Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 10
Be Ye Not Gay
Topic Started: Oct 25 2011, 05:32 PM (3,711 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
No. The above quote is about behavioral change. Obviously the study has to do with a minority of homosexuals changing their behavior. What is has nothing to do with is the *origins* of the behavior. I'm trying to figure out if it would have been possible for me to be more clear about that. Perhaps 30 repeats instead of a mere 15 or so?

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jon - don't worry, I get it.

As I said IT, your position only makes sense if you're arguing against someone who is making a rather ludicrous change that because sexuality is hardcoded, it can't possibly ever change, in which case yes, you're right, this study would show conclusively that people can't be born gay or straight, because clearly they can choose to be either at will.

Nobody makes that argument though, so Jon's point is still valid - the fact that people have changed their behavior for whatever reason, speaks nothing to the origin of their behavior.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 30 2011, 04:45 PM
No. The above quote is about behavioral change. Obviously the study has to do with a minority of homosexuals changing their behavior. What is has nothing to do with is the *origins* of the behavior. I'm trying to figure out if it would have been possible for me to be more clear about that. Perhaps 30 repeats instead of a mere 15 or so?

on post 54 I noted that all that "If it congenital/genetic, I don't see how it can be abandoned for any reason. The only thing that could modify is the behavior -- whether to act on it -- not the same sex attraction itself. "

Yet you deduced, entirely without evidence, that "the study has to do with a minority of homosexuals changing their behavior." -- You have no knowledge if they no longer have same sex attraction, do you?

And you missed the conclusion of the coauthor that this is about "change of sexual orientation" not behavior.

And now, after 200+ posts you now seem to acknowledge that you based the entire conversation on your unfounded belief that this study was about behavior. OK then. I guess you are entirely clear that you have been mistaken about the purported conclusions of the study. No need to repeat yourself.



The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
KlavierBauer
Oct 30 2011, 04:50 PM
Jon - don't worry, I get it.

As I said IT, your position only makes sense if you're arguing against someone who is making a rather ludicrous change that because sexuality is hardcoded, it can't possibly ever change, in which case yes, you're right, this study would show conclusively that people can't be born gay or straight, because clearly they can choose to be either at will.

Nobody makes that argument though, so Jon's point is still valid - the fact that people have changed their behavior for whatever reason, speaks nothing to the origin of their behavior.
Uhhhh.. "nobody" is making that argument?

Did you read the statement of the coauthor: "But I think the study stands as a significant challenge to the reigning views on this matter, especially given that the major mental health organizations say in alternate voices that change of sexual orientation is impossible or that change in sexual orientation is highly unlikely.""?

Typical from PFLAG:

Quote:
 
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.


Seems like a whole lot of people are making that argument.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Yes - I don't believe anyone is making that argument.
That argument as I said, was:
Quote:
 
As I said IT, your position only makes sense if you're arguing against someone who is making a rather ludicrous charge that because sexuality is hardcoded, it can't possibly ever change *edited "change" to "charge" as it was my original meaning*


I wouldn't venture to say that the broad term "sexuality" is a synonym for "sexual orientation" as you've now said with your logic.
I think that if someone is gay or straight, they would likely remain that way. I know more than one person who has changed their sexual behavior - one was a very bullish lesbian who has now settled down with a man and has become somewhat of a housewife. I also think there are a lot of outside reasons that "change" has happened, and I still firmly believe she's attracted naturally to women more so than she is to men. So I wouldn't say her sexual orientation has changed in the way you're using the term (orientation being her natural attraction tendency). I would say her behavior has changed.
I hope that clears my statement up - because I still think it's true. I don't know of anyone making the argument that straight people can't possibly have sex with like gender, or that homosexuals can't possibly have sex with opposite gender.
In fact, I know factually that this isn't the case - so I'd be very surprised for anyone with life experiences of an adult to make such a claim.
I mean - doesn't Rick Santorum single handedly smash this idea to its foundation? I don't think anyone has this idea, because it would be ridiculous.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Oct 30 2011, 04:45 PM
I'm trying to figure out if it would have been possible for me to be more clear about that. Perhaps 30 repeats instead of a mere 15 or so?

