SirRiff

CRAIG penty of sources? i dont ever recall seeing more then one or two links, and i even forget where i saw those, in this thread or maybe somewhere else. again, i ask, if you guys remember where they are exactly, please copy and paste them for me, i barely remember anything anymore. while i agree craig that good sources for this kind of statistical argument is good, i dont want to get into just a source war. Yes i will definatly look for something reputable considering its an interesting topic (it may take some digging around), but the only thing of value would be a huge long term independant study, like from the CDC or something, and i dont think they exist. so the while its good to cite external references, i think a philosophical logical approach is also very productive. i just wanted to say we shouldnt get caught up with #s of links as strength of an argument. the great thinkers of history probably had reference to very little reference material. now in term of this specific statement, i do belive it to be true and i specifically remember hearing it on some somt of medical investigation series on an american news program. in truth of all the "suspicious" paternity tests done, something like 1 in 7 come back to unpresumed fathers. so the greater point is that heterosexuals are very promiscious as well, so just being promiscuis cannot be fairly used as a failing of homosexuals. even the degree is questionable, who gets to decide that 100 partners is ok but 31 isnt? if someone had sex safe with 573 partners over 40 years, does society have any right to judge? i would say no on philosophical and ethical grounds. see i dont agree that your using the world "natural" in even a remotely ethical way. i think you are using it as anything that doesnt match your perception is unnatural, but in reality thats not what natural means. it is an absolute scientific truth that sexual behavior is genetically hardwired. it must be for the laws of biology to work (and they do). thus the only thing standing between gayness being "natural" is finding the narrow sexual prefernce of humans being influenced by genetics. i personally think its unthinkable for it not to be, considering all the genetic influence on almost all human behavior. it makes no sense that it wouldnt be and lots of sense that it would. i humbly suggest (without elicting the wrath of Ronda) that the vast majority of citizens or politicians couldnt make heads or tails of genetic "evidence" if presented with it ona silver platter. its a very complicated and specalized science, often takes decades to "prove" conclusively, is easily held back by the flaws of society, and when dealing with something as complex as human sexual behavour it will most likely NEVER give you a simple answer like 47.5%. it just wont. you cant reduce human behavior to numbers and correlations. we are just too complex and too hard to measure. i belive homosexual attraction, just like heterosexual attraction, is strongly influenced by inherited characteristics. thus it would be as natural as blue eyes regardless of how it is encoded or complexly hidden. so the problem is really what are we asking craig? we can say 1. can we reasonably and ethically make a case against homosexuality on the grounds its presents a uniqure and specific threat to the health and welfare of society? 2. and if so, how does it present a greater danger then various other accepted sub populations of citizens? examples young males are far more likely to die and kill and traffic accidents and other riskly behaviors. societies response is to the harmfull behavior itself, trying to mitigate the damgae, not to the people themselves, regardless of what the root cause is. young black males in inner cities are far more likely to enage in drug crimes (and are way overrepresented in the jail system) and violence then their white middle class counter parts. is this due to thier deviant makeup or socio- economc pressure? disadvantaged minority groups, like low income blacks and latinos have higher average birth rates and higher sexual disease transmissions. is this due to deviant culture or low economic status? if a social class who had high rates of hepatitis engaged in very riskly sexual behaviors within thier population, is that a threat to society at whole? a contained group of people who have higher then average disease rates ? are these "threatening" subpopulations a threat to nobody, a threat to themselves, or a threat to society? who decides? what is an appropriate response? do all groups need to be treated similiarly or can we target specific groups? just on teh entire "gays are a health hazzard" argument (which i think is a bait and switch for a religously maintained philosophical argument) i dont think you can make a sound philosophical argument that society has the morality and judgement to target gays on the grouds of danger without applying the same precautions to many other groups. especially when you consider the question, who exactly do all these historically feared subpopulations threaten? are they dangers to themselves or society? i got a canadian flag on my balcony thanks. wait...is.. is that a rainbow flag in your closet i see? HUGO that is obviously not what the law says, else it would never have gotten passed. its this kind of hysterical response that weakens your point. not accepting homosexuals will not get you prosecuting. inciting hatred of homosexuals will. somethign that will incite violence, incite discrimination, and fear monger. if you do that, you are a bigot and deserve what you get. these are called hate laws. they protect any minority against hate speech, not free speech. if you dont condone homosexuality and say it, nobody will bother you. it isnt ment to be any more protective of gays then blacks really. Hugo, if we see a guy on teh news get charged for saying something harmless like "homosexuality isnt right" we will all know you are right. i just dont belive that. THOUSANDS of partners? thats alot for any normal person. again, i dont recall any links recently, so if anybody has one, post it again so we can all find it. and there is no way that most homosexuals have 23X the STD rates of heteros. no way. just cant be. they would all be dead already. serious, direct me to a serious study that says homosexuals have 23X the rate of STDS and a 42 yr lifespan. i cant wrap my head around those numbers. well i was talking just about what i think are more reasonable differences. again, if you post some big study that says otherwise, then i will rethink that. but i cannot accept the rates you cite, they are way off for reality. and i know alot of guys that slept with 20+ girls in university alone, i cannot belive that patner rates for modern homosexuals are astronomically above those for promiscious young heterosexual. certainly not 1000s and 1000s, its too wild to claim without a public health study backing it up. please post the link. in my personal opinion, the STD/patner rates for homosexual are higher then heteros, but that itself does not further the argument against in any way as i can see, if a gay man and a straight man both expose themselves to personal risk during consensual sex, society can make them less equal? its perfectly expected that two males who are both sexually aggressive would have more sex then a man and women, because in society women are always the limited factors to a mans sexual success. that is why a women can easily find 100 partners in a bar and a man is luckly to find 1 at all. obviously MM is less sexually restricted then MF, which is most likely less restrictive then FF based on sexual psychology. i just dont see the argument here. men seek sex, its natural, you can see it manifset in the multi billion $$ porn industry targeted at men by far, the fact rape is exclusively attempted by men, prostitution targeted to men, and so on. a heterosexual man is much more sexually aggress then a F. thus two gay men would definately have more sexual partners. is that unnatural? no, it isny by any definition. is that a public health hazard? maybe, buy who gets to decide what race, or income, or prefernce is a threat to soceity? as i said, blacks have higher STD rates, so do the poor. so is 40% OK but 101% a hazard? and who can say that a teenage boy can risk sleeping with 7 girls during high school but a gay man cant risk it with 20 men? isnt it all personal risk? just like smoking tobacco, or drinking, or driving fast? when does individual behavior become a risk to society? i say that any argument aginst gays on this ground would fail if you tried to apply it fairly against racial, or economc or other catagories. not to mention the problem of defining exactly what a threat to society is, considering blacks were probobly considering one 200 years ago. SirRiff

