The "gay Gene"

[Hugo]

Read the thread and find out!

[nova_satori]

You didn't think i'd take the time to look for respectable links did you?

Guess how many I found. It's less than 1 and greater then -1, and it's a interger. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

Without a respectable, government funded (or someone else with lots of money and no clear party affiliation) study tried over and over again, over a long period of time, you won't be able to prove much, except bigotry.

[Craig Read]

Of course no one can prove it exists therefore it does !!

My God exists why - well you can't prove he doesn't so therefore he does !!

I am better than you - why ? Well you can't prove that i am not so therefore I am !!

Welcome to the Lie-beral world of debate.

BORING.

UWO

Stanford

Univ. Of Boston

and the list goes on ....

all found NO evidence of ONE gene causing sexual orientation.

Now Provide me ONE study that is supported by corroborating studies that does support the idea.

Guess what - none exists.

Conclusion: Shut up.

[SirRiff]

all found NO evidence of ONE gene causing sexual orientation.

Now Provide me ONE study that is supported by corroborating studies that does support the idea.

Craig do you find it odd to mention a study you claim supports your view without citing it properly, then demand citation of an opposing view?

once again, as someone who has a genetics degree from UWO i have never heard of anything of "proof" like you mention. please follow your own advice and post a link. enlighten us all.

If you read back through your previous posts you'll discover that you don't seem to know anything about this issue. As I pointed out before, you change your opinion with the tides.

HUGO i said it before, its not my fault you dont know the basic techniques and theories of modern genetics. your definition of 'heritable' in your first post shows that all too well. and when i say something that you dont understand, dont assume its something i changed, its just complex technical material, and it takes time to learn it. that is why they give degrees for this stuff, ya know?

if i actually discussed the real world experimental applications of genetics you wouldnt have a clue what i was talking about. posting a snippet of a study, then misstating the data and conslusions to support your opinon doesnt count as science in the real world, and i should know.

instead of learning something and gaining insight some people just get threatened when someone else has a truly informed opinion. of course it doesnt affect me, since i actually know about heritability and linkage studies and such, but it never hurts to learn.

SirRiff

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I wouldn't compare heterosexuality to pedophilia, since pedophilia is a deviancy and heterosexuality isn't.

It is the definition of deviancy I have a problem with. Is your definition the mathematical one or the church one?

Deviancy is looked at differently throughout the world and even from state to state. Some states have laws against oral and anal sex, as a deviant behaviour. What about sex out of wedlock? Or, my favorite fantasy, having two women in bed with me? Surely that behaviour is not 'mathematically the norm'.

If your argument is purely mathematical, what of abstinence and masturbation? Those are mathematically deviant from the norm, and I dare say, the latter is far more prevalent that heterosexual sex.

[nova_satori]

Of course no one can prove it exists therefore it does !! My God exists why - well you can't prove he doesn't so therefore he does !!

I am better than you - why ? Well you can't prove that i am not so therefore I am !!

Welcome to the Lie-beral world of debate.

BORING.

UWO

Stanford

Univ. Of Boston

and the list goes on ....

all found NO evidence of ONE gene causing sexual orientation.

Now Provide me ONE study that is supported by corroborating studies that does support the idea.

Guess what - none exists.

Conclusion: Shut up.

Let's see who posted the quote on whether god exists or not? ME!!!! let's see who stated that if it has not been not proven to exist it must exist! NOT ME!

are there any credible links that you have posted? NO!

Has there been any largly published to the world long term report? NO!

Has there been any huge scientific conference proving either side? NO!!!

AS I will reinterate: Without a long term, well funded, credible soruce, you will not be able to prove EITHER side.

Welcome to the world of right-wing debate, where evidence is for sissys. Look at Bush! We don't nee evidence! Clear eye realist conservatives = We don't need proof!

But let's simply ignore that like you ignore the rest of the releveant matters eh Craig?

Craig do you find it odd to mention a study you claim supports your view without citing it properly, then demand citation of an opposing view?

once again, as someone who has a genetics degree from UWO i have never heard of anything of "proof" like you mention. please follow your own advice and post a link. enlighten us all.

