What we know-and don't know-about the biology of homosexuality

Dec 17, 2012 Full story: arstechnica.com 21

The media was abuzz this week after an international group of researchers proposed that scientists may have been looking for the biological underpinnings of homosexuality in the wrong place.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Dec 17, 2012
Good one "Rick". This one is better for the layman.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#2 Dec 17, 2012
In the long-term, irrespective of it's origin, homosexuality, homosexual marriage and homosexual parenting represent a graver threat to society than guns do.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Dec 17, 2012
Prove it.

Otherwise, STFU!

Since: Mar 07

United States

#5 Dec 17, 2012
JrEsq wrote:
In the long-term, irrespective of it's origin, homosexuality, homosexual marriage and homosexual parenting represent a graver threat to society than guns do.
Let's see.

I believe there have been over 9300 gun related Deaths/killings/murders in this country this year.

Please provide the stats on the number of people slaughtered by gay married couples.

Thanks.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#6 Dec 17, 2012
snyper wrote:
Prove it.
Otherwise, STFU!
"Prove it."????????
Sometimes, the only way you can actually "prove" something, is to allow it, and then base the "proof" on the results.
Yet society does not discard minimum drinking age laws, age of consent laws, etc., when asked for "proof' that these actions would be harmful to society. Society is allowed to act upon a reasonable expectation of harm.
Since homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and homosexual parenting are so very contrary to the design of society, it is reasonable to assume that they present a reasonable expectation of harm to society.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#7 Dec 17, 2012
Why don't we all just agree that it's "FUN !:)" and move on ?

OK ?

:)

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8 Dec 17, 2012
JrEsq wrote:
"Prove it."????????
Sometimes, the only way you can actually "prove" something, is to allow it, and then base the "proof" on the results.
And in almost every instances where the downfall of society is prophesied as the inevitable result of almost any given social change, those warning us are proved quite wrong.
JrEsq wrote:
Yet society does not discard minimum drinking age laws, age of consent laws, etc., when asked for "proof' that these actions would be harmful to society. Society is allowed to act upon a reasonable expectation of harm.
A couple of quick history lessons. Minimum drinking age laws? The first statewide ones weren't passed until after prohibition. They were originally all set at 21, but most were gradually dropped to as young as 18, until the federal government insisting on them being raised again to 21 back in the 80's. Age of consent laws? In 1880, as young as 7 in Delaware and no state higher than 12. Raising them to 16 and eventually 18 was a goal of the children's rights movement of the late 1890's and first decade of the 20th century, that wasn't completely successful until around 1920. Neither of these changes in the way things had always been done were actively opposed, it just took them time to get them passed.
JrEsq wrote:
Since homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and homosexual parenting are so very contrary to the design of society, it is reasonable to assume that they present a reasonable expectation of harm to society.
Since the same was also said about integration, interracial marriages, women and blacks and just about anybody but heterosexual married male white Protestants holding elected office and just about any other societal change which has taken place in this country in the last 200 years, it is even more reasonable to assume that you're just blowing smoke.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10 Dec 17, 2012
JrEsq wrote:
"Prove it."????????
Sometimes, the only way you can actually "prove" something, is to allow it, and then base the "proof" on the results.
Yeah, my coffee table keeps away giant vampire bats. I bought it for that reason, and I've never seen any bats, ergo: proof.

Sure, proof works just like that.
JrEsq wrote:
Yet society does not discard minimum drinking age laws, age of consent laws, etc., when asked for "proof' that these actions would be harmful to society.
The two examples you listed are both based on what AGE we consider young people old enough to be considered adults, and FREELY make their own decisions in adult matters (such as alcohol, sex, voting, joining the military, gambling, smoking, etc).

There isn't any reason that free adult citizens can't make their OWN decisions regarding their sexual orientation, and the gender of the person they will spend the rest of their life with.

