Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[vyo476]

So you are also ok with brothers marrying sisters, mothers marrying sons or daughters, fathers marrying sons or daughters, or grandparents marrying grandchildren?

Unless one or more parties are not of the age of consent, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I wouldn't do it personally...but I wouldn't restrict others in pursuing such a course of action.

I know what you're thinking. Inbreeding is bad for the kids. You're right - gene pool depletion can result in some pretty nasty diseases. However, we can't restrict peoples' right to marry who they want based on genetics - if we did, we'd have to bar people with genetic disorders, like Huntington's Disease or Cystic Fibrosis from marrying as well, as they might produce children with genetic problems.

If the methodology of a study is flawed, then there is, and should be no requirement to accept the results of the study. Are you suggesting otherwise? Following that logic, no one ever gets to the truth because whatever they want to prove can be proved by tailoring the study to produce the results they wish to get. There are standard and accepted methodologies to achieve truthful and unbiased conclusions. If a group deviates from those standards, the results should be immediately called into question.

Take reliant's study for example that "proves" that conservatives are any number of terrible things. If you look at the study, however, you see that it is a psychological profile of conservatives by psychologists but no conservatives were actually talked to during the course of the study and some of the most notorious leftist dictators of the 20th century were held up as prime examples of right wing behavior. Do you accept the results of the study on its face even though the methodology was terribly flawed at its most basic level?

Whatever.

Proving that the studies that show homosexuality to be on par with heterosexuality are not done right does not prove that homosexuality is not on par with heterosexuality. The only way you can get to that conclusion is by wagging your finger in the faces of the people who conducted the study (and the people who have accepted the study) and tell them that they did it with a biased motivation. This type of thinking is right up there with conspiracy nuts asserting that since there was something odd about the collapse of WTC 7, obviously the federal government perpetrated 9/11, or invest's assertion that the uniqueness of DNA proves the existence of the Christian God. None of these situations offer proof, just evidence that requires further evidence to be considered proof.

So. You're going to have to do better.

 

[palerider]

Proving that the studies that show homosexuality to be on par with heterosexuality are not done right does not prove that homosexuality is not on par with heterosexuality.

Proving that the children of homosexuals do as well as the children of heterosexuals is done by testing using standard and approved methodologies. If a test deviates from the standard, one must wonder why the testers deviated. Certainly at that level they know the standards so why deviate?

The only logical conclusion is that they could see early on that the results were not going to match the conclusions they wanted so the methods were skewed in order to acheve the desired result. It happens all the time.

Do you accept the results of all flawed studies or just those that, on the surface, substantiate your position?

 

[r0beph]

I can name heredetary diseases that can, and are passed via unrelated couples, if you like, that will produce problems far more serious than the possibilities that you list here. Do you favor genetic screening and denial of the right to marry of any couple who may transmit a genetic disease to their children?

I don't think you understand the dire situation that inbreeding creates. Genetic expression is extreme in normally repressed genes. The frequency in which such genes will express themselves in the children of such couples is well above that which is medically sound to support any such relationship. You're eschewing the actual problem with that nonsense, of course there are plenty of very serious consequences to two people with not very complimenting genetic structures. The problem however lies in the FREQUENCY of occurrence. Even as a carrier for a gene, someone isn't assured that it will show, however were they to reproduce with their sibling, chances are it will definitely along with many other problems. There is enough scientific data to dissuade anyone with even a slight sub-IQ from wanting to reproduce with their family you can google, I know you can, look it up. trying to straw man with some nonsense about gene testing prospective parents is ludicrous and disregarded.

 

[r0beph]

Are you arguing that the arguments that I put forth with regard to the methodology of the two specific studies noted are invalid or is this just some more childish sniping from the sidelines on your part?

If the flaws that I pointed out are invalid, by all means make the argument.

heh, most of what you say is flawed and consists of you mincing things to fit your flawed reasoning, that's a pretty much accepted fact here on these boards I'm sure.