I bet Craig won't be able to do this. He'll just throw more meanigless rheotric.

[Hugo]

HUGO i said it before, its not my fault you dont know the basic techniques and theories of modern genetics.

Please go back over the thread, I already gave examples of your self-contradictory opinions. This is why I draw the conclusion that you don't really have any idea about this. Your position is inconsistent and your conclusions contradictory.

If your only response is to launch into another ad hominem attack on how "ignorant" I am, then I suppose you will have to live with that. All you can do is beat your chest about your credentials, and then make assertions that lead one to have serious doubts about the quality of the faculty that would give you such credentials.

If your argument is purely mathematical, what of abstinence and masturbation?

The purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. Intercourse and relationships that may possibly lead to procreation are normal. Masturbation is neither intercourse nor relationship, and neither is abstinence. Gay sex is intercourse but it can't possibly procreate. A homosexual relationship is a sexual relationship but it will never bear children.

Sex with a condom (heterosexual, of course) has at least the potential to procreate, even disallowing condom failure, the relationship has the potential to procreate. Sex with animals or children does not, and neither does a sexual relationship with a child or an animal. You may have oral sex with your wife, and that won't produce children, but at least you are doing it with your wife and the sexual relationship may quite possibly produce children. A pair of men, however, can never, ever produce children no matter what they do.

[SirRiff]

Please go back over the thread, I already gave examples of your self-contradictory opinions. This is why I draw the conclusion that you don't really have any idea about this. Your position is inconsistent and your conclusions contradictory.

HUGO i think its obvious that you just didnt understand what i was saying, not that i magically rewrote scientific fact in my head. considing your didnt even use the basic definition of heritable correctly, its not like we need to look far for a clear example of what differs an informed opinion from a copy and paste opinon.

there are only examples of you not understanding the science, or ignoring the science because it doesnt agree with your personal opinion.

If your only response is to launch into another ad hominem attack on how "ignorant" I am, then I suppose you will have to live with that. All you can do is beat your chest about your credentials, and then make assertions that lead one to have serious doubts about the quality of the faculty that would give you such credentials.

HUGO, if i recall, you are the one who spontaneously claimed;

If you read back through your previous posts you'll discover that you don't seem to know anything about this issue. As I pointed out before, you change your opinion with the tides.

so you are suprised someone responds to point out your ignorance on the subject?

this stuff is very simple for me. i have spent years studying the science of gentics and years actually practicing it in labs. if you dont believe me fine, maybe you are intimidated by simple degrees or real world experience, i dont know, no reason to be though, nobody can be an expert on everything.

its just sad when people talk talk talk, then dont back it up.

i ask craig, please cite your own UWO study that shows this magical 'proof"

i ask you, if you feel you have this magic post where i say two completely opposite things, post it clearly and ask for clarification. either i mistyped something, or you misread it. its simple to clear it up without pretending that i dont know what i am talking about. because we both know i cant bring up detailed technical discussions on this board, its over most peoples heads who arent in teh field. but getting all insecure and accusing people of stupidity when they obviously arent is petty and disruptive. stop clinging onto this and either recite the specific material you are having problems with for clarification or forget about it and dont keep making statements that make you feel smarter. its not very flattering at all.

SirRiff

[Hugo]

i ask you, if you feel you have this magic post where i say two completely opposite things, post it clearly and ask for clarification

I already did. That's what "read above" means. Seeing as you are too lazy, though:

There could exist many genes that produce in the right combination the exact same predictable patterns of sexual preference... it would be entirely predictable liek skin color, just more complex and with more intermediate possibilities.

i have been trying to tell you all along, genetics and environment both play major roles but it is unknown the relative quantities.

You see? You have no idea what you're even arguing. You made both those statements above, but they are mutually exclusive (that means they can't both be true at the same time).

If you really studied, perhaps you should go back to your books, decide what you actually think about this issue and get back to us when you have a coherent idea, hmmm?

this stuff is very simple for me. i have spent years studying the science of gentics and years actually practicing it in labs.

