Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Right. Even in the article I quoted, it said there were genetic 'factors' to same sex attraction. This is not the same as being 'born gay'. Born gay means you have no choice, and you can only be attra

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6 The largest study1 to date on the genetic basis of sexuality has revealed five spots on the human genome that are linked to same-sex sexual beha

سلام We ought to be cautious to not mistreat homosexuals, regardless of the cause behind their homosexuality.  There may not be one gene that makes one gay or not, but there are certainly bi

Posted Images

  • Moderators

Having a bad temper is also at least partly genetically determined, and that doesn't excuse violent behavior. It might  matter because we might have more understanding of each other's struggles, but sin or not sin have nothing to do with genetic predisposition. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
7 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

People can still make statements, but should qualify those statements with, this is my opinion, I have no solid, scientific evidence for this. That is called being honest

This is something rarely seen on this site Abu Hadi, especially on this topic.

People spit constant claims to speak about this topic with very little knowledge on it, and speak about solutions that have proven zero reliability. I wonder how there is so much support for conversion therapy in this site when not only it has no scientific support, but that actual research on the topic by the UN has proven that there are scam practices that are usually against basic human rights that take place behind these so-called "therapies".

We can agree there is no biological evidence on the origins of homosexuality, and even if there was, biology was never a sacred or universal tool to justify the morality or inmorality of anything, so why does this even matters to anyone? The whole topic is pointless at all levels because it's not relevant for anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare

For those who believe/faith in biological evolution and say that they came from monkeys/chimps etc.

Question for them. Have you looked or observed this "Gene" theory operative in monkeys/chimps. 

If not, this must be an evolutionary defect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
7 hours ago, Guest Psychological Warfare said:

For those who believe/faith in biological evolution and say that they came from monkeys/chimps etc.

Question for them. Have you looked or observed this "Gene" theory operative in monkeys/chimps. 

If not, this must be an evolutionary defect. 

Yes, homosexuality appears in animals. I don't know whether it has been observed in apes, but definitely in other mammals. 

But it's irrelevant. Genetic predisposition has nothing to do with sin. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare

Science is agnostic . It has no morals/ethics or religion. It is not a human only a process. We make the conclusion/use.

From the so called 'Biological Evolution" point of view- This issue raises a question about the "Theory of Biological Evolution" in many ways- it they were to argue on this "Gene" thing. Selection/survival of the fittest. Nature's prime directive- Reproduce- and this is like stopping reproduction. Not what Nature intended. Must be an error, or defect. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Guest Psychological Warfare said:

Science is agnostic . It has no morals/ethics or religion. It is not a human only a process. We make the conclusion/use.

From the so called 'Biological Evolution" point of view- This issue raises a question about the "Theory of Biological Evolution" in many ways- it they were to argue on this "Gene" thing. Selection/survival of the fittest. Nature's prime directive- Reproduce- and this is like stopping reproduction. Not what Nature intended. Must be an error, or defect. 

 

As does continuing to live past reproductive age, and humans, dolphins, and some apes do. Perhaps it is related to community survival rather than passing individual genes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

there are certainly biological and psychological factors that naturally incline certain individuals towards homosexuality. 

I agree with this completely. I know a guy who is bisexual since he was a child. He said since the age of 4-5 he use to love male cartoons, I told him that’s ok because every child loves a cartoon character but then he said he want to marry them and get pregnant from them, that day was really awkward to me. At the age of 8, he started having crushes on guys. Till now he has the same problem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

One reason why gays are being officially and scientifically supported is economy. By not facing discrimination and instead being eased into "marriage" they contribute more to greasing the gears of economy. They are likely to get a house for their "family", pay mortgage. Work, if they can, in whatever capacity and pay utility bills and buy groceries. If there are say 5% preverts in a society that everybody else hates, its 5% immobilized economy. Google "relationship between lgbt and economy" and you will see UN, Worldbank, Sciencedirect and others written this.

