New Study Shows Gay Men Have Variation Of DNA Over Straight men

[bigheadfred]

There is a huge difference to me between tolerance and acceptance. I don't care if you walk on three legs or two. Exceed my tolerance and you are crawling home. No matter how many legs you have.

[INVAR]

This is a problem I have with the interpretation many have provided of the Christian God.

He creates many with heavy, cruel burdens that He could relieve in a heartbeat.

One does not build character existing on easy-street in a fallen world run by the Adversary.   Overcoming this world, our flesh and the god of this world is what Christians have to contend with in this age.  That said, God has healed many in a heartbeat according to their faith in Him and His will.  Others He has not.

If a human tormented, or allowed torment of, children the way God does, we would be rightly reviled.  Yet here we are.

Most of us choose our own condition and suffer the consequences of our choices, even passing them down to our children and visit them upon our neighbors.  Even Jefferson noted that human nature will willfully tolerate evil, as long as evils are tolerable rather than abolish the forms to which they are become accustomed and throw off such conditions for liberty.  Human history teaches us that men prefer to be slaves and will willingly sell themselves into it rather than risk the unknown of self-reliance.

We sit here and read in I Corinthians 7
and admit that it is unreasonable to expect human beings to contain their passions.  Yet at the same time, God gives men passions for each other and says they can't act on them.  How cruel is that?

I don't know.  Ask the guy who thinks he has a right to take your stuff or have sex with your wife or maybe your children simply because he has vile passions to act upon and take what he wants because he must satisfy his desires?

Who are you to tell him 'no'?  Who are you to say his 'passions' are wrong?

How cruel is that?  To deny him his passions?

Is it because you claim to be a 'victim' of his passions? 

Who decides what is moral?  Selfish humans who reject a spiritual nature of selflessness to satisfy the flesh?  Or the One whom created us in the first place?

And in the case of victimless homosexual bonding, we have humans opposing it.

Because it is not natural and God states plainly in both Old and New Testaments that it is an abomination and wicked.  He did not design us for that perversion.

It just seems rather ridiculous.

To the world, God's ways have always been seen as foolish and stupid - because men think they know better how to live, as his 6000 year written history proves.

[roamer_1]

Who decides what is moral?  Selfish humans who reject a spiritual nature of selflessness to satisfy the flesh?  Or the One whom created us in the first place?

Therein lies the crux, and goes all the way back to the Garden... The 'knowledge of good and evil'... Prior to the fall, Hoomins had explicit ever present knowledge of the good. Think of that, walking and talking with God himself in the cool of the evening... What knowledge beyond that could possibly be of any value?


Yet they believed the lie, and decided for themselves, and opened the world to the evil ones.
And here it is, yet again.

WE DECIDE what's good and evil - That's the claim. Because we think we know better than He who formed us.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Does the difference cause the behavior or does the behavior cause the difference?

Depends on the issue.   To say that all gay people are gay because of a 2 genes is a huge stretch and really really poor science.

The term is Scientism: the misapplication of scientific terminology/Scientific sounding terminology to advance a preferential agenda/pre determined outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

There is no such thing as any gene/combination of genes underlying human thoughts, moods, behaviors.

To even Imply otherwise deserves to be criminalized.

I used to read actual published research papers supporting this 100% rubbish.

I gave it up when I found practicing Psychologist Dr Jay Josephs work because he's been at it for 30 years and is much better at documenting the distortions of the scientific method, the push, in this area.

http://jayjoseph.net/publications

Homosexuality, like any mood, thought, or behavior, is a Learned behavior.

To imply otherwise is as asinine and disgusting a perversion of science as allowing white supremacists to claim that the fact that a disproportionate percentage of the people in prison today are black 'Scientifically' proves that black people are genetically predisposed to become criminals.

And then allow Govt to institute a program based on the claim to prevent crime by pre-emptively locking up all pre-criminals.

Behavioral Genetics remains what it has always been: NAZI Pseudo Science.

[Jazzhead]

Homosexuality, like any mood, thought, or behavior, is a Learned behavior.

No more so than heterosexuality is.   So ask yourself: Did you learn to be heterosexual, or is that just how you're wired?

Whatever your orientation, how you behave is entirely your choice.   

[driftdiver]

No more so than heterosexuality is.   So ask yourself: Did you learn to be heterosexual, or is that just how you're wired?

Whatever your orientation, how you behave is entirely your choice.

Yeah the behavior which ensures the continuation of our race is a "learned behavior".    I mean its not like our bodies are designed for heterosexual behavior or anything.  LOL

[massadvj]

1. Men and women are born with sexual preferences - men for women and women for men, in most cases. 

2. Normal distributions says there are inevitably some on either end that do not fall within the "normal" range.

3. Men and women are different and they are born that way.  See #1 above.

So, men and women would have to be the same if sexual preference is merely a personal choice.  See #1 and #3 above.  If you're born with it, it ain't a choice.  I don't find other women arousing, and I do find some men very much so.  I never had to make a choice about it - it simply is the way I'm made.