Quite honestly, I don't believe that. As I said before, I have never met or read a geneticist who could not write at a Grade 10 level. Not to mention the fact that for someone who finds it "very simple", you are having great difficulty gathering your own thoughts on the subject.

[SirRiff]

I already did. That's what "read above" means. Seeing as you are too lazy, though:

i specifically asked you to reassert a particular set of statements so you dont keep making vauge references as you have done several times. i'm not going to backtrack through pages of me explaining genetics to try to figure out what you may be talking about. i wanted you to clarify it because frankly it doesnt make sense to me that you cant understand things i made simple and obvious.

There could exist many genes that produce in the right combination the exact same predictable patterns of sexual preference... it would be entirely predictable liek skin color, just more complex and with more intermediate possibilities.

i have been trying to tell you all along, genetics and environment both play major roles but it is unknown the relative quantities.

is this all you are talking about? all that fuss over this? thats pathetic man.

ok, read this very slowly...

in the first one, i said there COULD be an arrangement of genes that would explain experimentally the observed ('phenotypic' for you genetically impaired people) range of sexual preferences. this genetic system would be predictable, experimentally reproducable, and quantifiable.

why did i ponder this possibility?

because it has to do with the conclusions you reach about what it means if something is genetic vs learned.

i was pointing out, that we can consider a complete genetic explaination for sexual preference, but really, how does that change the criteria by which society can accept teh behavior?

my opinion was that an unacceptable behavior to society is still unacceptable regardless of its proven genetic origin, thus even if there COULD be a purely genetic explanation, it would not serve to additionally condemn them in societies accepting embrace, nor would it exonerate them in societies harsh judgement.

the first statement pointed out that the lack or proof of strong genetic influence cannot intelligently cause a conclusion to be reached about how society should treat gays. only society at large can make a collective decision on which behaviors to accept, and that decision is made on a large number of factors, none of which i believe will take into account the genetic nature of the behavior.

as examples, rape will never be tolerated by society EVEN IF a strong genetic componant is found, and mentally disturbed citizens will never be abandoned on the grounds they cannot demonstrate a genetic disease link.

thus, that statement illustrates the incorrect conclusions you propose on the grounds there may not be a strong genetic basis for homosexuality.

on the second statement,

i have been trying to tell you all along, genetics and environment both play major roles but it is unknown the relative quantities.

i am simply just saying obvious science, its a mix and thats all we know.

if you read them carefully you see ther is nothing contradictory. and in fact, if i recall, teh first is part of a larger argument where i expanded on the implications of having a purely environmental or purely genetic cause.

the first one was an example of an explanation for the behavior and i was contrasting the conclusions that you reached (that the cause of teh behavior can be used to judge it), with what a society would need to do in order to maintain its law and order (that behavior would need to be judged and reacted to on its effect on society regardless of how it originated).

there, i have explained it in detail, and there is obviously nothing wrong with the argument i put forth. i dont think it would be hard to understand what i said especially if you read my preceeding posts like you so intently suggested that i myself do.

You see? You have no idea what you're even arguing. You made both those statements above, but they are mutually exclusive (that means they can't both be true at the same time).

again if you actually read them in total, and on merit instead of being dismayed that i know about genetics you would have known they were perfectly sound statements. but you seem to choose to ignore what i post and just try in vain to prove i am wrong.

Quite honestly, I don't believe that. As I said before, I have never met or read a geneticist who could not write at a Grade 10 level. Not to mention the fact that for someone who finds it "very simple", you are having great difficulty gathering your own thoughts on the subject.

of course we both know i am not wrong, and it shows that we couldnt even have a base level technical discussion on human genetics because you are not familiar with the theories and techniques of the science.

as i said before, that is why i know what heritable means, what linkage studies are, how you screen libraries of cloned dna, how we sequence genes and so on and so on. how do i know this? because i have done it. lawers know law, MBAs know business, i know genetics.

so after all this, i explained in detail what you could have found out by yourself if you werent so keen on pretending i dont have years of experience in genetics.

is there anything else i can do for you?

any other statements that need clarifying?

any other study you want to cite?