Its a clever choice. They know these 5% or how many are not going to give up their preversions and so instead of trying to help them, something that rather requires spending, they put them to work, protect them, tell them they can marry and have a house and tell others to not bother them. Put them in the military to fly drones and kill straight people. The GDP increases and things get done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

One reason why gays are being officially and scientifically supported is economy. By not facing discrimination and instead being eased into "marriage" they contribute more to greasing the gears of economy. They are likely to get a house for their "family", pay mortgage

I thought it was more about destroying the family structure and making people individualised so that there are multiple sources of income.

Like with feminism:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, notme said:

Yes, homosexuality appears in animals. I don't know whether it has been observed in apes, but definitely in other mammals. 

But it's irrelevant. Genetic predisposition has nothing to do with sin. 

It's been observed in animals, but only in very specific situations. Animals have desire (hawa or instinct) but have no aql (intelligence / rational thought). The mechanisms that produce this desire are quite complex, so some researchers 'superimpose' human thought onto animals when they see them doing certain behaviors. Since animals have no way to communicate with us, besides very rudimentary ways, there is noone who can 'disprove' this theory of some researchers that animals have intelligence and rational thoughts like us. At the same time, the hadith from Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) are clear that animals have no aql, thus their actions are based purely on hawa (desire) which is programmed into them by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and they follow it, with no ability to change it. 

The famous hadith that says 'People have the ability to be lower than the animals and higher than the angels' is based on the fact that human beings have both aql and hawa (desire). Animals have no aql(previously stated) and only hawa and angels have no hawa and only aql. So an animal follows their hawa and has no ability to do anything different, and the angels follow their aql and have no desire, so they have no desire to sin. Human beings have both, so if a human being follows his aql, and doesn't sin even though he / she has the ability to that and the desire to do that, then they are higher than the angels, because they have desire which is pushing them in the directions of sin, but they obey Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) anyway, thru exercising their aql. This is one of the reasons why when the angels asked Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), 'Why would you make one a vicegerent on earth who will disobey you and shed blood while we do nothing but repeat your praise'. Holy Quran 2:30.  Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) told them that 'I know what you don't know', because the angels don't understand what hawa (desire) is, so they also couldn't understand the above point. 

Also, if a person spends their life doing sins and not repenting, they are lower than the animals because they are only obeying their 'hawa' even though they have aql, i.e. they know rationally and intellectually that what they are doing is wrong and they can see the consequences of their sin, which is destroying them and destroying those around them and they have 'persistence of vision' which is part of aql which allows them to predict and extrapolate consequences into the future, something which animals don't have. 

When we see an animal doing an action, we can't ask them 'Why are you doing this?' and have them communicate an answer to us. So all we see is the action. There is no way to know (currently) 'why' an animal does certain actions, besides the obvious ones that are common to all animals  and humans(getting food, protection, reproduction, etc). Some researchers, who are sympathetic to the LGBTQ cause, observe a behavior in animals, then fill in the 'why' with their own assumptions, rather than actually knowing 'why' an animal does something, from the animal themselves. So they come to their own conclusions based on their own suppositions, rather than evidence. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

I would advise against listening to Alex Jones on basically anything. Although a few things he says are true, as the saying go 'A broken clock gives the right time twice per day'. He is an opportunist and a snake oil salesman who will say basically anything to get his name out there and increase traffic for his projects which he makes money on. 

Although the interviewer is Alex Jones, the interviewed is Aaron Russo, who was a close friend of one of the Rockefeller’s. In one of his last interviews before his death, he speaks about Nicholas Rockefeller warning him about an event that would allow the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq some eleven months before 9/11. Russo speaks about how he was foretold the fact that the 'War on Terror' would be a hoax where soldiers would be looking in caves for non-existent enemies. Russo says that there is a sinister plan to ultimately microchip and control the entire population; as well as the creation of a one world government.

This is a quote from David Rockefeller that appears to confirm the statement made by Mr. Russo:

Quote

In a later biography, he wrote, “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

https://nypost.com/2017/03/21/remembering-larger-than-life-new-yorker-david-rockefeller/

Page 18 of this document from the Rockefeller foundation has some more details:

https://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller Foundation.pdf


Someone like @Northwest could probably shed more light

Edited by 313_Waiter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
23 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

One reason why gays are being officially and scientifically supported is economy.

