Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Is sexual orientation genetic?


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61 Dr. McNinja

Dr. McNinja

    Dinopolitical effigy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
446
Excellent
  • Name:Jake

Posted 28 April 2010 - 09:44 PM

when did it become clever to bleep ginger?
  • 0

#62 Red Spy

Red Spy

    Administrator of Pain

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts
108
Excellent
  • Name:Dartmouth Admit
  • School:Dartmouth College '15

Posted 29 April 2010 - 04:10 AM

when did it become clever to bleep ginger?


Since a mod with the power to ban me did so
  • 0
Foucoal is the world's greatest source of biopower


I've said it before and I am willing to bet most good debaters agree with me: the best theory file is the one your right yourself and then commit to memory.



Holy shit, that's not even relatively close to English.


#63 Dr. McNinja

Dr. McNinja

    Dinopolitical effigy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
446
Excellent
  • Name:Jake

Posted 29 April 2010 - 08:10 AM

Since a mod with the power to ban me did so


did ian get banning ability? I thought only mat and kerpen could.
  • 0

#64 Red Spy

Red Spy

    Administrator of Pain

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts
108
Excellent
  • Name:Dartmouth Admit
  • School:Dartmouth College '15

Posted 29 April 2010 - 08:34 AM

did ian get banning ability? I thought only mat and kerpen could.


He gave me an infrac
  • 0
Foucoal is the world's greatest source of biopower


I've said it before and I am willing to bet most good debaters agree with me: the best theory file is the one your right yourself and then commit to memory.



Holy shit, that's not even relatively close to English.


#65 inkylouhoo

inkylouhoo

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 339 posts
318
Excellent

Posted 29 April 2010 - 01:07 PM

Can't help feeding the troll...

Let me try a different track - I think the real reason Hadoken thinks homosexuality isn't genetic is because it gives him a justification for refusing them legal protection. He basically says as much, but doesn't give a reason, so I'll hazard a guess: I bet that in Hadoken's world, hierarchy exists and that's okay or even a good thing as long as a person's place on the hierarchy is determined by merit. That's why it's okay to discriminate against fat people - because they can always lose the weight! That's why it's okay to discriminate against poor people - because they can always make more money! So he thinks it's okay to discriminate against gay people because they can always choose to be meritorious, ie heterosexual, if they want to rise higher in the hierarchy.

This proves to be a flimsy excuse because the whole system falls apart when "merit" is revealed to mean only "traditionally socially desirable". After all, fat people and a poor people are no is less intelligent, trustworthy, fun, kind, or are less virtuous than other people. There are structural reasons it's difficult to lose 100 lbs or make 100K that have more to do with the organization of society than individual fault. On the contrary, there are lots of reasons why fat people and poor people start far lower on the social totem pole, so even if they do prove themselves socially desirable through acheivement, they're still not treated the same way as their peers with the same achievements. That's what privilege MEANS - identity traits affect the way a person's achievements are interpreted, and sometimes identity traits are coded as "bad" because of historical prejudice rather than his fantasy of objective rationality. Perhaps Hadoken can't see this because he still hasn't seen through the pure fiction that the social playing field is mostly even, and that difference can be divided into individual identity traits that can then be classified as either "good" or "bad."

Most of the rest of us start from the presumption not that hierarchy is natural and good, but from the presumption that we all share a common humanity and thus discrimination is not okay unless there is a seriously good reason for it. "I don't think their family formation is as desirable as mine" is not a good enough reason to deprive someone of civil rights, even if Hadoken is right about homosexuality being a choice.
  • 0

#66 Red Spy

Red Spy

    Administrator of Pain

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts
108
Excellent
  • Name:Dartmouth Admit
  • School:Dartmouth College '15

Posted 29 April 2010 - 02:14 PM

Can't help feeding the troll...

Let me try a different track - I think the real reason Hadoken thinks homosexuality isn't genetic is because it gives him a justification for refusing them legal protection. He basically says as much, but doesn't give a reason, so I'll hazard a guess: I bet that in Hadoken's world, hierarchy exists and that's okay or even a good thing as long as a person's place on the hierarchy is determined by merit. That's why it's okay to discriminate against fat people - because they can always lose the weight! That's why it's okay to discriminate against poor people - because they can always make more money! So he thinks it's okay to discriminate against gay people because they can always choose to be meritorious, ie heterosexual, if they want to rise higher in the hierarchy.