SirRiff

[Ronda]

SirRiff,

You are sickeningly arrogant. You assume that everyone can OBVIOUSLY see that you are right, etc... That you are so educated, you couldn't actually have a proper conversation because nobody on this board is as learned as you. Does it actually ache sometimes to be so brilliant? To be so far above? So liberal, so caring, so intelligent, so gosh-darn RIGHT all the time?

Please spare us in future and TRY to just stay on topic. I know it's difficult due to other people's blinding ignorance and refusal to recognise that you know everything but please try. It would be an interesting conversation if it weren't for your constant assertions of intellectual superiority.

[nova_satori]

This would be alot more interesting if someone brought some credible proof with links to a long term study to this debate.

The point is, no one will prove anything of relevance at our current level and understanding of genetics and gene manipulation.

We have just begun to unravel the secrets of our genes and how they affect us. To declare that there is or is not a homosexual gene is ludacrious! Give it at least another 5-10 years before anyone starts making claims that there is or there isn't. Do not be so arrogant into thinking that our current scientific level will provide all the answers. Humans thought like that before, and everyone knows how many scientific theories that were accepted at those times were disproven by simple innovations. This is the trend, and will be for a long time, if not eternity. So unless you can bring a alien culture 5,000 years ahead of ours and prove whether there is or is not, this argument will go on and on and on, with no one proving anything beyond their own irrationality.

Wow, I'm the voice of reason, that's hilarious.

[SirRiff]

You are sickeningly arrogant. You assume that everyone can OBVIOUSLY see that you are right, etc... That you are so educated, you couldn't actually have a proper conversation because nobody on this board is as learned as you. Does it actually ache sometimes to be so brilliant? To be so far above? So liberal, so caring, so intelligent, so gosh-darn RIGHT all the time?

first of all, its not arrogent to be correct. hugo misstated several scientific facts, as a pseudo-scientist its not arrogent to correct him, especially since he is posting on a public message board arguing that genetics supports homosexuality being a deviant lifestyle. yes, i would say he is open for criticism.

secondly, i never said i was obviously right as you mistate, i said,

i wanted you to clarify it because frankly it doesnt make sense to me that you cant understand things i made simple and obvious.

i said it was obvious what i said, regardless of whether you agree with me. i suspect that HUGO just likes implying i dont know what i am talking about, which i notice you didnt single out to tell him to 'stay on topic', which is telling. i had let the thread drop till he insulted me again, thus i thought it fair to point out the shaky basis of his criticism of me. actualy i explained in detail that what i said was plain to see and there was no contradiction. see what a nice guy i am?

so please spare us all your fake disgust untill you are ready to focus it on the factual ignorance of the original post and the 'off topic' aspects of others on teh board.

if you expect to go onto a public message board, claim you have genetic evidence that homosexuals should not be treated equally, and then incorrectly use the world heritable (and several other basic genetic concepts) and expect someone not to point out its very very wrong, you are in for a surprise.

hugo is a big boy, he doesnt need your maternal protection.

understanding genetics isnt arrogent

pretending you do, is

SirRiff

[Hugo]

Oh, Riff, come on. You started out arguing the exact opposite of what you are now arguing, as you did in the thread on genetic engineering.

It's my belief that you think homosexuality is A-OK, probably because of media influence, and you are searching for the facts to fit your theory in true "scientific" fashion. You keep stating that the truth is "obvious" and that I must be stupid for not seeing it, but what that truth is evidently isn't clear to you. It took me a long time to actually drag your opinion about this out of you, and now it seems you've forgotten it already.

The two posts I gave are pretty self-contradictory and they are evidence of your floundering between different viewpoints. Like I said, go study your books (if you have any, which I doubt), use your "superior knowledge" (which cannot have been gained at any faculty that had a written entrance exam), figure out what you actually think about this issue and get back to us.

Until that point, spare us the "I am an expert, listen to me" nonsense, especially when what it is we should listen to is a bunch of half-baked warbling with no clear point.