uh because we have developed the most efficient, peacefull, respectfull, tolerable, and tranquil society on Earth??? only a few nations can compare. not to mention our beer. SirRiff

where exactly? i have spent some time in pakistan, so i have seen islam first hand. tell us where you have seen islam first hand so we can make sure you didnt get a biased view. maybe you can teach us about some cultures. i hope the list fits on one page. SirRiff

afganistan is the right kind of war to fight. its international, triggered by an obvious terror attack, the people are suffering badly, it would obviously be a future threat if left unchecked, a failure would set back UN humanitarian missions 50 years, it might be an example of multilateralism in the new century, and we are already commited and cannot send a message of weakness. i hope the families of the soldiers get alot of well wishes. SirRiff

thats exactly right. and the US citizens used their influence to react to that opinion. if rush wants to sit on the street corner and questions blacks atheletes abilities, he has every right to do so. but he does not have a right to work on tv, its a privalege granted by an employer. the employer is at the mercy of its audience, and obviously the audience didnt like it. so it damaged the employer and rush left. simple as that. i dont know why people who say stupid things think its a right to get to a wide audience. it isnt. its a right to speak,and if lots of people agree, they will find you. sirriff

i never understood the logic of demanding that something be 100% proven undefeatable before accepting it. the legal system is not, never has been, and never will be 100% at ANY level. doest mean it isnt worth having. nothing decided by humans will ever reach100% perfection, but if we can reach 98%, and accept the 2% risk, then it can serve an important function in society. frankly, i accept that in some bizarre circumstance, I could be sentanced to death penalty for murder if we had it. however its worth it to me as a punishment and cost saving measure. it would be worth the small risk for punishment of the worst sickos in society i think. Sirriff

no misinformation here folks, move along.... um, the law specifically protects religous values and is ment to protect gays from violence and persecution. and no canadian is going to support charging people randomly anyways. talk about misinformation, its statements like these that lowed the credability of your argument. saying "studies" show gays do this and gays do that. look at the number of children in the states that come back to different then assumed fathers and you see that heterosexual males probably lag very closely behind the average gay man inter terms of total partners. if you have a study that compares hetero criminal acts against gay criminal acts please make it easy for us and post a link. i have never seen such a study myself and i dont recall seeing a link to it yet. however i doubt just from common sense that the number of hetero molesters is massively lower then gay molesters. sexual abuse among from all men would need to be compared to make any conclusions that gay men tend to be more deviant. and as for you name, i dont know i guess i just capitalize names so people can see more easily whom i am responding to. SirRiff