This claim doesn't support itself historically. The idea of non-normative families and households didn't benefit the economy and social structure of any modern society. Moreover, non-reproductice couples don't produce the most useful asset for the capitalistic system, which is workforce.

Of course, you will see "gay culture" adopted and exploited by capitalism, as any other thing in society. But this is the consequence of the inevitable existence of gay people in society, not the other way around. Capitalism didn't create gays. They never have been of any benefit to it.

23 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

They know these 5% or how many are not going to give up their preversions

There are a signficant number of queer people who act and lead a life according to their respective religions. Being gay doesn't define the way you lead your life (even though it influences you in many ways due to social stigma).

19 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

feminism

Many of you who talk about feminism as an individualistic selfish movement seem to have no idea about feminism at all. Wanna know a good approach on feminism from an economic lens? Go read Silvia Federici.

Considering that the LGBT or feminists movements are pro-Capitalistic or a creation of Capitalism is rather a sign of having no idea about these movements, both historically and about their own political discourses. I understand and know that Islam clashes with these movements in certain aspects, but that doesn't mean these movements are a creation of Capitalism or evil world elites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
On 4/29/2021 at 11:17 AM, Abu Hadi said:

while sexual preferences have a genetic component, no single gene has a large effect on sexual behaviours.

This is not surprising, as genetic studies claiming to validate social constructs largely fail. No different from supposed racial scientific studies of the colonial eras. 

Sexual orientation and race are largely sociological. “White”, “black”, “gay”, etc are socially constructed labels for purposes of identity and differentiation, extrapolated from vague sexual inclinations and skin color. Genetics doesn’t provide that “meaning”, society does. Then, through those meanings, habits and behaviors are formed. People can debate the utility and validity of this practice, but history shows many negative repercussions, with gains for some at the expense of others.

As far as Islam goes, the only true identity that differentiates us is our adherence to God, with all other traits within the human race considered equally inconsequential. This concept, despite being around since the dawn of humankind, is especially liberating and revolutionary from the perspective of the past few centuries, including today. Malcolm X learned this during Hajj, where all the racial labels he thought were important were not. Everyone was simply brothers and sisters in belief. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/29/2021 at 5:39 PM, The Green Knight said:

If sexual orientation is determined at birth then rapists, pedophiles, masturbationists and beast molesters are also natural, innocent and fine?

Right, let's put people who masturbate and gay people on the same level as rapists, pedophiles, and animal molesters? Really dude?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 4/29/2021 at 11:17 AM, Abu Hadi said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

The largest study1 to date on the genetic basis of sexuality has revealed five spots on the human genome that are linked to same-sex sexual behaviour — but none of the markers are reliable enough to predict someone’s sexuality.

The findings, which are published on 29 August in Science and based on the genomes of nearly 500,000 people, shore up the results of earlier, smaller studies and confirm the suspicions of many scientists: while sexual preferences have a genetic component, no single gene has a large effect on sexual behaviours.

“There is no ‘gay gene’,” says lead study author Andrea Ganna, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

I posted this 

1. Because it is a large scale study conducted by a reputable group of scientist that are broadly accepted. It is not the first study to come to this conclusion, but the largest so far

2. There is so much talk, on this site and elsewhere, that being gay is 'biologically  or genetically determined at birth', like eye color, skin color, or biological sex. Again, I will repeat, there is NO credible, scientific evidence to support this conclusion, and plenty of scientific evidence, this study being the biggest and largest, to support the opposite conclusion. 

There are other studies, studies on monozygotic (identical twins), where one twin has same sex attraction and the other doesn't. If same sex attraction was biologically determined, you would expect that monozygotic identical twins, who have identical dna, would be homogenous in their same sex attraction. That isn't the case at all. Here is one recent article on the subject. 

https://kinseyinstitute.org/news-events/news/2019-07-26-twins-sexual-orientation.php

There are some small issues with this study, which those who believe being gay is biologically determined, will run with and banter about as 'support' for their position. Problems with a single study are not evidence for the opposite conclusion, they are only an indicator that more data is needed to form a more solid conclusion. 