May be we can start a pool on this?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
KlavierBauer
Oct 30 2011, 07:46 PM
I don't know of anyone making the argument that straight people can't possibly have sex with like gender, or that homosexuals can't possibly have sex with opposite gender.
That is a completely different argument. The clear context of the study, from the words of the coauthor, was "change in sexual orientation". It did not purport to speak to change in behaviors alone, which is trivially obvious that people can do all sorts of things with their genitals. Gawd, I hope I have not been discussing this for numerous pages based on such an inane presupposition.

I have no idea what you could mean in the context of this conversation by "sexuality is hardcoded" other than a matter of primary orientation/self identification as either hetero/homo/bi etc. If you are using "sexuality" to just mean that we have sex organs and use them, that is trivial and hardly worth discussing. Is that really your point?

Quote:
 
I think that if someone is gay or straight, they would likely remain that way.


Yes, of course you do -- in fact, you are making basically the same argument which PFLAG made, but you said nobody is making.

The plain meaning is that this study purports to evince that homosexuals can be reoriented away from same sex attraction to heterosexual attraction and therefore the question of whether sexual orientation is immutably and permanently fixed needs to remain open. Again, whether that is indeed a fact, or whether the methodology or the study are valid, is an entirely different question.

Quote:
 
"the fact that people have changed their behavior for whatever reason, speaks nothing to the origin of their behavior."


I think it well could: if the origin is genetic, then it is presumably immutable since we really don't know how to reprogram the genetic coding of an entire human being. If they change their behavior because they no longer have same sex attraction and now have heterosexual attraction; or they change their behavior because they no longer have heterosexual attraction and now have same sex attraction, either case would argue that the origin is not necessarily genetic and immutably programmed into the individual. But that would certainly speak of *something* to the origins of homosexual behavior, even if to suggest that it is not always genetic.

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Yes, of course you do -- in fact, you are making basically the same argument which PFLAG made, but you said nobody is making.


Ummm, no - I'm not making that argument. I mean, it would be pretty silly for me to make the argument I say nobody is making right? The argument I'm saying nobody is making is the one that .... nobody is making.

Quote:
 
The plain meaning is that this study purports to evince that homosexuals can be reoriented away from same sex attraction to heterosexual attraction and therefore the question of whether sexual orientation is immutably and permanently fixed needs to remain open. Again, whether that is indeed a fact, or whether the methodology or the study are valid, is an entirely different question.

Yet there is no way to measure/observe this other than asking people if they're gay or straight - which makes the study silly no?!
That's been my entire point...

Quote:
 
I think it well could: if the origin is genetic, then it is presumably immutable since we really don't know how to reprogram the genetic coding of an entire human being.

Well now you're taking things to absurdity. Not every genetic marker binds one to some eventuality, such that you either have 100% choice, or 100% genetic influence in every area of your life.
There is evidence that sociopaths are genetically predisposed to be so. Specific sections of their brains don't function as others' brains do (orbital cortex and amygdala), and so they are less likely to feel empathy or make decisions based on empathy, and are therefore more likely to be able to commit murder. This genetic information however doesn't make one a sociopath, and it doesn't mean that these sections of the brain function improperly every time. In fact, many people fall somewhere else on the spectrum, wherein these parts of their brains function normally except for when they're seeing something violent/disturbing, such that someone might be a sociopath only situationally - fully capable of being, or not being a sociopath and exhibiting pathological behaviors consistent with a mass murderer. The person may have the "killer gene" which affects these parts of their brain, but certainly isn't bound by that to act or live a specific way.
Same deal with the disease of alcoholism. I'm bringing up disorders not to draw a correlation with homosexuality, but to find examples of genetic information which predisposes someone to a specific set of choices/behaviors, but doesn't bind them (vs. containing a genetic marker which makes you blind).
So no - not every gene in the body binds one to some eventuality.
Someone can be born predisposed to one taste or another, and still change their behaviors. This doesn't make their "natural" state any less natural to them.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
KlavierBauer
Oct 30 2011, 08:36 PM
Quote:
 
Yes, of course you do -- in fact, you are making basically the same argument which PFLAG made, but you said nobody is making.


Ummm, no - I'm not making that argument. I mean, it would be pretty silly for me to make the argument I say nobody is making right? The argument I'm saying nobody is making is the one that .... nobody is making.