Alcohol and tobacco are proven harmful to society, but we allow ADULTS to make their own decisions about them. Stop presuming to interfere with other people's lives.
JrEsq wrote:
Society is allowed to act upon a reasonable expectation of harm.
List some of the harms that you think will come. Be specific. Make it a decent list, longer than just two like you gave above, which were basically the same thing.
JrEsq wrote:
Since homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and homosexual parenting are so very contrary to the design of society, it is reasonable to assume that they present a reasonable expectation of harm to society.
Gay people living their lives are PART of society, and have been for a long, long time. You SHARE that society WITH us, if you'd open your eyes to that. You can't STOP people from being gay by banning them. You can't criminalize people into being straight. If you want to live in Uganda or Iran, I'm sure they'd celebrate your way of thinking.

In America, we recognize citizens' rights to be themselves, and we allow them the freedom to pursue happiness in the way that they feel is best for them. I don't know who you think is coming to "harm" you, but you are ridiculously overreacting, and causing nothing but hatred in our society.

Want society to run better? Put away your freak-out over which gender people are attracted to. What a dumb thing to have bother you.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14 Dec 17, 2012
Will somebody please get this man the psychological help he so obviously needs?
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#15 Dec 17, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Will somebody please get this man the psychological help he so obviously needs?
Snyper claims to have been certified as sane.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#18 Dec 17, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>And in almost every instances where the downfall of society is prophesied as the inevitable result of almost any given social change, those warning us are proved quite wrong.
<quoted text>A couple of quick history lessons. Minimum drinking age laws? The first statewide ones weren't passed until after prohibition. They were originally all set at 21, but most were gradually dropped to as young as 18, until the federal government insisting on them being raised again to 21 back in the 80's. Age of consent laws? In 1880, as young as 7 in Delaware and no state higher than 12. Raising them to 16 and eventually 18 was a goal of the children's rights movement of the late 1890's and first decade of the 20th century, that wasn't completely successful until around 1920. Neither of these changes in the way things had always been done were actively opposed, it just took them time to get them passed.
<quoted text>Since the same was also said about integration, interracial marriages, women and blacks and just about anybody but heterosexual married male white Protestants holding elected office and just about any other societal change which has taken place in this country in the last 200 years, it is even more reasonable to assume that you're just blowing smoke.
"And in almost every instances where the downfall of society is prophesied as the inevitable result of almost any given social change, those warning us are proved quite wrong."
Homosexual marriage and parenting will come under the "almost" category.

"A couple of quick history lessons. Minimum drinking age laws? The first statewide ones weren't passed until after prohibition. They were originally all set at 21, but most were gradually dropped to as young as 18, until the federal government insisting on them being raised again to 21 back in the 80's. Age of consent laws? In 1880, as young as 7 in Delaware and no state higher than 12. Raising them to 16 and eventually 18 was a goal of the children's rights movement of the late 1890's and first decade of the 20th century, that wasn't completely successful until around 1920. Neither of these changes in the way things had always been done were actively opposed, it just took them time to get them passed."
Thanks for making my point. It's best to move in the direction of caution. I'm sure that if homosexuals are successful in gaining SSM, and power through seats in government, they will then act to reduce the consent age back down to the young age that you specified, using the faulty queer logic that the fact that the consent age previously was at that young age, is proof that there was no harm with that young consent age. Hence the "slippery slope".