So, in order for sexual preference to be a choice, it would have to NOT be an inherent/genetic/congenital/pre-determined sort of trait. And, if it weren't an inherent/genetic/congenital/pre-determined sort of trait, men and women would be the same in this regard. See #1 and #3 above.  We know that is not the case.

Therefore, to have a sexual preference for people of the same gender, one is abnormal (see #2 above) and probably born with it, see #1 above.

Now, there is some choice involved - that of acting upon one's preferences or not.  Just as there is a choice for heterosexuals - sex should only occur within the confines of matrimony.  No marriage, no sex.  Let he or she who is without sin cast the first stone.  (It won't be me - I'm sure not in a position to start collecting stones.)

It's an elegant syllogism, I will give you that.  But flawed.  There are many intervening variables after birth that might influence a person's behavior.  These are "learned" behaviors.  There are human predispositions that are wholly genetic (such as my brown eyes), there are human predispositions that are partially genetic/partially learned (such as my tendency toward compulsiveness), and there are predispositions that are wholly learned (such as my knowing that Moore lost the Alabama election on Tuesday).

"Personality" is one of those things that falls into the second category.  You can be born with certain personality predispositions governed by genetics, but as you experience things in life, your personality can change.  For example, if you were born being a big risk-taker, but then you take a risk and lose big-time, this might cause you to become risk averse.  Sexual orientation is like that.  You can be born with one predisposition (including gay), but change based on any learning mechanism from life experience to simple persuasion.  Like personality, sexuality tends to be long-term and stable (unlike mood swings), but it is definitely subject to change based on environment.

Bottom line: not all gays are "born that way."  Some probably are.

This is important because the political agenda of the gay community is to get the straight community to regard gay love as equivalent to straight love.  For me, I have no problem with that.  If two people love each other, I see no reason to denigrate it because they both happen to be the same sex.  Gay marriage?  Meh.  I see both sides.  But the average person needs more than me.  The average person must believe that gays "can't help it, they are born that way" in order to accept gay love as equivalent to straight love.  And so the activists go spouting a big lie that everyone in the social sciences knows is a big lie, but political correctness requires that it be whitewashed.

We have not seen this kind of pressure to avoid the truth since "The Bell Curve."   

[aligncare]

“Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive. Include the following hierarchy of logical imperatives for a living organism: survival, territorialism, competition, reproduction, quality of life-seeking, and group forming.”

[Sanguine]

The term is Scientism: the misapplication of scientific terminology/Scientific sounding terminology to advance a preferential agenda/pre determined outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

There is no such thing as any gene/combination of genes underlying human thoughts, moods, behaviors.

To even Imply otherwise deserves to be criminalized.

So men and women are no different?  There are no inherent behaviors?

[aligncare]

So men and women are no different?  There are no inherent behaviors?

I know that cannot be true, I’ve been around a pregnant woman at home, and men and women interacting in the boardroom.

Men and women look and behave differently. Thank you, Lord!

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

So men and women are no different?  There are no inherent behaviors?

Not when it comes to homosexuality being a Learned Behavior.

Women are not Born with Lesbian Genes anymore than men are Born with Gay genes.

You've driven your bus completely off topic by comparing men and women.

That is not the argument I made. You have conclusion jumped.

Try READING some of the material I provided for you before going channel surfing.

[massadvj]

I know that cannot be true, I’ve been around a pregnant woman at home, and men and women interacting in the boardroom.

Men and women look and behave differently. Thank you, Lord!

So I can't get pregnant? 

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

I know that cannot be true, I’ve been around a pregnant woman at home, and men and women interacting in the boardroom.

Men and women look and behave differently. Thank you, Lord!

X and Y chromsomes have been conclusively identified under microscopes.

Homosexual chromosomes have not and never will be.

And our Govt. bless its pointy little Vote Whoring head is pissing away tax money through the NIMH to fund the Quixotic Quest Looking for them - creating problems at tax payer expense - to this day.

[Smokin Joe]

Where's that 'Jeez Not This S*** Again' pic?

Gays got to have their genetic legitimization for what they do.

More like a lethal mutation: It does nothing to perpetuate the species. It is a behaviour that is closely linked with a lethal disease.

[Sanguine]

Not when it comes to homosexuality being a Learned Behavior.

Women are not Born with Lesbian Genes anymore than men are Born with Gay genes.

You've driven your bus completely off topic by comparing men and women.

That is not the argument I made. You have conclusion jumped.

Try READING some of the material I provided for you before going channel surfing.

You're missing the argument. 

And, no channel surfing needed to think through the question logically.

[Smokin Joe]

How could two brown-eyed parents have blue-eyed children?

Blue is recessive, Brown is dominant. If both parents are Brown-eyed, but carry the gene for blue eyes, then one combination in 4 will have blue eyes, statistically (both recessive genes, one from each parent). It's why there are blue eyed Indians around (one of my wife's uncles, for one). Not allowing for tipi creeping he was an outlier, most of the boys (and their sisters) had brown eyes.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

You're missing the argument. 