First off, it's not just my world that has hierarchies. It's the real world (unless you live in Utopia). Society is indeed determined by merit. For example, a kid that doesn't graduate from high school has a significantly lower chance than someone with a college education to be part of the political system. But once again, I never said it's okay to discriminate against gays. I'm just stating that since homosexuality hasn't been proved to be genetic, it isn't afforded the same protection by the Supreme Court as race or gender. I think homosexuality isn't genetic because of the evidence, not because I want to deny gays civil rights. If there is proof of an isolated gay gene (not the stuff like "gays, on average, tend to have 50% more of X chemical"), I will change my beliefs.

This proves to be a flimsy excuse because the whole system falls apart when "merit" is revealed to mean only "traditionally socially desirable". After all, fat people and a poor people are no is less intelligent, trustworthy, fun, kind, or are less virtuous than other people. There are structural reasons it's difficult to lose 100 lbs or make 100K that have more to do with the organization of society than individual fault. On the contrary, there are lots of reasons why fat people and poor people start far lower on the social totem pole, so even if they do prove themselves socially desirable through acheivement, they're still not treated the same way as their peers with the same achievements. That's what privilege MEANS - identity traits affect the way a person's achievements are interpreted, and sometimes identity traits are coded as "bad" because of historical prejudice rather than his fantasy of objective rationality. Perhaps Hadoken can't see this because he still hasn't seen through the pure fiction that the social playing field is mostly even, and that difference can be divided into individual identity traits that can then be classified as either "good" or "bad."

This is societal/social discrimination. There is jack shit anyone can do about that. As I mentioned above, people will hate anyone for any reason. Even racism occurs today (shocker, I know). What I was talking about was judicial/civil discrimination. Fat and poor people don't lose the right to get married, vote, employment opportunities, etc. Gay people don't have full civil rights institutionally (inability to get married). And I was obese at one point =/

Most of the rest of us start from the presumption not that hierarchy is natural and good, but from the presumption that we all share a common humanity and thus discrimination is not okay unless there is a seriously good reason for it. "I don't think their family formation is as desirable as mine" is not a good enough reason to deprive someone of civil rights, even if Hadoken is right about homosexuality being a choice.

Those people happen to be deluding themselves. We, in America, already live in a hierarchy. There's the president, there's the vice president, there's the governor, there's the mayor, etc. People are above others, and it's based on their merit/qualifications (merit=/=homosexuality, for the record). I don't want to deprive gays their civil rights either, BUT it just doesn't fall under what the Supreme Court considers qualified for protection.
  • 0
Foucoal is the world's greatest source of biopower


I've said it before and I am willing to bet most good debaters agree with me: the best theory file is the one your right yourself and then commit to memory.



Holy shit, that's not even relatively close to English.


#67 JoshuaRivera

JoshuaRivera

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 176 posts
44
Good
  • Name:Joshua Rivera
  • School:SIUC

Posted 29 April 2010 - 02:23 PM

Can't help feeding the troll...

Let me try a different track - I think the real reason Hadoken thinks homosexuality isn't genetic is because it gives him a justification for refusing them legal protection. He basically says as much, but doesn't give a reason, so I'll hazard a guess: I bet that in Hadoken's world, hierarchy exists and that's okay or even a good thing as long as a person's place on the hierarchy is determined by merit. That's why it's okay to discriminate against fat people - because they can always lose the weight! That's why it's okay to discriminate against poor people - because they can always make more money! So he thinks it's okay to discriminate against gay people because they can always choose to be meritorious, ie heterosexual, if they want to rise higher in the hierarchy.

This proves to be a flimsy excuse because the whole system falls apart when "merit" is revealed to mean only "traditionally socially desirable". After all, fat people and a poor people are no is less intelligent, trustworthy, fun, kind, or are less virtuous than other people. There are structural reasons it's difficult to lose 100 lbs or make 100K that have more to do with the organization of society than individual fault. On the contrary, there are lots of reasons why fat people and poor people start far lower on the social totem pole, so even if they do prove themselves socially desirable through acheivement, they're still not treated the same way as their peers with the same achievements. That's what privilege MEANS - identity traits affect the way a person's achievements are interpreted, and sometimes identity traits are coded as "bad" because of historical prejudice rather than his fantasy of objective rationality. Perhaps Hadoken can't see this because he still hasn't seen through the pure fiction that the social playing field is mostly even, and that difference can be divided into individual identity traits that can then be classified as either "good" or "bad."