come on HUGO that is not only inaccurate but exteme detail selection at its best. pedophiles prey on non-consenting non-sexually mature children. there is no comparison to a gay banker who has had a steady parter for 10 years. that much is obvious. the number of perfetly "normal" hetero men who have molested young girls is very very high itself. as you can tell by the massive number of women who experience some sort of sexual abuse in thier life, most as young girls. thus there is no reason to belive that the sickness of forcing sex onto children has no stronger link to gays then heteros. instead of just saying what you did, it would require posting the proportions of staight men who molest little girls vs the proportions of gay men who molest boys nad see if there is a significent difference. THAT is how you determine if there is cause and effect. Sirriff

by that pathetic logic when Europe was wasting away during the dark ages and the middle east was the curtural and scientific capital of the world, it means that Europe (which would become the mother of all modern western civilization) is condemned to be a failure in concept? no, doesnt work that way. at any point in time success is relative and does not generally define the intrinsic value of a people, or nation, or culture. once again, have you actually travelled beyond the borders of Canada? most people who have show a more insightfull view of the manifestations of poverty vs the people who may be poor. there i refuted it. get on a plane and see reality. SirRiff

HUGO yeah but people dont even know what that means. no two people could concisely describe what it means for gayness not to be "like being black" the same. what does that mean exactly? i take it you mean that its not "all or nothing". and only that. so that is why i asked the next questions, because i dont think that the above statement furthers the judgement on the behavior any. either you debate it through genetics only for the sake of interest, or through the judgement of society only for the sake of practicality and reaction. well once again its not just a behavior, all sexual behavior is in some part genetic else evolution wouldnt take place as it needed to. no reason to believe that gayness isnt 50% genetic, so its not an addition or bad habit, its part of that person just as intelligence is. we can infer that with enough focused pressure and stimulation the human mind can be influence to alter its most basic associations. just as soldiers are taught to feel connected to each other and kill and die together against normal insticts, just as the Nazi Germans grew to a collective hatred of the very jews that lived beside them, just as children who are abused develop relationship problems, and just as suicide bombers can be influenced to give up thier own life by religous extremism. the fact that human behaviors can be altered by intense nad prolonged pressure does not mean it wasnt natural or inherant in the first place. it could be that the successfull patients were open to suggestion, that they masked their true feelings, or that anybodys behavior can be influenced given enough stimulation. FASTNED oh my God, an intelligent thought out question. i almost didnt recognize it at first....let me bask in its glory.... well your basic model of the spread of a gene through a population is correct. however there is one important point that needs repeating. the spread of a gene over a popuation is almost always due to an increase in reproductive fitness that it brings. for example, blacks have an increased frequency of th sickle cell anemia gene. this mutation causes red blood cells to have clumpy misshaped forms and causes alot of health problems. why do blacks have this gene more then whites? because this mutant gene also provides protection to the person from malaria, a disease that is far more common in africa. thus there was a selective pressure on the population of africans a long time ago which let people with one copy of the gene on average produce more children. one copy would bring protection from malaria, but would not cause sickly cell anemia (because one copy would still be functional). now, when two random blacks each with one copy of the gene have children, 1 in 4 of those children with get both defective copies, and the child will have sickle cell anemia. the advantage in one situation, is a disadvantage in another. i pondered how this could relate to gayness. the very act of sexul behavior must be genetically imprinted for all species for evolution to have occured preceeding humans. this is evident when you look at the mating habits within one species, they are always constant at any one time and always change slowly and together. the genes that influences sexual preference in humans would be no different, just more complex. gay behavior could very well be a different versions (and combinations) of the same sexual preference genes, but just primed to be receptive to same sex signals instead of opposite sex. if there are genes that prime for attraction there is no limits to what could be the target for that attraction. the actual mechanics of this is very very complex and poorly understood obviously, but there are numerous parallel examples of such gene networks like the immune system and the gender genes that make male and female sex organs. now how would these genes continue in our genome without being lost? IF these genes provided some postive effect in the past when we relied on instinct more then consciousness, they would be maintained in every person to some degree. i did a paper once on the genetic basis of mating habits and how they lead to new species and there are one or two possibilities. if these genes were simply socialization genes in the past, part of the entire relationship building-mating-family unit gene structure for highly social animals, then they would be resposbible for ensuring that animals (say monkeys) overcame their basic fight or flight instinct long enough to form family and tribe relationships within thier species. they would influcence specialized instinct suppressing behaviors such as non threatening playfighting, grooming, food exchange, vocalization, mating rituals and sex. thus it might be beneficial to have a version or combination that produced a more broad range of interations, not limited to sex with just females or play fighting with just males of simliar age or tribe. the monkey with these behaviors could have benefited from these extra relationhips within its tribe and the entire tribe would benefit from the social advancement if the genes were carried into the offspring. as the social network of the speices became more formalized the small variations in one particular monkey might not make any difference, but that gene would still be kept becuase it now played a more rigid role in everyday life. a million years later that gene in some updated form would still exist in humans, as we socialize and learn in much the same way, but our brian has gone past just instinct are our consciousness now makes most of the decisions. thus we can interpret and expand apon the basic sexual preferences and identities that were so primative in the past and expand on our small variations and potentials. this is one example why i belive that the sexual identity genes, the sexual gender genes, and the sexual preference genes are all modular parallel evolutionary creations and small variations in one can lead us to expand apon that by our complex environment and powerfull mind. we are not programmed anymore for basic instincts, but still the original instructions for the most essential features of survival point us in the right direction. so i truely belive there are gene variations or combinations that will strongly move some people to experience different sexual preferences. to what degree i dont know. but from my genetics background i would consider sexual behavior and the fight or flight response to be two critial responses with genetic evolutionary basis and think the influence would be comparable or even exceeding that or environment. SirRiff