[Ronda]

so please spare us all your fake disgust...

It wasn't fake. Your posts disgusted me to exactly the level that I expressed.

if you expect to go onto a public message board, claim you have genetic evidence that homosexuals should not be treated equally,

Oh, so the problem is that you didn't learn to read when you were supposedly getting an education. I don't recall reading anyone stating that they had "genetic evidence that homosexuals should not be treated equally".

You're always presuming to speak for the scientific community as though you are privy to information that the rest of us idiots are not. It's not so. I'm sure many "scientists" either just as "qualified" or more so disagree with what you consider irrefutable. So stop acting like you have all the answers. You don't. You have an opinion. And your questionable scientific "credentials" give your opinions exactly zero extra weight. Quit coming into conversations with the informercial style "As a geneticist, I must correct the following opinions.... " Ditto for the posts about abortion, evolution and genetic engineering.

Thanks for the opinions and information but don't assume that when you waltz in with your "extra informed" opinion, you trump all others because of your stellar "qualifications".

[Craig Read]

Ronda, that a girl. Good to see you back, and blowing some steam

Like Global Cooling [1975], Global Warming [1996], the Gay Gene [1991] and the genome in particular and genetics in general are topics that few really understand. It is impossible that ONE gene causes anything like sexual orientation. Common sense and world experience dictates that. I had a friend - female - who married, divorced, suffered severe trauma and self esteem loss and at the age of 26 became a lesbian. I know very well her sexual drives before that age - and they were VERY well developed heterosexual ones. Her psychology changed as her self worth and her impressions of men were altered. I doubt that a GENE kicked in at age 26 and send 'yo girlfriend, time to try some fish'.

Her story is repeated every day. People have sexual urges, deviances, preferences etc. for a whole range of factors that Ronda and Hugo have pointed out; social, environmental, genetic [plural not ONE], familial.

What pisses me off in the Gay debate is that homosexual marriage alters entirely society; family; church vs. state and rights vs parliament.

This is nonsense - all based on 'genetics' -- never proven.

Minority rights FORCED on us, by a group of deviants.

Nice. Can't wait to see what their children will be like.

[nova_satori]

Why do you people bother debating something that our level of understanding and science cannot prove or disprove?

Wait, I forgot, Craig knows everything.

He knows how to produce a quantam singlaurity reaction, he knows how to go back in time. He knows how to make scrambled eggs. He knows how to throw mindless insults with no substance at people he doesn't know. He knows that he thinks he is perfect. He knows that only he should be in power and everyone else who dissents should be shot!

[Hugo]

Why do you people bother debating something that our level of understanding and science cannot prove or disprove?

Why debate anything, then? After all, all that you can really "prove" is cogito ergo sum. You have to proceed with the facts you have available, and according to all the research I cited, current consensus is that homosexuality is caused by a combination of complex genetic factors and environmental influence, which is the same as any measurable human behaviour, e.g. pedophilia, and that does not make it "right" or "natural".

[Craig Read]

According to Nova 'the Left is always right' - the debate is not about science.

Like Global warming the debate is about the left's version of morality. In the GW debate, modernity, the white man, profits and technology are bad. In the Gay debate, heterosexuality, the family, liberal constitutions and socially acceptable behaviour is passe.

[for the illiterate like Nova, that means out of date].

According to the Nova's of the world - we are post modern - nothing in the past can teach us about the brave new world we are in.

Any argument you raise against this specious idea is shouted down with no facts, history, or evidence just with "Cela n'a rien a voir."

I doubt the left wing illiterates can translate that either. But they will support it because it is French !

[Nuclear]

Any argument you raise against this specious idea is shouted down with no facts, history, or evidence just with "Cela n'a rien a voir."

I doubt the left wing illiterates can translate that either. But they will support it because it is French !

lol...

Well put!

[SirRiff]

so many people coming out of the woodwork..