Most of the rest of us start from the presumption not that hierarchy is natural and good, but from the presumption that we all share a common humanity and thus discrimination is not okay unless there is a seriously good reason for it. "I don't think their family formation is as desirable as mine" is not a good enough reason to deprive someone of civil rights, even if Hadoken is right about homosexuality being a choice.



I find this post a little troublesome.

Just because one does not believe that homosexuality is genetic does not mean that one then would then have to be against legal rights. The whole genetic thing relies on the same scientific logic that displaces homosexuals in the first place. Imagine how dis-empowering it would be to assume we all have preconditioned sexual roles. In that world to go against what you are " genetically prone to do" would become the new social bastard. I myself do not have a static conception of what my sexuality is and to think that somehow it's all because DNA strands define would go against the way relationships should shape- thru your own decisions. It's the same struggle against the quick need to medicalize things like depression. I think the battle for Gay legal rights should come from us loving the fact that people are different and that they have the free will to do so. I don't need to make up shit so people can then feel sorry for me because they I'm "genetically prone" to find something attractive. The fact that we need to find some scientific reason before we talk about legal rights is bullshit. I'm pretty sure thousands of studies were done on the difference between between colored and white people but none of that mattered when someone realized hey theres no reason to hate.

Also, I don't intend to defend Hadoken but you should know that you should not take one lonely jackasses opinion and then generalize everyone who might have a sliver of the same opinion. Go out and talk to the people you claim to know about.
  • -1

#68 Dr. Fox On Socks

Dr. Fox On Socks

    In Clocks On Lox

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
3,916
Excellent
  • Name:Coach Ian
  • School:Real World

Posted 29 April 2010 - 02:34 PM

Seriously,
"Equal protection analysis in U.S. law determines what groups are considered suspect classes and therefore eligible for heightened scrutiny based on several factors, one of which is immutability. Evidence that sexual orientation is biologically determined (and therefore perhaps immutable in the legal sense) would strengthen the legal case for heightened scrutiny of laws discriminating on that basis."
That's why homosexuality being genetic and not choice is critical. If gays can change at their will, they lose the protection they would be afforded under the SCOTUS. Also, if homosexuality were genetic, it could be stigmatized as a form of "racism", further reducing discrimination.

1. You're the only one trying to narrow the debate to legal analysis. My question was broad, covering law, ethics, etc. So I'll narrow the question to get at the core of the matter:

Even if it is legal to do so, why is it more okay to discriminate against homosexuals if there is an element of choice in their orientation than if there isn't?

2. Your legal analysis is flawed on multiple levels, including that most of the major civil rights protections that women and racial minorities rely on today were created by statute (mostly the federal Civil Rights Acts), not judicial decree. So until Congress lists sexual orientation as a protected class, homosexuals won't have anywhere near the same protections as blacks, women, etc. Of course, Congress could also, without Court intervention, add sexual orientation to the list tomorrow (for any reason at all) and homosexuals would instantly be afforded almost all the same protections.

Also, as you note yourself, immutability is usually only one factor of many. And there are protected traits that are not immutable as I describe above.

Race is unchangeable, so it's afforded better protection (see above). It's still not okay to discriminate if it were changeable (I never said it was okay to discriminate), but if race was changeable, the court would not afford it so much protection.

Again, ignore the Supreme Court, I'm not asking "what is legal?" I'm asking "what is right?"

In regard to your parenthetical, this whole line of discussion was started by you saying:

I believe it actually does indeed matter [whether homosexuality is genetic]. If people are indeed born gay, that would be significant leverage for gay rights groups, seeing as they would be born as gays.

So then I asked why it matters, since you don't really say why there. So, let's go back there. Why does it matter if someone is born gay or not? (Specifically in contrast to my argument that it should not matter; discrimination against homosexuals should be equally forbidden whether the trait is all-choice, all-genetic, or some combination.)

Gin**rs and other groups haven't been historically discriminated against, which is a significant criterion for being afforded protection.

Good to know that I was mistaken and that historical revisionism takes care of pesky things like this...

Posted Image
Posted Image
http://en.wikipedia....ti-Irish_racism

By historically, I mean that in the past have we: denied gin**rs the right to vote? denied gin**rs equal employment opportunities? Lynched gin**rs and did nothing about it? The answer is NO. This crap happened to black people, and they were clearly historically discriminated against.