And, no channel surfing needed to think through the question logically.

The hell it is.

You're side tracking the issue off into a Unisex Behavior model - Neither the Post Topic , NOR My Argument - which is Where and How this whole Destructive proliferation of Transgenderism has its roots.

A philosophy Prof once opened his course before me with the statement that "There are only Two races of human beings in all the Universe: Men and Women."

Any damn fool of either sex can get naked in front of a mirror and see the difference.

Run the same experiment with a Lesbian or Gay person, and there is NO observable biological Difference between them and a Heterosexual human being, OF THEIR OWN SEX.

[Sanguine]

Blue is recessive, Brown is dominant. If both parents are Brown-eyed, but carry the gene for blue eyes, then one combination in 4 will have blue eyes, statistically (both recessive genes, one from each parent). It's why there are blue eyed Indians around (one of my wife's uncles, for one). Not allowing for tipi creeping he was an outlier, most of the boys (and their sisters) had brown eyes.

Yes, that is how recessive genes continue to be passed down.

[Sanguine]

The hell it is.

You're side tracking the issue off into a Unisex Behavior model - Neither the Post Topic , NOR My Argument - which is Where and How this whole Destructive proliferation of Transgenderism has its roots.

A philosophy Prof once opened his course before me with the statement that "There are only Two races of human beings in all the Universe: Men and Women."

Any damn fool of either sex can get naked in front of a mirror and see the difference.

Run the same experiment with a Lesbian or Gay person, and there is NO observable biological Difference between them and a Heterosexual human being, OF THEIR OWN SEX.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  Your mind is made up.  I'm just presenting facts; you may (and do) reject them as you like.

[Smokin Joe]

Repressive societies (radical Islam) kill members discovered to be homosexual. Homosexuality in these traditions can be a death sentence.

Yet some folks here insist homosexuality is learned behavior? In a repressed society where homosexuality is not only not accepted nor celebrated but rather is sought to be violently extinguished. And yet homosexuality still exists in Islam.

I’m still not buying that it’s an individual choice, when that choice could result in execution by being thrown off rooftops. One must be genetically predisposed to risk engagement in that behavior.

Meh. Smoking tobacco won't quite get you thrown off a rooftop (yet) but smokers commonly start when they are too young to legally possess a cigarette. Sometimes, something being forbidden has it's allure because it is forbidden. Then the whole fixation, obsession thing kicks in (for some people).

[Frank Cannon]

Any damn fool of either sex can get naked in front of a mirror and see the difference.

Sure about that?

[Smokin Joe]

And historically it hasn't been much easier in so-called enlightened societies.  Many Christians condemn homosexuals - even those who live monogamously with a partner - as perverts and abominations.   Up until recently,  homosexual behavior was an accepted excuse for discrimination, in housing, in employment, in legal rights of all kinds. 

Of course it isn't a choice.   For most, it's no more a choice than race or gender.   Gay folks have exactly the same choices as straight folks  - whether to live a moral and responsible life,  of monogamy and faithful behavior, or of promiscuity and dissipation.

There you go again.

Christians condemn Homosexuality and Homosexual behaviour, not homosexuals. Homosexuals are the sinners, homosexuality is the sin. The sin is an abomination to The Almighty,  and listed in scripture as such, but Christians are admonished to avoid sin and leave the judgement of the sinner to God.

As usual, you have it wrong.

As for choice, If you can choose not to, then if you do, you choose to do so. Pretty simple, really.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  Your mind is made up.  I'm just presenting facts; you may (and do) reject them as you like.

What Facts? You haven't presented a single fact or any resources to back up your fishing expedition yet.

Answer this one.

If a person's Lesbian/Gay Behavior is in their DNA it will then be passed along to offspring, how ever many generations removed. Dominant/Recessive genes etc.

Since Homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce, then Why haven't those recessive genes already eliminated themselves out of the human gene pool?

They've only had what, 45,000 to 50,000 years, and they're Still with us?

[Sanguine]

What Facts? You haven't presented a single fact or any resources to back up your fishing expedition yet.

Answer this one.

If a person's Lesbian/Gay Behavior is in their DNA it will then be passed along to offspring, how ever many generations removed. Dominant/Recessive genes etc.

Since Homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce, then Why haven't those recessive genes already eliminated themselves out of the human gene pool?

They've only had what, 45,000 to 50,000 years, and they're Still with us?

Calm down.  You sound like you think you're being personally attacked.

And, of course homosexuals can biologically reproduce.  They've done it throughout history. 

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Calm down.  You sound like you think you're being personally attacked.

And, of course homosexuals can biologically reproduce.  They've done it throughout history.

Now this is desperation.

You're conflating Homosexual conduct with Bisexual conduct.

Homosexuals - of the same sex - cannot biologically reproduce with each other.