HUGO

Oh, Riff, come on. You started out arguing the exact opposite of what you are now arguing, as you did in the thread on genetic engineering.

why dont you ever actually reference what you are talking about? what do you think i was arguing in the begining exactly? because yo rant about contraditions, then when i explain myself, you vaugely refer to something else. it indicates either you 1) dont care to read the posts but pretend you do, 2) read the posts but dont understand them, or 3) just dont take the time to back up your assertions after they are challenged.

The two posts I gave are pretty self-contradictory and they are evidence of your floundering between different viewpoints

another vauge non responsive line. just because you repeat it doesnt make it true. if you want to spell out the logic that makes you think what i said are mutually exclusive go ahead, but repeating the same line over again after the explaination is plainly written is pathetic.

what exactly is contradictory? care to actually say it instead of running away from what i say?

Like I said, go study your books (if you have any, which I doubt), use your "superior knowledge" (which cannot have been gained at any faculty that had a written entrance exam), figure out what you actually think about this issue and get back to us.

ah the ol internet default of when challenged by someone with greater information on the subjet just cover your ears and yell "na na na na i cant hear you ".

HUGO we both know you and I couldnt have an intelligent discussion on modern genetic techniques and theories. your vocabulary on the matter is very limited as most peoples are. and actually, i do have about 20 massive genetic textbooks in my closet if you want to buy them used, they are a good deal. i'm sure the definition of heritable is in there somewhere. happy?

It's my belief that you think homosexuality is A-OK, probably because of media influence, and you are searching for the facts to fit your theory in true "scientific" fashion.

i wonder where did you get the whole media conspiracy idea? i dont recall mentioning anything to do with that. maybe you got it along with your genetics experience, who knows. do share though why that assertion makes sense because it seems pretty random to me. thats really about as substantiated as someone saying you cant think for yourself and get all your ideas from some outdated religious text. now that wouldnt be very insightfull now would it?

You keep stating that the truth is "obvious" and that I must be stupid for not seeing it, but what that truth is evidently isn't clear to you. It took me a long time to actually drag your opinion about this out of you, and now it seems you've forgotten it already.

you and ronda keep having this problem reading what i said. i actually said above that what i was saying was obvious, not the 'truth' (whatever that is). i cant imagine why you guys keep getting that wrong. i wrote in plain (genetic) english so i keep saying that what i write is 'obvious' to read.

when faced with someone who actually knows about the subject, you have just keep vaugly muttering about contraditions although when i repeatidly explain them you never exactly point out where this contradition was. when you misuse basic genetic terms and i correct you, you proudly conclude that it must be me who is in error (check any high school textbook on that one), and again and again you are more concerned about my education then the discussion at hand. i dont know why you are so obsessed about it because the basic concepts of genetics are pretty consistant regardless of what i say, so i am just pointing them out, not inventing them.

so once again, i know its easier to run away from an informed opinion then deal with it, but i notice you havnt actually responded to the biological aspect of what i have been saying for a while, which really is the telling aspect of this debate, as you dont even reference the subject of teh 'gay' gene post which you yourself started. your grand 'contradiction' response was a perfect example of that.

RONDA

Oh, so the problem is that you didn't learn to read when you were supposedly getting an education. I don't recall reading anyone stating that they had "genetic evidence that homosexuals should not be treated equally".

ah ronda, you too obsessed with my education like hugo? man i never thought it would get so much attention.

well as to your memory, yes the main argument of the thread from hugo was that he found his magical proof that gayness isnt genetic and also this means it cant be used a a defence when saying bad things about gay people or giving them complete equality.

hugo actually did attempt to say it;

Hence the wrongful belief of many today that homosexuality is genetic and a natural variation - it is not.

To justify homosexuality on genetic grounds means celebrating child abuse and serial killing, since these characteristics stem from much the same causes - environmental activation of a vulnerable genetic sequence.

To justify homosexuality on genetic grounds means celebrating child abuse and serial killing, since these characteristics stem from much the same causes - environmental activation of a vulnerable genetic sequence.

Anyway, what we have not touched on so far this thread is that granting marriage to homosexuals is a social, legal and governmental stamp of approval on a mental health problem and a dangerous, self-destructive deviancy.

so hopefully ronda, you yourself have learned critical reading skills as i did in university, and can see the general theme of hugos argument. thus i just stepped in and pointed out the genetics support for his opinion was badly misstated and poorly understood.