Steering back to the original debate. Does this matter? If someone fires a homosexual because of their orientation, is that more acceptable than firing a black or latino person because of their race? Why does it matter that more injustice was heaped on another group in the past when your group is being targeted now?

Edited by Dr. Fox On Socks, 23 May 2011 - 07:34 PM.

  • 0
The information in this post is confidential. If its contents are disclosed, our lawyers will swoop down from helicopters and smash through the skylight nearest you and drag you away with a black bag over your head to our super secret headquarters where you fight to the death with other people who shared this post.

Also known as: © CC-BY-NC 3.0 + beerware (you may use my work under CC-BY-NC terms provided that you buy me a reasonably-priced beer of my choosing if we ever meet in person).

#69 TheScuSpeaks

TheScuSpeaks

    Transgendered Cyborg

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,026 posts
3,325
Excellent
  • Name:TheScu
  • School:Binghamton University

Posted 29 April 2010 - 02:50 PM

This thread is kinda annoying to look through, so, yeah.

A couple of points, though: I think it says a lot (and not particularly nice things) about the present moment that something be genetic is the opposite of choice. That is, if we say something isn't a choice, we have to mean it is genetic. This is obviously the strong notion of liberal atomistic individualism that exists in our culture. Clearly, desire for anyone isn't simply a matter of choice, even if it isn't genetic. The myths and stories of our het tradition bear this out: Romeo and Juliet has nothing to do with choice. Nor genetics. Though it does have a lot to do with stupid teenagers.


Also, talking about trying to figure out why people aren't straight seems like a weird question. A much better question is why anyone would segregate sex based on, well, sex. Seriously, naturally speaking it would make sense for us to want to have sex with as many people as possible. So, why did we ever become straight? Or completely gay? Those both seem relatively deviant to me.
  • 0

When I was 16, and in a Chinese cult, I was sitting on a hill, when Jesus came up behind me, slapped me on the back, and said, "Tag! Now, you're Jesus!"

My blog, critical animal


#70 Red Spy

Red Spy

    Administrator of Pain

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts
108
Excellent
  • Name:Dartmouth Admit
  • School:Dartmouth College '15

Posted 29 April 2010 - 03:13 PM

[quote name='Fox On Socks']1. You're the only one trying to narrow the debate to legal analysis. My question was broad, covering law, ethics, etc. So I'll narrow the question to get at the core of the matter:

Even if it is legal to do so, why is it more okay to discriminate against homosexuals if there is an element of choice in their orientation than if there isn't?[/quote]
Because that's what the average American believes? If you're born with something, you can't help it, but if you get a choice, you have been making bad decisionmaking? [end average American speaking] The bottom line is: It isn't okay to discriminate regardless. It isn't okay now, it won't be okay later.
[quote name='Fox On Socks']
2. Your legal analysis is flawed on multiple levels, including that most of the major civil rights protections that women and racial minorities rely on today were created by statute (mostly the federal Civil Rights Acts), not judicial decree. So until Congress lists sexual orientation as a protected class, homosexuals won't have anywhere near the same protections as blacks, women, etc. Of course, Congress could also, without Court intervention, add sexual orientation to the list tomorrow (for any reason at all) and homosexuals would instantly be afforded almost all the same protections.[/quote]
Of course, if Congress did this, they would not get re-elected. Gay rights is an extremely controversial topic, and it would be like shooting one's self in the foot for a politician to support it. The courts don't have to worry about re-election.
[quote name='Fox On Socks']
Also, as you note yourself, immutability is usually only one factor of many. And there are protected traits that are not immutable as I describe above.[/quote]
That is true, but homosexuality doesn't necessarily fit the bill at this point (in the eyes of the current supreme court). Also, there hasn't been really any case dealing with homosexuality in the Court since there were no viable grounds for lawsuit until now with proposition 8.
[quote name='Fox On Socks']Again, ignore the Supreme Court, I'm not asking "what is legal?" I'm asking "what is right?"[/quote]
What is right? Being an idealist, everyone would be equal, and people wouldn't be discriminatory at all. Being a realist, everyone would have equal protection under the law, and discrimination would decrease (it would never go away). So in other words, it would be "right" to guarantee gays their rights regardless.
[quote name='Fox On Socks']
In regard to your parenthetical, this whole line of discussion was started by you saying:So then I asked why it matters, since you don't really say why there. So, let's go back there. Why does it matter if someone is born gay or not? (Specifically in contrast to my argument that it should not matter; discrimination against homosexuals should be equally forbidden whether the trait is all-choice, all-genetic, or some combination.)