 

[palerider]

I don't think you understand the dire situation that inbreeding creates. Genetic expression is extreme in normally repressed genes. The frequency in which such genes will express themselves in the children of such couples is well above that which is medically sound to support any such relationship. You're eschewing the actual problem with that nonsense, of course there are plenty of very serious consequences to two people with not very complimenting genetic structures. The problem however lies in the FREQUENCY of occurrence. Even as a carrier for a gene, someone isn't assured that it will show, however were they to reproduce with their sibling, chances are it will definitely along with many other problems. There is enough scientific data to dissuade anyone with even a slight sub-IQ from wanting to reproduce with their family you can google, I know you can, look it up. trying to straw man with some nonsense about gene testing prospective parents is ludicrous and disregarded.

My education is in biochemistry and I make my living in the field, and am neither misunderstanding the issue or underestimating it. You are clearly overestimating the risks. I asked a question. Are you OK with letting family members marry? It seems that you are not, and your logic for denying them the "right" doesn't hold uip since more serious heredetary problems may be transmitted via non related couples.

With regard to the frequency of occurrence, the likelyhood of problems arising is in direct proportion to the number of generations that have been inbred. The "chance" of an undesirable trait expressing itself doesn't become a real concern until you are inbreeding siblings from inbred parents from inbred grandparents to the 4th or 5th generation. There are quite a few historical examples of very close inbreeding over a very large number of generations that clearly indicate that there is nothing "dire" associated with the practice. Consider the Egyptians, or the Romans. Hell, look at the royal family in Great Brittan.

John M. Goggin and William C. Sturtevant (1964) list at least 8 societies that allowed sibling marriage among commoners as well as thirty-five societies that allow sibling marriage between persons of high status.

By the way, if you had any knowledge of animal husbandry (which also applies to humans), you would know that inbreeding can just as easily result in a superior offspring and siblings are very often inbred to strengthen desirable traits.

 

[palerider]

heh, most of what you say is flawed and consists of you mincing things to fit your flawed reasoning, that's a pretty much accepted fact here on these boards I'm sure.

Feel free to prove a single instance. Your reasoning is more flawed than the studies I challenged.

 

[Segep]

I can't believe that some of you with no stake in this argument have been able to carry on and whine for months over something that doesn't affect you in the least. Heckuva job.

I can't help but wonder if you have some sort of stake in this after all. Why else would you make my sex life and my relationships such a high priority in your life? There is something in you that desperately needs society to reject homosexuals. Perhaps so you will feel better about rejecting something deeply buried inside yourselves? Hmmmm.....

Well, whatever. Keep on doing whatever it is you need to do to get through life. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying the acceptance of my friends, coworkers and community members, all of whom are smarter than you. They know damned well my partner and I present a threat to no one. Even the dumbest, most ignorant guy in the neighborhood (who has had the cops called on him for being a dumbass several times in the three months since he moved in) lives next door to us and seems to be OK with our relationship.

Coming here makes me realize how thankful I am that I live among educated people.

 

[Popeye]

I can't believe that some of you with no stake in this argument have been able to carry on and whine for months over something that doesn't affect you in the least. Heckuva job.

I can't help but wonder if you have some sort of stake in this after all. Why else would you make my sex life and my relationships such a high priority in your life? There is something in you that desperately needs society to reject homosexuals. Perhaps so you will feel better about rejecting something deeply buried inside yourselves? Hmmmm.....

Well, whatever. Keep on doing whatever it is you need to do to get through life. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying the acceptance of my friends, coworkers and community members, all of whom are smarter than you. They know damned well my partner and I present a threat to no one. Even the dumbest, most ignorant guy in the neighborhood (who has had the cops called on him for being a dumbass several times in the three months since he moved in) lives next door to us and seems to be OK with our relationship.

Coming here makes me realize how thankful I am that I live among educated people.

Don't let them get to you, they're obsessed with you and others like you because half of the Republican party is in the closet.