"Since the same was also said about integration, interracial marriages, women and blacks..."
Being black, or female, is a normal human variation. Homosexuality is a deviation.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#19 Dec 17, 2012
Political infighting and a bad economic model did in Rome and you still need psychological help, get it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#20 Dec 17, 2012
JrEsq wrote:
"And in almost every instances where the downfall of society is prophesied as the inevitable result of almost any given social change, those warning us are proved quite wrong."
Homosexual marriage and parenting will come under the "almost" category.
According to you, but you're in the idiot category.
JrEsq wrote:
"A couple of quick history lessons. Minimum drinking age laws? The first statewide ones weren't passed until after prohibition. They were originally all set at 21, but most were gradually dropped to as young as 18, until the federal government insisting on them being raised again to 21 back in the 80's. Age of consent laws? In 1880, as young as 7 in Delaware and no state higher than 12. Raising them to 16 and eventually 18 was a goal of the children's rights movement of the late 1890's and first decade of the 20th century, that wasn't completely successful until around 1920. Neither of these changes in the way things had always been done were actively opposed, it just took them time to get them passed."
Thanks for making my point. It's best to move in the direction of caution. I'm sure that if homosexuals are successful in gaining SSM, and power through seats in government, they will then act to reduce the consent age back down to the young age that you specified, using the faulty queer logic that the fact that the consent age previously was at that young age, is proof that there was no harm with that young consent age. Hence the "slippery slope".
Hon, I didn't prove your point, I proved that you can't even fake having a clue as to what you are talking about. You cited examples that countered your own argument, moron. Your paranoid delusions are just plain silly.
JrEsq wrote:
"Since the same was also said about integration, interracial marriages, women and blacks..."
Being black, or female, is a normal human variation. Homosexuality is a deviation.
According to you, but in case you've forgotten, you are an idiot.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#21 Dec 17, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>According to you, but you're in the idiot category.
<quoted text>Hon, I didn't prove your point, I proved that you can't even fake having a clue as to what you are talking about. You cited examples that countered your own argument, moron. Your paranoid delusions are just plain silly.
<quoted text>According to you, but in case you've forgotten, you are an idiot.
Hey queer Ricky, when it comes to debate, you're not exactly a snyper.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#22 Dec 17, 2012
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, my coffee table keeps away giant vampire bats. I bought it for that reason, and I've never seen any bats, ergo: proof.
Sure, proof works just like that.
<quoted text>
The two examples you listed are both based on what AGE we consider young people old enough to be considered adults, and FREELY make their own decisions in adult matters (such as alcohol, sex, voting, joining the military, gambling, smoking, etc).
There isn't any reason that free adult citizens can't make their OWN decisions regarding their sexual orientation, and the gender of the person they will spend the rest of their life with.
Alcohol and tobacco are proven harmful to society, but we allow ADULTS to make their own decisions about them. Stop presuming to interfere with other people's lives.
<quoted text>
List some of the harms that you think will come. Be specific. Make it a decent list, longer than just two like you gave above, which were basically the same thing.
<quoted text>
Gay people living their lives are PART of society, and have been for a long, long time. You SHARE that society WITH us, if you'd open your eyes to that. You can't STOP people from being gay by banning them. You can't criminalize people into being straight. If you want to live in Uganda or Iran, I'm sure they'd celebrate your way of thinking.
In America, we recognize citizens' rights to be themselves, and we allow them the freedom to pursue happiness in the way that they feel is best for them. I don't know who you think is coming to "harm" you, but you are ridiculously overreacting, and causing nothing but hatred in our society.
Want society to run better? Put away your freak-out over which gender people are attracted to. What a dumb thing to have bother you.
"List some of the harms that you think will come. Be specific. Make it a decent list, longer than just two like you gave above, which were basically the same thing."
Actually, queer Eddy, I did just that about 3 or 4 months ago. I presented a very detailed analysis of the mechanism by which gay marriage would harm traditional marriage and society.
There were no replies for a long period of time, as the gays realized they had no valid rebuttal, so they finally resorted to the typical homosexual tactic of bombarding the thread with nonsensical posts, in a successful effort to bury my post.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23 Dec 17, 2012
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
"Prove it."????????
Sometimes, the only way you can actually "prove" something, is to allow it, and then base the "proof" on the results.
Yet society does not discard minimum drinking age laws, age of consent laws, etc., when asked for "proof' that these actions would be harmful to society. Society is allowed to act upon a reasonable expectation of harm.
Since homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and homosexual parenting are so very contrary to the design of society, it is reasonable to assume that they present a reasonable expectation of harm to society.
Minimum drinking age, for example, was 16 yo for beer until relatively recently in Wisconsin. The change was the result of DUI fatalities.