actually no his report as reported by many news organizations of all types specifically has no evidence of WMDS existing in the near past, or EVEN programs. all the mentions as fact is duel use facitilities that could be transformed to WMD programs. it was reported all over the media by insiders who have seen it. there will be no WMD surprise. SirRiff

craig, every 'evil' of islam is just a manifestation of poverty and overpopulation found in every period of history even in europe during the dark ages and the US during slavery and the civil rights movement. your thoughts are so jumbled and nonsensical you just seem to like hearing yourself talk lately. and the garbage you post about other cultures shows you ignorance and isolation from the complexities of the world. learn a bit from the other people here who have actually seen teh world. at least then you can disagree intelligently and not blindly repeat generalizations and misinformation. SirRiff

what religion were the people who owned slaves in the US? SirRiff

uh, look at that on the flipside... supporting isreal, intimidating the middle east...good for US supporting corrupt saudi royal family to keep oil flowing...good for US sending aid to pakistan to fight against osama...good for US helping nato nations to counter russian influence and gain power themselves?...good for US the "aid" is really bribes or investments. the US always gets its money worth (exept maybe osama) SirRiff

is this message board really here to post targeted cheers of glee when someone of one religion or philosophy dies? tells more about the author then the subject. SirRiff

This continues to baffle me, Riff. You, a geneticist, should probably concede that at the very least GENETICALLY, a fertilised implanted human egg is nothing BUT human. It's preposterous for you, of all people, to argue the "half human/potential human" argument.

most large high school labs in north america could make crude toxic products with some internet help. its like saying everyone with a gun is a threat to you potentially so we gotta take them all out. his intent was pretty well contained dont you think? considering he was beat like a bitch in the first war, most of his country was patrolled daily, he NEVER attacked saudi arabia or israel during the sanctions, and even when attacked didnt use these massive stockpiles of WMDs. yes, i would argu he was contained. saddam was a survivor, not a suicide bomber, hence the rich lifestyle. SirRiff

now the real questions are 1. why would the genetic or environmental root of a behavior be of any concern to society when deciding whether to accept or condemn that behavior in its midst, and 2. how would these criteria compare to the critieria that we use to deal with other behaviors in society, such as murder, or disease. SirRiff

uhh...thats still kinda vauge if your going to make some sort of moral conclusion from that. scientists like to be more precise, because it seems to me that what you are really saying is that gayness isnt a binary finite variable that is either on or off. well obviously, as i said several times sexual behavior is very complex and impossible to measure and quantify in reality. also the # of genes that govern sexual prefernce could be dozens or even hundreds. so saying that it isnt "like eye color" is like measuring fish by the square foot. complex behavior is never one gene, so there is no way it could be a binary choice. however that itself is a very crude way to really investige the hardwired part of sexuality. if we had 100 shades of hair color would you say that eye color is 'not like hair color"? becuase there are plenty of examples of small numbers of genes producing finite phenotypes that were previously thought to be a continuum before genetic research. well it could be said that even that description of sexual behavior isnt even accurate, because why couldnt we model a precise level of sexual genetic factors by basically do code for sexual preference? again, if you are just pondering life then yeah, anything could be anything. if you are claiming some sort of moral or ethical or natural case for preventing gays from equality because of genetics, then it takes a more accurate description of what the genetic influence, and more importantly WHY this would alter the acceptance of that behavior in society. the root cause of the bahavior has never, by itself, completely vindicated nor condemned any other otherwise neutral behavior. OMG, its finally right. well, when you start a post on genetics and misstate heritable, the rest of yoru conclusions are dubious at best, especially when you insult the person who points out the error. of course heritable is one thing, measuring heritability is another. is heritability next on the word of the day calender? SirRiff