If all the evidence points in one direction, and none, except non scientific anecdotal evidence, points in the other direction, the conclusion is clear. People can still make statements, but should qualify those statements with, this is my opinion, I have no solid, scientific evidence for this. That is called being honest. 

Maybe others have already pointed this out, but the article you're citing explicitly states that there is genetic influence. As you noted, not by one gay gene, but by many.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693

Same-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many.

It's literally the first sentence in the conclusions section.

 

"We identified genome-wide significant loci associated with same-sex sexual behavior and found evidence of a broader contribution of common genetic variation. We established that the underlying genetic architecture is highly complex; there is certainly no single genetic determinant (sometimes referred to as the “gay gene” in the media). Rather, many loci with individually small effects, spread across the whole genome and partly overlapping in females and males, additively contribute to individual differences in predisposition to same-sex sexual behavior."

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 5/1/2021 at 8:42 AM, 313_Waiter said:

Russo says that there is a sinister plan to ultimately microchip and control the entire population; as well as the creation of a one world government.

Basically One Piece lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
8 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Maybe others have already pointed this out, but the article you're citing explicitly states that there is genetic influence. As you noted, not by one gay gene, but by many.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693

Same-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many.

It's literally the first sentence in the conclusions section.

The OP did state that, and the assertion was never that no genetic component exists, but rather arguing against a single monogenic inheritance pattern with a black and white fixed phenotypic expression (ie a single “gay gene” that makes one “gay” or “not gay”). As was mentioned, this dichotomy is a social construction. 

The genetic mechanism they describe for same sex attraction (polygenic, spread against small foci of many genes, non-Mendelian) is qualitatively weak, and by definition, phenotypic expression in polygenic traits tend to be heavily influenced by environmental factors. 

In other words, one strong gene vs multiple weak genes is an important distinction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 5/2/2021 at 4:36 AM, Mahdavist said:

But today there is no doubt that there is a heavy commercial/capitalist boost behind both of these movements. 

And even political. It has a name and it is "pink-washing". The major part of LGBTQ movements rather criticize this exploitation of the community. Not all of it, but the major part of politically active movements do criticize such exploitation. 

One shall know which started first. Feminism, or the Capitalistic adaptation and exploitation of it? Queer rights movements or the Capitalistic assimilation and adaptation of them? Any well learned feminist or queer activist know for well that thia fight is intersectional, and there is no long term goals within the capitalistic system, which is a crucial part of the historical oppression of women, queer people and other minorities (not to mention the rest of the world that doesn't belong to a rich country).

Of course, you will also see queer people who don't share this discourse the same way you see latinos voting for Trump. Political analfabetism is destroying the world.

From an Islamic standpoint, I understand there can't be support of LGBTQ groups, but mostly because Islam opposes same-sex romantic/sexual relations of any type. The only thing in common may be the fight against homophobia in its most apparent way. And even though Islam doesn't tolerate the practice of homosexuality or same sex couples, this is not based on some sort of demonization but on a religious commandment. I don't feel comfortable calling that "homophobia", nor I believe it justifies any type of prosecution or physical abuses. Nonetheless, as I said many types, these abuses take place frequently without the condemnation of religious authorities sadly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GuestOfHonour
On 4/29/2021 at 11:17 AM, Abu Hadi said:

People can still make statements, but should qualify those statements with, this is my opinion, I have no solid, scientific evidence for this. That is called being honest. 

I'm not justifying homosexuality or anything of this sort, but I find it ironic that you want homosexual people to qualify their statements that there is no solid, scientific evidence for this when there is no solid, scientific evidence of the existence of God yet we all believe in Allah. It's just funny to me that you require scientific evidence but your beliefs (i.e., existence of God) cannot be proven scientifically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GuestOfHonour
On 4/29/2021 at 12:39 PM, The Green Knight said:

If sexual orientation is determined at birth then rapists, pedophiles, masturbationists and beast molesters are also natural, innocent and fine?