You're always presuming to speak for the scientific community as though you are privy to information that the rest of us idiots are not.

hmm...thats an interesting statement...

someone with a genetics degree having information that more others are not privy to? would that be like a lawyer speaking on law or a nurse on clinical care? how bizarre, its funny all my engineer friends have insight that i am not privy to...

hmm...so you think that someone who is trained in a specific field doestnt have relative information/insight that the general public isnt privy too?

by that logic nobody would be more expert on a subject then anyone else, regardless of what specialization they have done?

wow...that just...like a communist philosophy that is....whatever you were smoking on that one much be good stuff.

I'm sure many "scientists" either just as "qualified" or more so disagree with what you consider irrefutable. So stop acting like you have all the answers. You don't. You have an opinion.

actually i never claimed i had all the answer, several times i recall specifically saying its just my opinion and the field in general is less sure about it. anyways, since your not a genetics scientist, i dont think you would be qualified to disprove my opinions anyways now would you? so how do you know how valid my genetic insight is? what makes you qualified to discuss the evolution of sexual behavior?

but i will tell you one thing, the basic scentific facts were so incorrectly used by hugo, that its not an opinin when i say they are wrong, any geneticist woudl tell you the same thing, that it was inaccurate and misleading. its not an opinion, its common knowledge (to those of us who are privy)

nd your questionable scientific "credentials" give your opinions exactly zero extra weight. Quit coming into conversations with the informercial style "As a geneticist, I must correct the following opinions.... " Ditto for the posts about abortion, evolution and genetic engineering.

once again i ask why you would have any intelligent opinons on the matter? how did you learn about genetics? what experiments have you done? what degrees do you have? what kind of Phds did you learn from? i dont see why you would question my education without citing your own, something i challanged fastned on once. so do tell us ronda, give us the credentials of a real scientific mind. start with yoru most current degree and scientific experience and work backwords...ok?

you can disagree with my opinions, but the simple truth about what has been concluded to date on basic scientifiic concepts is pretty well known. the definition of heritable isnt up for debate ronda, sorry to tell you.

i would love for one person to just actually put up thier background in science and talk intelligently about the science of genetics which they feel they are so informed on. now THAT would be fun. but i wont hold my breath

sirriff

[nova_satori]

Hugo: First of all, science will eventually prove who is right and wrong on THIS subject. Everyone knows that scientific theories are proven wrong left and right. To attack each other with such fury over something we won't know for decades, if not hundreds of years is completely irrational.

According to Nova 'the Left is always right' - the debate is not about science. Like Global warming the debate is about the left's version of morality. In the GW debate, modernity, the white man, profits and technology are bad. In the Gay debate, heterosexuality, the family, liberal constitutions and socially acceptable behaviour is passe.[for the illiterate like Nova, that means out of date].

According to the Nova's of the world - we are post modern - nothing in the past can teach us about the brave new world we are in.Any argument you raise against this specious idea is shouted down with no facts, history, or evidence just with "Cela n'a rien a voir."

I doubt the left wing illiterates can translate that either. But they will support it because it is French !

First of all, you're wrong in everything you've just said. I have said before that liberals have critized each other for bad jugements and false claims. But let's ignore that for now shall we? You never answered why shorelines are being lossed at a regular rate, why the Ozone hole is getting larger, why temperatures are steady rising...but that's all false because you refuse to answer? Moderinity is fine. When did I EVER make a racial comment on anything? Profits via many of the Western companies come through "questionable" practices. You know that as well as I do. For technology, I said that "in two years, Americans have come to the realization that technology will not save us." And that to declare that if there is a gay gene or not with today's science is ludicrous, based on HISTORY.

I never commented on anything beyond scientific levels in the gay debate. Do NOT place other's words on me.

About the post modern world, you are a completely fabricator and LIAR. I WAS THE ONE SAYING WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE PAST FOR WHY PEOPLE HATE US TODAY. Or have you simply forgotten that? Have you forgotten that I said without understanding of the past, you will go nowhere? Have you forgotten that I said History is one of your greatest teachers?

