Homosexuals

sponger

Ahnimus wrote:

Genetics?

From your own copy/pastes:

For your information, serotonin is an important protein found in virtually all higher species and its production is genetically controlled

'"genetically controlled"

Actually, I had never heard the argument that homosexuality was in any way related to serotonin levels. However, it's almost common knowledge that chemical imbalances in the brain are widely believed to be caused by genetic factors. So, if you want to argue that serotonin imbalances are to blame, then you are in fact arguing for genetics as a root cause of sexuality.

After all, let's look at the causes of personality disorders.

The role of genetics has long been established; the risk of schizophrenia rises from 1 percent with no family history of the illness, to 10 percent if a first degree relative has it, to 50 percent if an identical twin has it.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/schizkids.cfm

You mentioned depression:

McGuffin and Katz (47) reviewed 12 family studies of bipolar illness and found the average morbidity risk among first-degree relatives to be 7.8% for bipolar and 11.4% for unipolar illness. This is a substantial increase over the respective population rates of approximately 1% and 3%, cited by the same authors. Probandwise monozygotic twin concordance rates for bipolar illness range from 62 to 72 percent, and an additional 18 to 25 percent have unipolar illness (9, 84). Comparative dizygotic concordance rates range from zero to 8 percent for bipolar illness with an additional unipolar range from zero to 11 percent. The role of genes in bipolar illness is further supported by observations on adoptees. Increased rates of both bipolar and unipolar illness are seen in biological parents but not in adoptive parents of bipolar adoptees, indicating that the family and twin data indeed reflect the action of genes

http://www.acnp.org/G4/GN401000176/CH172.html

Again, if you are arguing for serotonin levels, then you are, in fact, arguing for genetics.

Not to mention, I did later re-word my assessment to "biological factors."

Also, I should apologize because that link I provided earlier about birth order was not discussing what I was looking for. I thought it was discussing something I read in the paper a couple of months ago.

A mother's antibodies may change with each boy, raising chances the next will be homosexual.

Scientists have found other genetic links to sexual orientation. For example, if one identical twin is gay, there is a 52% chance that the other twin -- who has the same DNA -- is gay, according to a 1991 report in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Among fraternal twins, who share about half their DNA, the figure drops to 22%, and for other brothers it is 9%, according to the study.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1066866221.html?dids=1066866221:1066866221&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+27%2C+2006&author=Karen+Kaplan&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=THE+NATION


...basically, a combination of biological and genetic factors...

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

From your own copy/pastes:



'"genetically controlled"

Actually, I had never heard the argument that homosexuality was in any way related to serotonin leves. However, it's almost common knowledge that chemical imbalances in the brain are widely believed to be caused by genetic factors. So, if you want to argue that serotonin imbalances are to blame, then you are in fact arguing for genetics as a root cause of sexuality.

After all, let's look at the causes of personality disorders.


http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/schizkids.cfm

You mentioned depression:


http://www.acnp.org/G4/GN401000176/CH172.html

Again, if you are arguing for serotonin levels, then you are, in fact, arguing for genetics.

Well the first article I cited was claiming seratonin was responsible for gay animals. It was the only thing stating seratonin was genetic and look at the source.

Nothing you posted implies seratonin is genetic either. So, would you say our thoughts are slave to our brains and genetics then? We are all just machines?

sponger

I added another link to the bottom of my post. It was what I was trying to post earlier, but I didn't realize I was actually linking something else.

Here's some more stuff on genetics and serotonin(5-HT):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2367601&dopt=Abstract

http://news.mc.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=8332

sliverstain

jeffbr wrote:

swapping spit ??

My, aren't you the romantic one? Some lucky gal's gonna have a bundle of fun with toyuin the future.

jeffbr wrote:

Although I will admit to a certain purient interest in watching two hot women kissing.

Damn. If you aint whining (in a very anally retentive way) at your gal for too much "spit swapping", I guess you'll be badgering the hell out of her for a thressome, eh? Is that what real men do? Maybe your future gal has just had a close shave, and dodged the jeffbr love bullet...

On topic, if you have a problem with what somoebody else chooses to do in the privacy of their own home, or in loving someobody that they want to love, then YOU have the problem.

sponger

nevermind. I was about to post the full version of that article I posted earlier, but it costs money to get access.

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

I added another link to the bottom of my post. It was what I was trying to post earlier, but I didn't realize I was actually linking something else.

Here's some more stuff on genetics and serotonin(5-HT):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2367601&dopt=Abstract

http://news.mc.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=8332

Ok, so if genetics affects seratonin levels, which effects behaviour than that behaviour is a disorder. Such as depression is a disorder, so is homosexuality. Yay we figured it out, I had a feeling the scientific community already knew that though. All the homos should take LSD and Exstacy. Fuck were good.

sponger

Ahnimus wrote:

I had a feeling the scientific community already knew that though.

LOL. You're one of those "I knew it all along" people. There's one in every forum. Personally, I don't think it has much to do with serotonin. For instance, that article about birth orders discusses antibodies produced in the womb that attack male fetuses, thus causing homosexuality for whatever reason.

BackwardsBlues1

keeponrockin wrote:

To be honest, I'm uncomfortable when straight people are making out around me, I just look away. I'd probably do the same for gay couples.

exactly, I don't like watching anyone make out, it doesn't matter to me who they are.