Or it could be that you are just being inconsistent. :shrug:

Let's review: you said "your position only makes sense if you're arguing against someone who is making a rather ludicrous charge that because sexuality is hardcoded, it can't possibly ever change"

Now assuming that "sexuality" is really shorthand for "sexual orientation" (entirely reasonable given the context of the thread and the specific language of the study), this is precisely what the researchers were contending with, and noted "given that the major mental health organizations say in alternate voices that change of sexual orientation is impossible or that change in sexual orientation is highly unlikely."

I showed you PFLAG's position that said "Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

You seemed to insinuate that I was making a change in the terms "I wouldn't venture to say that the broad term "sexuality" is a synonym for "sexual orientation" as you've now said with your logic." But I didn't change any terms -- all along I have used the same terms as the original article.

Then you stated "I think that if someone is gay or straight, they would likely remain that way." Which is basically the same as saying "or that change in sexual orientation is highly unlikely." -- of course a bit softer, but still to the same general point. Now if you think it can change, and it is genetic (truly genetic -- I've already alluded to in post 146 -- more about that below), then you need to account for how something that is genetic can change (and as a matter of "essence", not "accident" as Moonbat attempted with his bipedality parallel).

So what exact argument are you saying nobody is making? That sexual orientation (your term "sexuality") can never change? Please clarify.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
The plain meaning is that this study purports to evince that homosexuals can be reoriented away from same sex attraction to heterosexual attraction and therefore the question of whether sexual orientation is immutably and permanently fixed needs to remain open. Again, whether that is indeed a fact, or whether the methodology or the study are valid, is an entirely different question.

Yet there is no way to measure/observe this other than asking people if they're gay or straight - which makes the study silly no?!
That's been my entire point...

There are thousands of psychological studies related to all sorts of issues that rely on personal interviews -- the vast bulk of Kinsey's work was interview and personal response. Are you saying that all such studies that rely on subjects answering questions about things are silly? Or only the ones that don't support the permanence of homosexuality?
Quote:
 

Quote:
 
I think it well could: if the origin is genetic, then it is presumably immutable since we really don't know how to reprogram the genetic coding of an entire human being.

Well now you're taking things to absurdity. Not every genetic marker binds one to some eventuality, such that you either have 100% choice, or 100% genetic influence in every area of your life.

Nothing absurd about it -- genetics encode us in immutable ways. And the argument of the homosexual "born that way" position is precisely this -- they are made as homosexuals in their very constitution, which as humans is genetic. Do you reject the homosexual born that way position? (perhaps you do, but its not clear from what you wrote).

Quote:
 

There is evidence that sociopaths are genetically predisposed to be so. Specific sections of their brains don't function as others' brains do (orbital cortex and amygdala), and so they are less likely to feel empathy or make decisions based on empathy, and are therefore more likely to be able to commit murder. This genetic information however doesn't make one a sociopath, and it doesn't mean that these sections of the brain function improperly every time. In fact, many people fall somewhere else on the spectrum, wherein these parts of their brains function normally except for when they're seeing something violent/disturbing, such that someone might be a sociopath only situationally - fully capable of being, or not being a sociopath and exhibiting pathological behaviors consistent with a mass murderer. The person may have the "killer gene" which affects these parts of their brain, but certainly isn't bound by that to act or live a specific way.
Same deal with the disease of alcoholism. I'm bringing up disorders not to draw a correlation with homosexuality, but to find examples of genetic information which predisposes someone to a specific set of choices/behaviors, but doesn't bind them (vs. containing a genetic marker which makes you blind).
So no - not every gene in the body binds one to some eventuality.
Someone can be born predisposed to one taste or another, and still change their behaviors. This doesn't make their "natural" state any less natural to them.

OK then, you are basically arguing my point. I already said that I think homosexuality "can be adequately explained entirely from "nurture" and developmental psychology... the nurture argument is how these inclinations are developed and manifested. " I'll take out the word "entirely" and substitute "primarily", though I do think that the first is the probable case.

And this seems to be essentially what you are saying -- if a trigger is not made at some point in the developmental psychology of the subject, then the appetitive attraction is never manifested. In cases of alcohol and sociopathy, I think the general consensus is that genetic markers might indicate more *vulnerability* but not *predisposition* (and much less *causation*), and rather consider developmental / environmental factors to be at least as important and perhaps more important than genetics.