[quote name='Fox On Socks']
Good to know that I was mistaken. It's good to know that historical revisionism takes care of pesky things like this...

Posted Image
Posted Image
http://en.wikipedia....ti-Irish_racism[/quote]
Irish=/=gin**r... That's discrimination based on nationality, not having red-hair, light skin, and freckles... And we protect Irish people today even though there isn't any specific legislation doing so? The current gin**r hate has to do with individuals themselves hating these people (ie "they have no soul").

[quote name='Fox On Socks']
Steering back to the original debate. Does this matter? If someone fires a homosexual because of their orientation, is that more acceptable than firing a black or latino person because of their race? Why does it matter that more injustice was heaped on another group in the past when your group is being targeted now?[/quote]
At my school, you can file a complaint for homosexual, racial, religious, or gender discrimination. They are treated equally on that level. The right that is at issue currently isn't equal economic opportunities or the right to vote: It's the right to marriage that sparks problems, which brings up another point: Many christians believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Their religious beliefs play a role in here, and with the large amount of un-openminded Christians, it will be hard to change this definition.

And so I can clear things up better,
Are you arguing for gay marriage, or are you arguing that we stop discrimination against gays completely?
  • 0
Foucoal is the world's greatest source of biopower


I've said it before and I am willing to bet most good debaters agree with me: the best theory file is the one your right yourself and then commit to memory.



Holy shit, that's not even relatively close to English.


#71 Dr. Fox On Socks

Dr. Fox On Socks

    In Clocks On Lox

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,018 posts
3,916
Excellent
  • Name:Coach Ian
  • School:Real World

Posted 29 April 2010 - 03:31 PM

The bottom line is: It isn't okay to discriminate regardless. It isn't okay now, it won't be okay later.

Oh, okay. Well thanks for finally clearing that up.


Also, there hasn't been really any case dealing with homosexuality in the Court since there were no viable grounds for lawsuit until now with proposition 8.

There have been cases dealing with gay rights before the U.S. Supreme Court. See Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas (overruling Bowers v. Hardwick). And lower federal courts have been hearing gay rights cases since at least the mid-1980's.


Irish=/=gin**r... That's discrimination based on nationality, not having red-hair, light skin, and freckles...


1. So it's okay in your mind to discriminate against someone based on where they look like they are from provided you don't discriminate based on where they actually are from?

2. My understanding is that NINA often applied to redheads generally, even those who weren't immigrants or were Norwegian rather than Irish.

And we protect Irish people today even though there isn't any specific legislation doing so?

True, national origin is a protected class under the Constitution and Civil Rights Acts.

The current gin**r hate has to do with individuals themselves hating these people (ie "they have no soul").

Isn't that where all discrimination comes from? People hating other people?


And so I can clear things up better,

Are you arguing for gay marriage, or are you arguing that we stop discrimination against gays completely?

Both. As I noted above, I don't really care that there are homosexuals walking among us. I see no reason why a person's sexual orientation should get them treated any differently by employers, schools, government entities (including marriage registrars), police, or anyone else.
  • 0
The information in this post is confidential. If its contents are disclosed, our lawyers will swoop down from helicopters and smash through the skylight nearest you and drag you away with a black bag over your head to our super secret headquarters where you fight to the death with other people who shared this post.

Also known as: © CC-BY-NC 3.0 + beerware (you may use my work under CC-BY-NC terms provided that you buy me a reasonably-priced beer of my choosing if we ever meet in person).

#72 Red Spy

Red Spy

    Administrator of Pain

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,441 posts
108
Excellent
  • Name:Dartmouth Admit
  • School:Dartmouth College '15

Posted 29 April 2010 - 03:39 PM

1. So it's okay in your mind to discriminate against someone based on where they look like they are from provided you don't discriminate based on where they actually are from?

No, as I said, discrimination isn't acceptable at all. But the thing is, I know a lot of Irish people who do not have red-hair, light-skin, and freckles. Gin**rs happen to have been Irish, but aren't the only Irish people.

2. NINA often applied to redheads generally, even those who weren't immigrants or were Norwegian rather than Irish.

Oh well, scratch what I said above.

Isn't that where all discrimination comes from? People hating other people?

Yes. There's nothing anyone can do about that. There will always be that neo-nazi in the basement somewhere. Or that KKK rally. And the government can't quash that since it's constitutionally defended.
  • 0
Foucoal is the world's greatest source of biopower


I've said it before and I am willing to bet most good debaters agree with me: the best theory file is the one your right yourself and then commit to memory.



