Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetics

emj32
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 9:22:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.jstor.org...

Basically, a new research piece conducted by two scientists published in the Quarterly Review of Biology explains that homosexuality isn't caused by genetics, and isn't a choice as conservatives always claim. Instead, it is caused by "Epigenetics". The cause of the homosexuality are epi-marks, which are temporary switches in a fetus" DNA that exist while in the womb and shortly after birth. However, instead of this switch going from father to son or mother to daughter, they are passed from father to daughter or mother to son. Most of these marks aren't supposed to be passed down from generations. This is why we see a trend that homosexualty tends to run in the family, but not always.

Epigenetic markers are "an added layer of information that clings to our DNA," and regulate the expression of genes according to an external trigger.

A quote from http://io9.com...

"Genes are basically the instruction book, while epi-marks direct how those instructions get carried out. For example, they can determine when, where, and how much of a gene gets expressed."

In other words, conservatives are once again wrong on a social issue.
emj32
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 9:26:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 9:23:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
This has been posted in three separate portions of the Forum already .. .

Could you possibly point me in the direction of said forum discussions?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 9:30:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
emj32
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 9:45:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 9:43:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Thank you ma'am. Probably should of checked the religion/science forums first. However, as it pertains to politics, I'm curious to see how it affects legalization of gay marriage. Will it affect it, or will it have absolutely no effect? Will this influence republican platforms in the future?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:08:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 9:30:31 PM, 16kadams wrote:
That's very interesting.

http://www.myfacewhen.net...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:09:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Regarding the legality issue, I don't think it matters. Why should the cause be relevant? With a sexual preference like incest or pedophilia, there are moral arguments against such relationships (not everyone agrees with those arguments, but many do). For example, an incestuous baby might be born with mental illness, and many pedophiliac relationships are based on vulnerability and manipulation. Those are legitimate concerns for some people. However, gay relationships don't raise any moral concerns as far as I can see. At best, people have argued that gay people tend to be depressed and whatnot, though that's clearly based on society and their identity issues about being Othered; it's not inherently linked to same-sex attraction in general.

If a man chooses to marry another man because he loves him and enjoys sex with him (or maybe he doesn't... after all, not every wife enjoys sex with her husband!), then that's his prerogative and should be his right if that right is afforded to straight couples in similar relationships. If people think it's absurd and leads to a slippery slope of what can qualify as marriage, then they ought to disband legal marriage all together. If not, then gay relationships should be recognized; the causes of homosexuality are irrelevant. Gay couples don't pose a threat to society, and this is arguably (and obvious to me) a civil rights issue. We can theorize about why black people have certain features or commonalities, but regardless, they still have certain rights regardless of those causes.
President of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:20:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:09:53 PM, Danielle wrote:
Regarding the legality issue, I don't think it matters. Why should the cause be relevant? With a sexual preference like incest or pedophilia, there are moral arguments against such relationships (not everyone agrees with those arguments, but many do). For example, an incestuous baby might be born with mental illness, and many pedophiliac relationships are based on vulnerability and manipulation. Those are legitimate concerns for some people. However, gay relationships don't raise any moral concerns as far as I can see. At best, people have argued that gay people tend to be depressed and whatnot, though that's clearly based on society and their identity issues about being Othered; it's not inherently linked to same-sex attraction in general.

There's the natural law argument. Or as I call it, the "you're doing wrong" argument.

If a man chooses to marry another man because he loves him and enjoys sex with him (or maybe he doesn't... after all, not every wife enjoys sex with her husband!), then that's his prerogative and should be his right if that right is afforded to straight couples in similar relationships. If people think it's absurd and leads to a slippery slope of what can qualify as marriage, then they ought to disband legal marriage all together. If not, then gay relationships should be recognized; the causes of homosexuality are irrelevant. Gay couples don't pose a threat to society, and this is arguably (and obvious to me) a civil rights issue. We can theorize about why black people have certain features or commonalities, but regardless, they still have certain rights regardless of those causes.