Oh, no evidence? So how about the 50+ links and articles i've quoted? Once again you're wrong.

I have no love or hate for the French. You shouldn't be critizing another country for looking out for its best interest when your country is doing the same.

Frick, I don't mind talking about a subject, but you start throwing completely wrong, mindless insults that don't even apply, start putting other's words in my mouth, completely fabricate things I've said or done, I start to get pissed

You are the most biased, hateful person here. Instead of eventhing about WHY something happend, you'd rather just kill them all. Nothing that similar to your opinion is ever correct. Has it occured to you that can't even see the constricting walls of your small corridor of thought?

[Craig Read]

Hugo is wrong ? Can you provide ONE piece of evidence for that claim ?

If not shut up. You take up space and air, and cause pollution.

[Hugo]

Riff,

Sun-Tzu said, when something has been explained and is not understood, it's the fault of the explainer. When something has been explained five times and is not understood, it's the fault of the listener.

Well, Riff, I've repeatedly explained my views to you, pointed out your self-contradictions and talked you through them. Nobody else on this forum seems to be having a problem. Whether you are deliberately obtuse or genuinely slow-witted is not my concern but I will not waste my time and forum bandwidth explaining the same things over and over again to you. If you do not understand by now, you never will.

If you want to play the Experience and Qualifications game, you will notice that the sources I cited are all far more experienced and qualified than you, so you lose. These are not my opinions, they are scientific fact gleaned from some of the finest minds in the field.

It is not my fault if you do not wish to argue on the basis of logic or evidence, but if you choose to insist that your opinion is worth more because of your qualifications, then you have no defence if I find research from people even more qualified when it contradicts your opinion.

For example, you criticise my definition of "heritability" but it is not mine, it is Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's, a medical doctor and geneticist. Are you a medical doctor? Have you been researching genetics for years at some of the finest laboratories in the USA? Have you had your writings and findings published in national research journals? Because if you haven't, this guy's experience and qualifications trump yours, and it is your definition that is wrong - according to your dubious methods of debate.

Nova,

First of all, science will eventually prove who is right and wrong on THIS subject.

Well, according to the scientific sources I cited science has already proven who is right on this subject - and it isn't EGALE. There is no genetic basis for the acceptance of homosexuality. That was the point I began this thread for. As I said before, skin colour and gender are innate and genetic. Homosexuality is not innate, it is a behaviour and no more genetic than smoking.

I have attempted to show the fallacy of comparisons between 'oppressed' homosexuals and oppressed blacks and women. The gay rights movement is not equivalent to the civil rights movement nor the suffragettes.

[Ronda]

Riff,

what makes you qualified to discuss the evolution of sexual behavior?

Nothing specific, but the key difference is I don't stroll into every conversation stating that I'm some kind of pseudo-expert because of my "background in genetics". Your attempts to trump all conversations and "clear up misconceptions" because of your "qualifications" is what aggravates. You can offer an opinion and debate it. Nobody is saying you can't. The issue is the way you keep talking about how you can't have a real conversation about these issues because no one on here can understand on your level. Please give it a rest.

someone with a genetics degree having information that more others are not privy to?

Yeah, by the way, Riff... since there is no proof of any kind that homosexuality is genetic, your background in genetics doesn't really help. That should technically put the issue to rest but you and others keep harping on anyway. And I've brought up many instances where people I know have "changed teams", so to speak, as did Craig just now. To paraphrase Craig, I doubt people's genes just "kick in" suddenly... and then back out again.

As for the rest of your post, I don't have time to read it, I work. I guess people with your background, what is it Phd in Everything?? don't have to do much of it to get by.

Nova:

You are the most biased, hateful person here. Instead of eventhing about WHY something happend, you'd rather just kill them all.

That's another charming misconception and libellous piece of garbage hot off your presses. I don't recall anyone ever saying they'd like to "kill them all"... except maybe yourself and possibly Aidan Pryde a while back talking about religious people.