Holy shit, that's not even relatively close to English.


#73 meanmedianmode

meanmedianmode

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts
84
Excellent

Posted 21 August 2010 - 11:15 AM

The last time I bothered to review the evidence on this issue was many years ago. ...
My gut reaction is that while there are probably genetic components, I doubt that there is a direct causal connection between someone's genes and sexual orientation. But I am open to be presented with newer evidence on this issue.


Sorry for the bad form of bumping something so old. But this thread got rather carried away and didn't much discuss evidence about the genetic causation of sexual orientation.
google results page for 'twin studies homosexuality'
summary of studies by the top hit above

google scholar results page for 'genetic "sexual orientation"'
good-looking article from that search - Am J Psychiatry 157:1843-1846, November 2000
Abstract:

Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs

Kenneth S. Kendler, M.D., Laura M. Thornton, Ph.D., Stephen E. Gilman, S.M., and Ronald C. Kessler, Ph.D. OBJECTIVE: Although previous studies have suggested that sexual orientation is influenced by familial factors, which may be partly genetic, these studies have relied on unrepresentative and potentially biased samples. The authors attempted to estimate the role of genetic and environmental factors in the determination of sexual orientation in a more representative sample. METHOD: Sexual orientation was assessed by a single item on a self-report questionnaire in a U.S. national sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs. Sexual orientation was classified as heterosexual or nonheterosexual (bisexual or homosexual). The authors compared the similarity of sexual orientation in the monozygotic twins to the similarity in the same-sex dizygotic twins, all dizygotic twins, the same-sex dizygotic twins and sibling pairs, and all dizygotic twins and sibling pairs. Biometrical twin analyses were performed. RESULTS: All analyses demonstrated familial resemblance for sexual orientation. Resemblance was greater in the monozygotic twins than in the dizygotic twins or in the dizygotic twins plus nontwin siblings. Biometrical twin modeling suggested that sexual orientation was substantially influenced by genetic factors, but family environment may also play a role. No evidence was found for a violation of the equal-environment assumption regarding monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs. CONCLUSIONS: Familial factors, which are at least partly genetic, influence sexual orientation. The results of these analyses should be interpreted in the context of low statistical power and the use of a single item to assess the complex phenotype of sexual orientation.


So this agrees with Scu's gut-check, that as with personality and identity aspects generally, there is probably genetic influence, but not direct genetic determination.
For anyone unfamiliar, the basic idea of this sort of study is that siblings are more genetically similar than randomly selected people, and mono-zygotic twins are more genetically similar than other siblings. So if the siblings/twins share a trait at a higher rate [FONT="]([/FONT]concordance rate[FONT=Arial][FONT="])[/FONT][/FONT] than the general population, then there may be a genetic component to the trait under observation. Of course, siblings are raised in the same household, so they have many/most environmental influences in common as well, and it isn't clear whether genetic or only environmental similarities cause the higher concordance. To help account for this, researchers also compare the concordance of mono- and dy-zygotic twins. These pairs are each subject to the most similar environmental influences, so any difference in concordance means the trait under observation quite probably has a genetic component.

Sometime since then, thinking that sexual orientation is not genetic has somehow become seen as homophobia. Which is obviously bogus.

And since I'm bumping anyway, I'll comment that as the original course of this thread may have born out, the people holding the purely elective position are a significant subset of those holding the non-genetic position. And while not homophobic in itself either, the purely elective position is generally a decent proxy for identifying advocates of discrimination.
  • 0

#74 South-X

South-X

    Top Speaker

  • Former Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts
239
Excellent

Posted 17 April 2011 - 10:56 AM

Wait.....
is this serious?


I would not recommend feeding the troll, while they are free to say things like this that are technically on topic it does not warrant a response.
  • 1

#75 vladlock

vladlock

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts
42
Good

Posted 30 April 2011 - 09:59 AM

I would not recommend feeding the troll, while they are free to say things like this that are technically on topic it does not warrant a response.


Thank you
  • 1
"The things you own end up owning you" - Fight Club

#76 Enterprise

Enterprise

    Dancing Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
368
Excellent

Posted 21 October 2011 - 07:37 PM




Necrobump.
  • 0
Being a dancing star isn't easy.

I'm clearly not very bright.


Christians are stupid sheep who are incapable of thinking for themselves.






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users