The truth bro.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
emj32
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 10:30:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 10:09:53 PM, Danielle wrote:
If a man chooses to marry another man because he loves him and enjoys sex with him (or maybe he doesn't... after all, not every wife enjoys sex with her husband!), then that's his prerogative and should be his right if that right is afforded to straight couples in similar relationships. If people think it's absurd and leads to a slippery slope of what can qualify as marriage, then they ought to disband legal marriage all together. If not, then gay relationships should be recognized; the causes of homosexuality are irrelevant. Gay couples don't pose a threat to society, and this is arguably (and obvious to me) a civil rights issue. We can theorize about why black people have certain features or commonalities, but regardless, they still have certain rights regardless of those causes.

The truth has never been spoken so truthfully. But then the whole Religion argument comes up, otherwise known as my fairytale told me gays are bad. But yea, I agree government shouldn't really even be involved in marriage. Why should we be punishing homosexuals for doing absolutely nothing to harm other people. I find the same problem with jailing non-violent drug users. Luckily, the last election proved American is progressively turning socially liberal.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2012 11:27:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 9:45:50 PM, emj32 wrote:
At 12/12/2012 9:43:18 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

Thank you ma'am. Probably should of checked the religion/science forums first. However, as it pertains to politics, I'm curious to see how it affects legalization of gay marriage. Will it affect it, or will it have absolutely no effect? Will this influence republican platforms in the future?

I don't think it will have any effect on SSM's legislative fate. However, it may have an effect on people's personal views on it.

Out of curiousity, I have never come accross anyone who says being gay is a choice. I have always wondered if this argument isn't about attraction, but the choice of persuing this lifestyle. This is similar to a pedophile being attracted to little boys; it is not his fault he is attracted to them, but he chooses to engage in this behavior, and we don't condone that behavior, with valid reasons.

Does anyone know if this is what people are referring to when they say being gay is a choice?
I would think it is, as it seems those "re-education" camps to "cure" homosexuality is about supressing desire, not saying "look at how hot that woman is!". But I have only seen these camps parodied on cartoons, so I don't really know what goes on there.
My work here is, finally, done.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 5:18:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/12/2012 9:22:28 PM, emj32 wrote:
http://www.jstor.org...

Basically, a new research piece conducted by two scientists published in the Quarterly Review of Biology explains that homosexuality isn't caused by genetics, and isn't a choice as conservatives always claim. Instead, it is caused by "Epigenetics". The cause of the homosexuality are epi-marks, which are temporary switches in a fetus" DNA that exist while in the womb and shortly after birth. However, instead of this switch going from father to son or mother to daughter, they are passed from father to daughter or mother to son. Most of these marks aren't supposed to be passed down from generations. This is why we see a trend that homosexualty tends to run in the family, but not always.
(1) Yes but no but ye but no...make up your mind!

(2) People that claim it's genetic mean that it's BIOLOGICAL as opposed to LEARNED; consequently, there is no difference between it being genetic or epigenetic as they are BOTH biological.

Epigenetic markers are "an added layer of information that clings to our DNA," and regulate the expression of genes according to an external trigger.

A quote from http://io9.com...

"Genes are basically the instruction book, while epi-marks direct how those instructions get carried out. For example, they can determine when, where, and how much of a gene gets expressed."

In other words, conservatives are once again wrong on a social issue.
And there are plenty of studies that show that it is not biological. Perhaps conservatives are not wrong after all! In the end, human homosexuality is a complex behavior that is neither completely biological no completely learned but instead a combination of both. That is irrefutable as there is plenty of evidence for both.

I believe (as the evidence shows) that homosexuality in humans is indeed influenced by both a biological and an external component. And IMHO, the influence in MOST cases is 10% to 20% biological and 80% to 90% external.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 2:58:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: Either way who cares. Its an illusion, the government does't even have such magical powers, No body does. It was never something they could take or give or legislate in the first place. Its just a conception, if your love is that shallow that it is only becomes real when somebody bangs a wooden stick, maybe it not worth it.
Let them be gay, who cares. Just tell em, to keep the volume down on the parades and stop rubbing it in are faces. And stop calling us afraid. I mean homophobic, has got to be the most gayest, slander ever Created. Its not a medical diagnoses. And lets be honest, the last thing anybody fears is F-A-G-S.

I kid, I never been a hater, its old school Canada. Its been accepted along time ago..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 4:16:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 2:58:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Either way who cares.
Who cares either way about what?

Its an illusion, the government does't even have such magical powers, No body does.
No idea what you are referring to. You should be more descriptive.