 

[palerider]

I can't believe that some of you with no stake in this argument have been able to carry on and whine for months over something that doesn't affect you in the least. Heckuva job.

I can't help but wonder if you have some sort of stake in this after all. Why else would you make my sex life and my relationships such a high priority in your life? There is something in you that desperately needs society to reject homosexuals. Perhaps so you will feel better about rejecting something deeply buried inside yourselves? Hmmmm.....

Well, whatever. Keep on doing whatever it is you need to do to get through life. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying the acceptance of my friends, coworkers and community members, all of whom are smarter than you. They know damned well my partner and I present a threat to no one. Even the dumbest, most ignorant guy in the neighborhood (who has had the cops called on him for being a dumbass several times in the three months since he moved in) lives next door to us and seems to be OK with our relationship.

Coming here makes me realize how thankful I am that I live among educated people.

Tell me, what "right" do married heterosexuals have (with the exception of the marriage tax on their income) are you unable to secure for yourself via a decent lawyer?

 

[palerider]

Don't let them get to you, they're obsessed with you and others like you because half of the Republican party is in the closet.

Any evidence to support that statement or is just more of your unsupported, uncorroborated spew?

You have a sad and pitiful habit of saying things that you can't defend on any intellectual level. Is this just another example?

 

[Segep]

Tell me, what "right" do married heterosexuals have (with the exception of the marriage tax on their income) are you unable to secure for yourself via a decent lawyer?

Tell me, what stake do you have in this?

How about the the same right to legal recognition of my relationship without having to spend an arm and a leg on lawyers?

"Same sex couples want the right to marry the person they love, she said. Kotulski told the story of a couple from California who were traveling and needed to go to an emergency room in Maryland. They had the power of attorney and other legal documents, but had left them at home. The hospital in Maryland refused to allow the injured partner, Robert, visitation with his partner until Robert’s parents arrived. However, it was too late. "Robert had died alone" Kotulski said.

Kotulski also pointed out that federal employees cannot give their pensions to their partners upon death and that spouses cannot collect unemployment insurance if a couple moves so one partner can take another job. She went on to describe about 10 or 15 of the 1,938 rights that gay couples don’t have. "Even inmates on death row have a fundamental right to marry, according to the Supreme Court," she observed. "Scott Peterson, who killed his pregnant wife, has the right to marry".

http://www.whygaymarriage.com/newsletter.php/9

 

[Popeye]

Any evidence to support that statement or is just more of your unsupported, uncorroborated spew?

You have a sad and pitiful habit of saying things that you can't defend on any intellectual level. Is this just another example?

Yes, that's right, it's just another example of my "sad and pitiful habit of saying things" I can't defend. Look, you know, as well as I, that a considerable percentage of "family values" Republicans are in the stall,er, closet.

 

[jb_1430]

I can't believe that some of you with no stake in this argument have been able to carry on and whine for months over something that doesn't affect you in the least. Heckuva job.

Ive detected quite a bit of whining on these gay topiced threads, all of it from the gay whiners and their supporters. Its our nation. We have every stake in this arguement. We dont want our government licensing and regulating human relationships when their is no rational purpose in doing so. And we dont want our government to actually support, promote and endorse gay relationships for no reason other than trying to make gays feel better about themselves.

 

[Coyote]

Ive detected quite a bit of whining on these gay topiced threads, all of it from the gay whiners and their supporters. Its our nation. We have every stake in this arguement. We dont want our government licensing and regulating human relationships when their is no rational purpose in doing so. And we dont want our government to actually support, promote and endorse gay relationships for no reason other than trying to make gays feel better about themselves.

It's their nation too.


Funny thing - allowing gay marriage will have no real affect on you but banning it will have a substantial affect on them.

 

[Coyote]

Tell me, what stake do you have in this?

How about the the same right to legal recognition of my relationship without having to spend an arm and a leg on lawyers?

I think there is also the issue of survivor's benefits and pensions that even a good lawyer can't get if you aren't married.