If so, then there are valid grounds for considering homosexuality to be of a similar operation.

(And if we ever find real incontrovertible scientific evidence for genetic causation of homosexuality, I would certainly change my view.)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 05:38 PM
on post 54 I noted that all that "If it congenital/genetic, I don't see how it can be abandoned for any reason. The only thing that could modify is the behavior -- whether to act on it -- not the same sex attraction itself. "

Yet you deduced, entirely without evidence, that "the study has to do with a minority of homosexuals changing their behavior." -- You have no knowledge if they no longer have same sex attraction, do you?
As Horace notes in 55 the study seems to track reported behavior and reported orientation.


As noted in the article itself, there are methods to detect the presence of attraction that rely on physiological responses rather than the subject self reporting. The authors chose not to use those methods.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 31 2011, 12:09 AM
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 05:38 PM
on post 54 I noted that all that "If it congenital/genetic, I don't see how it can be abandoned for any reason. The only thing that could modify is the behavior -- whether to act on it -- not the same sex attraction itself. "

Yet you deduced, entirely without evidence, that "the study has to do with a minority of homosexuals changing their behavior." -- You have no knowledge if they no longer have same sex attraction, do you?
As Horace notes in 55 the study seems to track reported behavior and reported orientation.


As noted in the article itself, there are methods to detect the presence of attraction that rely on physiological responses rather than the subject self reporting. The authors chose not to use those methods.
Yes. That is not germane. Do you have any knowledge as to whether those respondents still have same sex attraction despite their presumed statements to the contrary, and that they only changed their "behavior"?

It seems only fair that your own claim must also rest on actual evidence that contradicts the evidence of the study.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
It is entirely germane because they can only make claims based on evidence they gathered and its reliability.

And as for me being in possession of evidence, don't be silly. Gathering evidence was the task of the experimenters. If their methods were insufficiently reliable to support a particular claim, than that claim can be criticized.



In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Also, I think you are wasting your time with this line of questioning. Even if the authors had shown that sexual attraction itself changes, that would not prove the nature vs. nurture point either.


Basically, your 'innate=immutable' hypothesis is not something that can simply be assumed.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyD
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
I don't know,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U
Every morning the soul is once again as good as new, and again one offers it to one's brothers & sisters in life.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Nothing absurd about it -- genetics encode us in immutable ways. And the argument of the homosexual "born that way" position is precisely this -- they are made as homosexuals in their very constitution, which as humans is genetic. Do you reject the homosexual born that way position? (perhaps you do, but its not clear from what you wrote).


1) "Genetically determined" and "determined from birth" are not synonymous. (e.g. drug induced abnormalities, effect of maternal testosterone, finger prints, etc.)

2) You can be born with a trait that can later change due to environment but the change be essentially permanent. (e.g. number of fingers)

3) You can be born with a trait that can later change due to environment and the change be non permanent. (e.g. hair colour)

4) You can not be born with a trait and but once gained it become essentially permanent. (e.g. music preferences post age 20)

5) You can not be born with a trait and have it fluctuate throughout life. (e.g. clothing preference )

6) Even if people were not born with a (latent) sexual orientation and even if that sexual orientation could vary throughout life that would not be synonymous with "sexuality is choice".

7) Jon is right, the study referenced is not even decent evidence that sexual orientation can change significantly (given the set of people involved self-reported testimony is not even remotely reliable).

And then even if we pretend the testimony was reliable this:

Quote:
 

then that means at least some of them are not born homosexuals, they are made homosexuals due to some external stimuli or another.


would still not follow. It would make slightly more sense if it were: "then that means at least some of them (the 'ex-gays' in the study) are not born heterosexual they are made heterosexual due to some external stimuli or another" of course that would be false too.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 31 2011, 02:01 AM
Also, I think you are wasting your time with this line of questioning. Even if the authors had shown that sexual attraction itself changes, that would not prove the nature vs. nurture point either.


Basically, your 'innate=immutable' hypothesis is not something that can simply be assumed.
Once again, the neither the purpose nor the purported conclusion was to " prove the nature vs. nurture point" -- that is you issue, not theirs and not mine.