It was never something they could take or give or legislate in the first place. Its just a conception, if your love is that shallow that it is only becomes real when somebody bangs a wooden stick, maybe it not worth it.
Are you referring to the government legislating who another person can love, because that's what it sounds like? The problem is, no one's really suggesting that so you'll have to throw this strawman out with the rest of your collection.

Let them be gay, who cares. Just tell em, to keep the volume down on the parades and stop rubbing it in are faces. And stop calling us afraid. I mean homophobic, has got to be the most gayest, slander ever Created. Its not a medical diagnoses. And lets be honest, the last thing anybody fears is F-A-G-S.
You do realize that f@g is derogatory term, right? You realize that it is a reference to the f@gs (bundles of tinder) used to burn homosexuals alive back in the day, right?

I kid, I never been a hater, its old school Canada. Its been accepted along time ago..
The issue with gay marriage (in the US) is that of a group of people wanting to gain special rights with no good reason.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:16:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 4:16:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/14/2012 2:58:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Either way who cares.
Who cares either way about what?

Its an illusion, the government does't even have such magical powers, No body does.
No idea what you are referring to. You should be more descriptive.

It was never something they could take or give or legislate in the first place. Its just a conception, if your love is that shallow that it is only becomes real when somebody bangs a wooden stick, maybe it not worth it.
Are you referring to the government legislating who another person can love, because that's what it sounds like? The problem is, no one's really suggesting that so you'll have to throw this strawman out with the rest of your collection.

Let them be gay, who cares. Just tell em, to keep the volume down on the parades and stop rubbing it in are faces. And stop calling us afraid. I mean homophobic, has got to be the most gayest, slander ever Created. Its not a medical diagnoses. And lets be honest, the last thing anybody fears is F-A-G-S.
You do realize that f@g is derogatory term, right? You realize that it is a reference to the f@gs (bundles of tinder) used to burn homosexuals alive back in the day, right?

I kid, I never been a hater, its old school Canada. Its been accepted along time ago..
The issue with gay marriage (in the US) is that of a group of people wanting to gain special rights with no good reason.

The Fool: EDUCATION FAIL THE Lowest per person OF ALL MODERN WESTERN COUNTRY WHILE PAYING THE MOST
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:22:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:16:29 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/14/2012 4:16:59 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/14/2012 2:58:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Either way who cares.
Who cares either way about what?

Its an illusion, the government does't even have such magical powers, No body does.
No idea what you are referring to. You should be more descriptive.

It was never something they could take or give or legislate in the first place. Its just a conception, if your love is that shallow that it is only becomes real when somebody bangs a wooden stick, maybe it not worth it.
Are you referring to the government legislating who another person can love, because that's what it sounds like? The problem is, no one's really suggesting that so you'll have to throw this strawman out with the rest of your collection.

Let them be gay, who cares. Just tell em, to keep the volume down on the parades and stop rubbing it in are faces. And stop calling us afraid. I mean homophobic, has got to be the most gayest, slander ever Created. Its not a medical diagnoses. And lets be honest, the last thing anybody fears is F-A-G-S.
You do realize that f@g is derogatory term, right? You realize that it is a reference to the f@gs (bundles of tinder) used to burn homosexuals alive back in the day, right?

I kid, I never been a hater, its old school Canada. Its been accepted along time ago..
The issue with gay marriage (in the US) is that of a group of people wanting to gain special rights with no good reason.

The Fool: EDUCATION FAIL THE Lowest per person OF ALL MODERN WESTERN COUNTRY WHILE PAYING THE MOST

http://youtu.be...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 9:13:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 2:58:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Either way who cares. Its an illusion, the government does't even have such magical powers, No body does. It was never something they could take or give or legislate in the first place. Its just a conception, if your love is that shallow that it is only becomes real when somebody bangs a wooden stick, maybe it not worth it.
Let them be gay, who cares. Just tell em, to keep the volume down on the parades and stop rubbing it in are faces. And stop calling us afraid. I mean homophobic, has got to be the most gayest, slander ever Created. Its not a medical diagnoses. And lets be honest, the last thing anybody fears is F-A-G-S.

I kid, I never been a hater, its old school Canada. Its been accepted along time ago..

This is such a massive strawman. The issue isn't about the government legitimizing their love; it's about having access to civil rights and not being discriminated against. You do realize that this same logic that you used is applied to African Americans? Supremacists want them to stop having parades and rubbing it in their faces too.