You're comparing apples to oranges -- all of those with the exception of masturbationists (whatever that is LOL) harm innocent beings. Homosexual sex is consensual between two adults. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GuestOfHonour

So I read your post and the article you linked here, and I hope you realize that the conclusion of the study is that, and I quote, there are "multiple loci implicated in same-sex sexual behavior indicating that, like other behavioral traits, non-heterosexual behavior is polygenic." Polygenic traits are those traits that are controlled by more than one gene gene instead of just one, single gene. Other examples of polygenic traits are your height (there are over 400 genes related to height) and eye colour, where about 13-15 genes play a role in determining what eye colour you will have. So once again, just like your height and eye colour are determined by genetics, so is your sexuality, although there is no one single gene that contributes to it, but rather multiple genes work in tandem to create who you are and how you are. Just as you'd say your height is determined by genetics (although not a single gene), so is your sexuality. 

If you'd like to do your own research, I'd suggest first actually reading the study you are trying to talk about and then realizing what its conclusions are and how they support (or do not support) your theory/beliefs. Second, you should read up on polygenic traits so you can better understand how mistaken your understanding of the study is.

Lastly, and quite ironically, you mentioned in your original post: 

On 4/29/2021 at 11:17 AM, Abu Hadi said:

There is so much talk, on this site and elsewhere, that being gay is 'biologically  or genetically determined at birth', like eye color, skin color, or biological sex. Again, I will repeat, there is NO credible, scientific evidence to support this conclusion, and plenty of scientific evidence, this study being the biggest and largest, to support the opposite conclusion. 

If you took the time to read the study (which I doubt you did), it literally says there are multiple genes that contribute to determine your sexual orientation. As I explained, as your eye colour is a polygenic trait (a trait that is determined by a constellation of different genes), so is your sexuality...the article simply states (accurately from the study) that there is no single gene contributing to your sexuality. So you are, in fact, incorrect because there is credible, scientific evidence, this study being the biggest and largest, to support the hypothesis that genes play a role in determining your sexual orientation, meaning being gay is, in your words "biologically  or genetically determined at birth." LOL 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
47 minutes ago, Guest GuestOfHonour said:

I'm not justifying homosexuality or anything of this sort, but I find it ironic that you want homosexual people to qualify their statements that there is no solid, scientific evidence for this when there is no solid, scientific evidence of the existence of God yet we all believe in Allah. It's just funny to me that you require scientific evidence but your beliefs (i.e., existence of God) cannot be proven scientifically.

Apples and oranges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
26 minutes ago, Guest GuestOfHonour said:

If you took the time to read the study (which I doubt you did), it literally says there are multiple genes that contribute to determine your sexual orientation. As I explained, as your eye colour is a polygenic trait (a trait that is determined by a constellation of different genes), so is your sexuality...the article simply states (accurately from the study) that there is no single gene contributing to your sexuality. So you are, in fact, incorrect because there is credible, scientific evidence, this study being the biggest and largest, to support the hypothesis that genes play a role in determining your sexual orientation, meaning being gay is, in your words "biologically  or genetically determined at birth." LOL 

Polygenic traits weaken, not strengthen the significance of genetics. By definition, they are more susceptible to environmental factors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Guest GuestOfHonour said:

I'm not justifying homosexuality or anything of this sort, but I find it ironic that you want homosexual people to qualify their statements that there is no solid, scientific evidence for this when there is no solid, scientific evidence of the existence of God yet we all believe in Allah. It's just funny to me that you require scientific evidence but your beliefs (i.e., existence of God) cannot be proven scientifically.

The empiricial sciences can only prove/disprove everything that is material and is observable. So if we imagined we could prove God with science, it wouldn't even be God because that would mean he is part of the universe and is material and observable. Poor comparsion really. 

Edited by Khurasani
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 5/2/2021 at 3:27 AM, Bakir said:

This claim doesn't support itself historically.

I guess World Bank, Science Direct, UN and everybody else are either lying or as I know you did not bother googling and reading their articles.

4 hours ago, Guest GuestOfHonour said:

You're comparing apples to oranges -- all of those with the exception of masturbationists (whatever that is LOL) harm innocent beings. Homosexual sex is consensual between two adults. 