And it would be "genetic=immutable" -- I would take "innate" to me more a question of human nature than genetic programming. Human nature is somewhat elastic (with in a narrow spectrum and with some universal traits) by environmental and developmental factors. "Genetics" as the way an individual is "programmed" biochemically is not modifiable.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 31 2011, 01:36 AM
It is entirely germane because they can only make claims based on evidence they gathered and its reliability.

And as for me being in possession of evidence, don't be silly. Gathering evidence was the task of the experimenters. If their methods were insufficiently reliable to support a particular claim, than that claim can be criticized.



I am having trouble keeping up with your shifting position. Earlier you said that you were in agreement with the study but objected to Jolly's conlcusion.

Even Moonbat understood your position that way:

Quote:
 

Yes he does. He didn't object to the study. He objected to the conclusions Jolly drew from the study. He's said that multiple times.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 31 2011, 07:56 AM
Once again, the neither the purpose nor the purported conclusion was to " prove the nature vs. nurture point" -- that is you issue, not theirs and not mine.

You're funny, man. For several pages I've been trying to tell you this and now you're trying to convince me.


Iverythumper
 
And it would be "genetic=immutable" -- I would take "innate" to me more a question of human nature than genetic programming. Human nature is somewhat elastic (with in a narrow spectrum and with some universal traits) by environmental and developmental factors. "Genetics" as the way an individual is "programmed" biochemically is not modifiable.


Genetic code itself isn't modifiable, but it doesn't follow that behavior that is innate/genetic isn't modifiable.

By the way, I asked this before but got no response - what is the origin of 'human nature' if not genes?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 31 2011, 08:02 AM
I am having trouble keeping up with your shifting position. Earlier you said that you were in agreement with the study but objected to Jolly's conlcusion.
Here are the results of the study as reported by the BP piece.

Quote:
 
The longitudinal study followed 61 subjects for between six and seven years and found that 23 percent of them reported successful conversion to heterosexual orientation and function and another 30 percent reported stable behavioral chastity with a significant dis-identification with gay orientation. Twenty percent of the subjects had given up and embraced a gay identity.



I have no issue with that. They seem to know the limitations of their methods.

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 31 2011, 08:07 AM
ivorythumper
Oct 31 2011, 07:56 AM
Once again, the neither the purpose nor the purported conclusion was to " prove the nature vs. nurture point" -- that is you issue, not theirs and not mine.

You're funny, man. For several pages I've been trying to tell you this and now you're trying to convince me.
I pointed that out to you at post #106 (reiterated to MB at #109).

From #116 you started in with some noise about my not conceding to some point about how the study did not explain "how the origin of homosexual behavior can be determined".

At post #134 I again reiterated the same point "the study never purports to explain the origins of sexual behavior."

At post #136, you acknowledged my point, and then tried to clarify that you were taking exception to Jolly's interpretation, not the study.
Quote:
 

I fully agree the study doesn't purport to explain the origins of sexual behavior. Hence my issue with Jolly's logical leap.

(as a reminder, no where have I expressed the slightest issue with this entirely unremarkable study - only Jolly's conclusion)


which you reiterated in #144
Quote:
 
Again, I never took issue with the study, other than pointing out how meaningless and unremarkable it is. Jolly's conclusion is what I had issue with.


We then discussed what Jolly's views were vis-a-vis what the study/article/coauthor asserted. You seemed to not understand that the statements were actually made by the coauthor. (eg post #233) Once I pointed that out to you you seemed to not want to continue that line of discussion.

You then wanted to shift the discussion to "behavioral changes", not "sexual orientation" as the study purported to discuss.

Then you decided to criticize the study after all in #235 and #237.

And now you claim that my original and consistent read on this matter is the point that you've held all this time. Color me incredulous.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 31 2011, 08:07 AM
By the way, I asked this before but got no response - what is the origin of 'human nature' if not genes?
I already addressed this in #146. "No, it don't think heterosexuality has a "genetic" basis strictly speaking -- I don't think that human nature is a matter of "genetics" once you get past the subject of human genes. The issue is not genetics but human nature."