BackwardsBlues1

sonicreducer wrote:

you know, i didn't think about that. either way, it is not pleasant to see people PDA'ing.

id also like to say that i live in ANDERSON, SOUTH CAROLINA right now. it's close to clemson, where i go to college. i never here people making fun of gays or giving them a hard time and i know a lot of gay people. maybe im being sheltered from this, but i don't think it is as bad as people make it out to be. by the way, anderson is about as redneck as it gets.

it's because you're in college. when you're in college, you assume everyone is liberal and open to everything. But it's not outright slander of gays that is the problem, it's like the people who oppose gay marriage. that is hate. they're saying it's great for me to get married but not you because there is something different about you. and trust me, there are PLENTY of people who think like this.

know1

BackwardsBlues1 wrote:

it's because you're in college. when you're in college, you assume everyone is liberal and open to everything. But it's not outright slander of gays that is the problem, it's like the people who oppose gay marriage. that is hate. they're saying it's great for me to get married but not you because there is something different about you. and trust me, there are PLENTY of people who think like this.

I believe it's possible to oppose gay marriage without it being hate. Heck, I oppose straight divorce - is that hate?

BackwardsBlues1

know1 wrote:

I believe it's possible to oppose gay marriage without it being hate. Heck, I oppose straight divorce - is that hate?

no it's not. that's not discriminating, that's not valuing one group of people over another. opposing gay marriage is.

know1

BackwardsBlues1 wrote:

no it's not. that's not discriminating, that's not valuing one group of people over another. opposing gay marriage is.

No - not in all circumstances. People do not have identical reasons for opposing things. I have nothing against homosexuals whatsoever. To be honest, I do not think either side of the gay marriage debate has presented any logical, convincing arguments and therefore I oppose gay marriage AND I oppose prohibiting it. Until someone can convince me one way or the other, my position will remain.

I have a very strict view of marriage and the heterosexuals have done far more to damage marriage then the homosexuals could ever dream of doing.

BackwardsBlues1

know1 wrote:

No - not in all circumstances. People do not have identical reasons for opposing things. I have nothing against homosexuals whatsoever. To be honest, I do not think either side of the gay marriage debate has presented any logical, convincing arguments and therefore I oppose gay marriage AND I oppose prohibiting it. Until someone can convince me one way or the other, my position will remain.

I have a very strict view of marriage and the heterosexuals have done far more to damage marriage then the homosexuals could ever dream of doing.

I don't understand what you're saying really.

so are you saying you also oppose heterosexual marriage? if so, then that's fine.

know1

BackwardsBlues1 wrote:

I don't understand what you're saying really.

so are you saying you also oppose heterosexual marriage? if so, then that's fine.

I actually oppose state-sponsored marriage for anyone. The most logical thing I see is for the government to get out of the marriage business completely and allow people to designate one person to have visitation & legal rights similar to those of a spouse.

Let marriage be something that religions can sponsor if they choose and not have any special legal privileges assigned by the government.

BackwardsBlues1

know1 wrote:

I actually oppose state-sponsored marriage for anyone. The most logical thing I see is for the government to get out of the marriage business completely and allow people to designate one person to have visitation & legal rights similar to those of a spouse.

Let marriage be something that religions can sponsor if they choose and not have any special legal privileges assigned by the government.

I agree with you 100% then.

however, the chances of this happening are slim to none. people love marriage and all the little legal benefits they get from it. so as long as the state is involved in marriage, then they have to allow it for everyone.

jeffbr

sliverstain wrote:

My, aren't you the romantic one? Some lucky gal's gonna have a bundle of fun with toyuin the future.

Damn, you're back. It's just a colloquialism silverstein, don't get too wrapped up in it. And don't worry about my love life, I've been married longer than you've probably been alive, son.

know1

BackwardsBlues1 wrote:

I agree with you 100% then.

however, the chances of this happening are slim to none. people love marriage and all the little legal benefits they get from it. so as long as the state is involved in marriage, then they have to allow it for everyone.

I agree the chances are slim. I also see it as a very slippery slope. Once you start opening up marriage to other things, you are going to be susceptible to all types of requests for different "marriages" and the system will be exploited.

The key is to begin to separate the legal benefits from the marriage. Once that happens, I think most sides could be satisfied with marriage being whatever anyone wants.

know1

Getting back to one of the original comments - to make the statement that homosexuality will be proven to be genetic is to be very close-minded and not have a grasp on reality (or to have some kind of personal agenda).

Let's be honest, the reasons people do things run the entire spectrum from genetics to whatever. Furthermore, people have a choice to act on their impulses or not.

You can't just make a blanket statement that every gay person was genetically programmed that way and that they have no choice but to act on it.

BackwardsBlues1

know1 wrote:

I agree the chances are slim. I also see it as a very slippery slope. Once you start opening up marriage to other things, you are going to be susceptible to all types of requests for different "marriages" and the system will be exploited.

The key is to begin to separate the legal benefits from the marriage. Once that happens, I think most sides could be satisfied with marriage being whatever anyone wants.

well this is what my aunt says, she takes the position that "if you let gays get married, what's to stop people from marrying their dog." Personally I think that comparison is pretty hateful to compare how 2 people feel for each other to someone marrying a dog. But then you know what, if someone wants to actually marry their dog to exploit the benefits of the system, let them. the whole system is so stupid anyway, what harm could it do.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

This subject always turns into a sad argument. Yes, no one should hate gay people regardless of whether they're gay because that's who they were born as, or because of their mentality. Whether it's their choice or not, being gay doesn't affect anyone else.

However, it seems like acceptence isn't good enough for a lot of people. The general reaction to what Ahnimus said clearly shows that. There's a difference between hating and not liking, and there's a difference between accepting and liking.