide if I was hetrosexual. Hetrosexuality has always been natural...

Going with the norm.

So, why do you go against the herd sometimes and not others? What makes you feel strongly enough to choose your own way in certain things, while accepting others without question?

Look, I'm not saying genetics pre-determines you. I don't think anyone but you is making that leap - the equivalence of genetics and pre-destination (as in, lack of choice and responsibility) seems to be your own assumption.

OK, moving on. Imagine this: two children are sexually abused in the same household. One responds by becoming hypersexual, the other becomes completely non-sexual. Why the difference? Clearly both behaviors are a product of their environment, but the behaviors are very different, so there must be something else at work. Could it be... hard-wired personality?

One more thing for Jack - I find it disturbing that you suggest that homosexuality is a condition requiring blame or very least a statement of responsility. There is no victim. Pedophilia has a victim. Beastiality has a victim. (I can't imagine that the sheep likes it...) The latter do not in any way compare to homosexuality.

[edited for clarity]
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
So you believe that homosexuals may possess some species-needed talent or trait, and that is why they keep surfacing in nature?

There's numerous examples in nature of how non-breeding couples are useful for child rearing. Today we have childminders and Nurseries, but Homosexual non-breeding couples could be the natural equivelent. There's evidence of homosexuals in many social species.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:08 AM

"Using genetic engineering, scientists at Tokyo University say they have successfully switched off the rodents' instinct to cower at the smell or presence of cats -- showing that fear is genetically hardwired and not learned through experience, as commonly believed."

Hey Rue ?

Can you find me any more information (preferably in english) on this study ?

Might come in handy for some rather passionate discussion about why my sisters kids act and react how they do, which imop, has not a thing to do with mental illness... grrr.

About 60% or so of the family is "fearless", which has lead to a great deal of hassle in a few situations where it is a natural defense/warning mechanism that goes unheard and unheeded.

It'd be nice to hand them some *other* explaination other than "because they're crazy and need to be medicated into submission" for once, even if I don't exactly fully buy it myself.

So if you can find me a link to the study concept and results I can print out and slap on the desk of these berks, that would be nice...

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:12 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

That's interesting, actually. Kind of a caste system. But if that's the function, it would hardly seem to be needed in the human animal, and I'm not clear on when it would have ever been needed.

Or the fruit fly, for that matter.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
That's interesting, actually. Kind of a caste system. But if that's the function, it would hardly seem to be needed in the human animal, and I'm not clear on when it would have ever been needed.

Looking after children before we invented Nurseries and Childminders? Homosexuality could be benign population control in Fruit Flies, though I'm not sure if it happens naturally, all I know is that scientists can switch the behaviour on and off, not whether it occurs in nature.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:20 AM