What makes for human nature seems to be human DNA, not genes. The genes are constituted in a particular way in human DNA to produce a "human being". (perhaps unduly simplified, but you get the point). So however it works, the DNA sequence which is virtually universal to human beings (allowing for chromosomal anomalies which are still "human" but seem to create other developmental issues) allows us to be bipedal, rational, volitional, conscious, self reflective, creative, etc in a way that other biomachines are not.

BTW, this is why I do not think you can define/identify a human being by a genetic code or a DNA sequence -- someone with trisomy 21 or XXX is still a human being and has a human nature, even if not optimal.

Now maybe Moonbat or someone else can tell us if there is a different type of genes in human chromosomes than in other sorts of chromosomes, and if there are different types of human chromosomes in DNA than in other sorts of DNA. I understand this to not be the case. But the human nature seems to be a question of DNA, not genes. That of course does not yet get into the question of genotype vs phenotype, which might be more productive for your position regarding homosexuality. But it still seems that "strictly speaking" genetics does not ostensibly explain homosexuality. The environmental and developmental factors seems crucial.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 31 2011, 08:53 AM
From #116 you started in with some noise about my not conceding to some point about how the study did not explain "how the origin of homosexual behavior can be determined".
Actually the point I made which you were evading was that no one had put forth a convincing argument linking Jolly's conclusion to the study. After 6 evasions you then tried, by constructing a feeble and transparent strawman.



Quote:
 

At post #134 I again reiterated the same point "the study never purports to explain the origins of sexual behavior."

At post #136, you acknowledged my point, and then tried to clarify that you were taking exception to Jolly's interpretation, not the study.


Far earlier than that I had pointed out that my issue was with Jolly's conclusion.


Quote:
 
We then discussed what Jolly's views were vis-a-vis what the study/article/coauthor asserted. You seemed to not understand that the statements were actually made by the coauthor. (eg post #233) Once I pointed that out to you you seemed to not want to continue that line of discussion.

You then wanted to shift the discussion to "behavioral changes", not "sexual orientation" as the study purported to discuss.

Then you decided to criticize the study after all in #235 and #237.


Well, from the beginning I criticized the study for being 'unremarkable'. In 235 and 237 I took issue with your contention that the subjects no longer had any same sex attraction. The study's methods wouldn't reliably determine that.




Quote:
 
And now you claim that my original and consistent read on this matter is the point that you've held all this time.


I'll grant you original.


In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I don't think that human nature is a matter of "genetics" once you get past the subject of human genes


Quote:
 

What makes for human nature seems to be human DNA, not genes.


Quote:
 

Now maybe Moonbat or someone else can tell us if there is a different type of genes in human chromosomes than in other sorts of chromosomes, and if there are different types of human chromosomes in DNA than in other sorts of DNA.


Quote:
 

But the human nature seems to be a question of DNA, not genes


These sentences don't really make sense.

Genes are sequences of DNA (technically a gene is a region of DNA that does something, and the actual sequence which can differ between individuals with the gene is an allele but when the public say "gene" they really mean "allele" i.e. a specific sequence of DNA)

Chromosomes are just larger sections of DNA that are bundled up with proteins. Within one chromosome there are many genes.

The genotype is the entire sequence of DNA, i.e. specification of all the genes (or all the alleles of all the genes if we are being pedantic).

The phenotype is the set of all traits the organism possesses or equivalently everything about the organism. Size, shape, behaviour, etc. etc. Phenotype is determined by both genes and the environment that those genes find themselves.

Quote:
 

But it still seems that "strictly speaking" genetics does not ostensibly explain homosexuality. The environmental and developmental factors seems crucial.


No one disputed this.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 31 2011, 09:56 AM
ivorythumper
Oct 31 2011, 08:53 AM
From #116 you started in with some noise about my not conceding to some point about how the study did not explain "how the origin of homosexual behavior can be determined".
Actually the point I made which you were evading was that no one had put forth a convincing argument linking Jolly's conclusion to the study. After 6 evasions you then tried, by constructing a feeble and transparent strawman.
I think the fact that Jolly's conclusions seem entirely drawn from the coauthor's assertions show the emptiness of that point.

The rest is just posturing and repositioning in your efforts.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Der Fuhrer
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Ist zeest vat zey call zee vaterboardingst torture?

Zis ist totally eenhuman!

miss me yet?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 10