huh? which eastern canadians dont want equality? i grew up in nova scotia and we were all pretty pro equality over there... now in ontario...and we are all pretty pro equality over here... so what gives? Canada definately has a more moderate atmosphere then then US, but we are still moving towards the general institutionalized corruption and inefficiency that comes with all developed democracies where the wealth and power only go up. but it seems way to big for one person to even care about. too damn vauge and abstract i dont know why nobody ever makes it a priority to make government efficient. i mean really hiring motivated people, making pay and rewards completely transparent and public so we dont get these expense account scandels. and what the hell is it with Billions of $$ that just go missing? how the hell does that happen? SirRiff

if i'm not mistaken the much anticipated Kay report will have no evidence of WMD, and even sparse evidence of programs, but it will document evidence of "possible intent" or something like that. propaganda. SirRiff

its funny when people assert that the US had no idea those nice men in afganistan, iran, and iraq would turn out to be bad.. considering 1) the US always does the dirty work in secret, and only years later does it come to light, and 2) the US specfically supported afgan rebels, saddam, and iran in WARS. oh gee, yeah we sent $3 billion in weapons and training to osama and his crew in afganstan, but we thought they would just shoot targets, we didnt know they beat their women, we have no reason to believe they would turn on each other, and we knew they had moderat religious views. uh no, the US knew in Chile, Afganistan, Iran, and Iraq they were dealing with brutal murderers, they supported them anyways in secret, then washed their hands of the situation and in all cases abandoned the poor innocents they claim to love so much. not the actions of an empathetic leader of freedom. so lets all stop with the "they didnt know they were evil" bit, because we all know its not true. else they have shipped textbooks instead of stingers to afganistan. SirRiff

if i was a corrupt saudi prince, i wouldnt want to strengthen teh precedent of toppling oppressive middle east regimes. else they will be next. SirRiff

HUGO what a strange thing to say hugo.... you really just keep using the word contradition, but never point what is the contradition itself. it seem rather silly actually. and who else on this forum do you think is claiming they see contraditions? nobody, just you, and you cant even point it out. i know its comforting to stay vauge and then conclude its not you thats running in circles, but when dealing with scientific thought one must be accurate and precise in response, which you cant seem to do. this isnt a playground where just saying 'whatever' is the way to look cool. no, actually you posted a few lines, then misinterpreted them, adn then failed to understand the basic concepts you posted. no matter how high an expert you cite, you didnt understand what you were posting and misrepresented the information. that is the problem, not the expert. and it takes more then one expert to actually make something respectable. its done by peer review. here is an idea, post 5 more independnat definitions of heritability and see how closely they come to matching yoru interpretation. it will take 60 seconds and once and for all you can clear your name. RONDA; i only reassert my information because of people like you who when faced with an informed opinion question peoples intelligence and education. if you could really distinguish between real genetics and crap science i wouldnt have to tell you why i know my stuff better then what has been posted by others. hell if posted one of my research papers you would still feel informed enough to question my background even if you didnt understand the title. when hugo talks about heritability adn linkage studies, something i dealt with daily, and he gets them all wrong, its not arrogent to point out the correct definitions. i dont see why you guys with your highly informed opinions dont recognize the simplist universal concepts of genetics. untill you can use heritabillity and linkage studies in normal conversation i dont think you are qualified to question anybody elses education or intelligence on teh matter. how did you come to that conclusion ronda? which journals did you research? where did you study sexual genetics? my god, talk about claiming to know something you dont. i would love to hear how that opinion is in anyway informed yet mine isnt. now that would be a great post. uhh....thats a very very bad concept to even use as an example. the display of a complex behavior is not solely dependant on a binany switch of a gene. just to mention...i dont think anybody with a genetics degree would mistake that link....oh wait...is that arrogent to say? well its good to know you are keeping yourself busy inbetween scientifc conferences. but i guess the work must be occuring just now after not reading the part when i asked you to tell us your background in the genetic science and why you think specialzed education does not make you privy to information. i'm sure you have several research articles lying around the house just like me that you can use to determine whether hugos posts were scientifically valid. this whole thread makes me question the funding for science in our schools. SirRiff

people vote for policies more then men SirRiff