If sexual orientation comes from genetics, then pedophiles and rapists are genetically and naturally incorrigible. (Read that slowly) That's all I wrote. Deciding right and wrong is not up to you and me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

If sexual orientation comes from genetics, then pedophiles and rapists are genetically and naturally incorrigible. (Read that slowly) That's all I wrote. Deciding right and wrong is not up to you and me.

I would say a big part of it is enviromental like if you got raped as a kid you are way more likely to do it to someone else when you are an adult even if you were born straight

4 hours ago, Guest GuestOfHonour said:

You're comparing apples to oranges -- all of those with the exception of masturbationists (whatever that is LOL) harm innocent beings. Homosexual sex is consensual between two adults. 

If consent is enough to make it moral would it then be morally right for a dad to have sex with his children with their "consent" when they turn some random age set as a standard?

Edited by Khurasani
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, Guest GuestOfHonour said:

You're comparing apples to oranges -- all of those with the exception of masturbationists (whatever that is LOL) harm innocent beings. Homosexual sex is consensual between two adults. 

And what about the two women who will not have their men because of one homo couple? Can you fathom how devastating and unjust that is to human society? So to you you would rather those children are never born and drained into the sewers. Then you speak of consent and adulthood. Adulthood comes when we make right decisions. Legal process has set an age limit for its own limitations. As for consent, child consent, children are sent to school without their consent aren't they? Taught to love their criminal country and their absurd beliefs without their consent.

9 minutes ago, Khurasani said:

I would say a big part of it is enviromental like if you got raped as a kid you are way more likely to do it to someone else when you are an adult even if you were born straight

This is how sexual orientation is determined. They get molested during childhood, develop a sort of stockholm syndrome or some mental condition. I have seen young men turn gay and what you have written is how. The gay gene unscientific claim is just a smoke screen like so many smoke screens. Science changes all the time. The corporations fund scientific studies. They can tell you Coca Cola is a great health tonic, as they did in 50s. If there is a gay gene then there are also pedophile and animal molester genes.

On 5/1/2021 at 7:28 AM, 313_Waiter said:

I thought it was more about destroying the family structure and making people individualised so that there are multiple sources of income.

Sure. And that is good for economy, the only thing corporations care about. Homosexuals, being in contact with excretions and plethora of pathogens will often get sick, even develop auto immune diseases then die feeding big pharma. Big pharma loves more sales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Reza said:

The OP did state that, and the assertion was never that no genetic component exists, but rather arguing against a single monogenic inheritance pattern with a black and white fixed phenotypic expression (ie a single “gay gene” that makes one “gay” or “not gay”). As was mentioned, this dichotomy is a social construction. 

The genetic mechanism they describe for same sex attraction (polygenic, spread against small foci of many genes, non-Mendelian) is qualitatively weak, and by definition, phenotypic expression in polygenic traits tend to be heavily influenced by environmental factors. 

In other words, one strong gene vs multiple weak genes is an important distinction.

Well, who truly ever thought that there was just one "gay gene"? Or who ever thought that environmental factors didn't also play a role (at least in some cases).

As if there was just one single gene that could just be deleted which would remove 100% of gay thoughts and interests. Did anyone ever really think this was the case to begin with?

Ive always considered it to be a product of multiple genes combined with environmental factors.

Kind of seems like a straw-man response.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Reza said:

Polygenic traits weaken, not strengthen the significance of genetics. By definition, they are more susceptible to environmental factors. 

I don't think this really matters. As noted above, things like skin color are polygenic as well. But who would go as far as to say that genetics has little to no basis versus environmental factors when it comes to people's skin color?

Maybe in the public media there is a "gay gene", but realistically speaking, most people really are just suggesting that there is genetic influence over homosexuality. Which is exactly what the article is suggesting.

I study rocks and fossils and this reminds me of the common term "missing link" in paleontology. It's a popular term and maybe laymen in the media use it often, but nobody really thinks there's such a thing as a "missing link", but rather there are just transitional fossils. "Gay gene" is kind of same thing. It's like a poster child kind of term that grabs people's attention in headlines, but when we remove the veil and actually consider the topic more realistically, to nobody's surprise there is an interplay of genes at work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...