Age of consent laws had little to do with "society".

Not only is that not proof, it isn't even logical. Your statements don't even follow from your false postulates; nor do the statements form a valid syllogism. Much less do they result in your suggested conclusion.

Go take some classes. I suggest Cultural Anthropology and Sociology.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#24 Dec 18, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Minimum drinking age, for example, was 16 yo for beer until relatively recently in Wisconsin. The change was the result of DUI fatalities.
Age of consent laws had little to do with "society".
Not only is that not proof, it isn't even logical. Your statements don't even follow from your false postulates; nor do the statements form a valid syllogism. Much less do they result in your suggested conclusion.
Go take some classes. I suggest Cultural Anthropology and Sociology.
"Age of consent laws had little to do with "society".
Age of Consent laws have everything to do with society. It is homosexuals who cannot grasp the very concept of society. They can only grasp the concept of self.

"Not only is that not proof, it isn't even logical. Your statements don't even follow from your false postulates".
My original postulate was that you cannot prove that gay marriage is not harmful to society without actually allowing it. If you can otherwise prove the gay marriage is not harmful to society, then let's hear it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25 Dec 18, 2012
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
"Age of consent laws had little to do with "society".
Age of Consent laws have everything to do with society. It is homosexuals who cannot grasp the very concept of society. They can only grasp the concept of self.
"Not only is that not proof, it isn't even logical. Your statements don't even follow from your false postulates".
My original postulate was that you cannot prove that gay marriage is not harmful to society without actually allowing it. If you can otherwise prove the gay marriage is not harmful to society, then let's hear it.
The assertion is your. The Onus Probandi is on you to prove the assertion of harm.

Btw: My degrees were in the Social Sciences.

Bite me.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#26 Dec 18, 2012
JrEsq wrote:
Hey queer Ricky, when it comes to debate, you're not exactly a snyper.
I'm sorry, that was really the best you could do, wasn't it? I feel for ya buttercup. It's probably best if you just move along.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#27 Dec 18, 2012
JrEsq wrote:
"Age of consent laws had little to do with "society".
Age of Consent laws have everything to do with society. It is homosexuals who cannot grasp the very concept of society. They can only grasp the concept of self.
"Not only is that not proof, it isn't even logical. Your statements don't even follow from your false postulates".
My original postulate was that you cannot prove that gay marriage is not harmful to society without actually allowing it. If you can otherwise prove the gay marriage is not harmful to society, then let's hear it.
Remember me sweetie? I'm the one who pointed out that you really didn't know enough about the history of age of consent laws and the how and why they are what they are today to be able to fake having a clue.

No societal change is going to be problem free, the change in age of consent laws created a criminal class that didn't exist for for our great-great-great grandparents and due to increased reporting of such behaviors, a much larger one than they probably ever anticipated when they got it in their heads to protect the young'uns.

The legal recognition of opposite sex marriages hasn't been cost free either dear, the question is whether on balance, is the legal recognition of same sex marriages a societal good? I realize you don't think it does, but the answer for you would be to not take advantage of your right to marry someone of your own sex, but don't stand in the way of those who want to. The institutions of heterosexual marriage, Christianity, American society, the family, etc, so on, so forth are unlikely to collapse as the result of what should be a very simple change in the laws which govern all of us, not just y'all. Your hyperbolic end of the world rantings are duly noted and given the credit they are due.

Flush.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Genetics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Vaccines and Autism 8 hr friend 16
A Family's Long Search For Fragile X Drug Finds... Tue VACCINE SPECTRUM ... 7
7 things to know about epilepsy Tue ADVERSE EFFECTS 3
Inaccurate prenatal tests lead moms to abort fe... Dec 22 kody 1
Study Suggests But Doesn't Prove Genetic Link t... Dec 20 hpcaban 285
Billboard in Virginia Brazenly Proclaims 'Nobod... Dec 17 blasterboy1984 58
Preeclampsia During Mother's Pregnancy Associat... Dec 17 Parasite epidemic 3
More from around the web