MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Saturday, July 12, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 77.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby Michael Patrick » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:05 am

Wait a minute, I thought gays were recruited into the lifestyle?

I've been sitting here waiting to be recruited, and I've been counting on that sweet signing bonus and awesome benefits package. But so far, no gay headhunters have come calling.
Michael Patrick
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3936
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:56 am
Location: Around here somewhere

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby rabble » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:26 am

I suppose we could add that to the list.

Genetics
Choice
Conditioning ("Nurture" if you're Bludgie or JH)
Recruitment (Part of the Gay Agenda)
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5968
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby fisticuffs » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:38 am

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7778
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby Stebben84 » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:47 am

Michael Patrick wrote:I've been sitting here waiting to be recruited, and I've been counting on that sweet signing bonus and awesome benefits package.


The benefits package I was offered wasn't so hot. Crappy dental coverage and the co-pay was too high.

The did give a hard sell. :wink:
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4730
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby wack wack » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:53 am

Stebben84 wrote:Crappy dental coverage and the co-pay was too high.

The did give a hard sell. :wink:


My guess is they want your teeth to fall out.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3067
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby rabble » Mon Jun 03, 2013 12:05 pm

All seriousness aside, I would like to repeat my question. It's for Bludge and John Henry:

If sexual preference is not an issue, ie people can be gay or not, as they please, how come we're worried about whether certain households might turn kids into gay people?
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5968
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:38 pm

wack wack wrote:Yep. But I bet you'd find the percentage of mothers choosing to abort their gay babies to be immeasurably small.The concern is that Republicans would use the information to try to exterminate homosexuality.


Republicans?

It is the democrats who have historically supported the eugenics movement.

Not that Republicans are blameless, but still, it has mostly been a demmie thing.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Repos, who you have previously claimed want to take away abortion rights, would force abortions on people?

Really? I think you spun out at the corner, there.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:53 pm

rabble wrote:Okay, we have all these statements from Bludgie. I assume John Henry also agrees with them, but that might be pushing it.


He says he is not religious so there is a difference there.

But my religious beliefs do not impact my thinking about how gays should be treated or how they came to be gay.

I am not sure if we agree on marriage, gay or straight. I think the state should not be in the marriage business at all. I think marriage should be a private contract between 2 people of same or different sexes. Whatever that contract might be, the state should provide courts to enforce it as it does with any other contract.

If people want to get married, let them do it in a church (temple, mosque etc) or other non-state ceremony. Churches would be free to make their own rules as to who they would or would not marry.

I do agree that there are probably a number of factors that determines whether one lives a straight or gay life and/or whether one is straight or gay. I do not think it is either/or. I think we all have some of each.

So we probably mostly agree.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby johnfajardohenry » Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:01 pm

rabble wrote:All seriousness aside, I would like to repeat my question. It's for Bludge and John Henry:

If sexual preference is not an issue, ie people can be gay or not, as they please, how come we're worried about whether certain households might turn kids into gay people?


If you asked that of me, sorry. I didn't see it.

My problem with same sex households is that I think kids should have a dad and a mom. I think kids need both male and female influence and they do not get that in a same sex household.

As for whether they are better off in a 2 gay parent (or either sex) household than a single parent or foster care, that would depend on the gay parents, the single parents and the foster care, wouldn't it? Not all foster care is horrible, not all gay couples are great parents.

And, add the straight couple into that mix. There will be situations where the kid is better with 2 gay parents than 2 straight ones. Depends on the parents involved.

I would also say, and think Bludgeon said, that sexual preference is not an issue with consenting adults. I would reserve the right to make it an issue with children. Esp if younger than 14-15 or so.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby Bludgeon » Mon Jun 03, 2013 7:09 pm

rabble wrote:All seriousness aside, I would like to repeat my question. It's for Bludge and John Henry:

If sexual preference is not an issue, ie people can be gay or not, as they please, how come we're worried about whether certain households might turn kids into gay people?

All seriousness, indeed, aside. Despite yourself, you have managed to ask a good question. I think the problem with the subject of sexuality is twofold:

1. The civics class crowd is stupid for wanting to latch onto it like it's 'super huge' civil rights issue.

2. The religious people are stupid for wanting to demagogue it like it's this apocolyptic biblical thing.

I mean, put on the clown suit, strap on the blue wigs, whip out the water grenades, and fuck already.

So, the thing to do is to try to frame the conversation in a way that does not invite either argument. Thanks to those few, Jman and Igor in particular I guess, who contributed a few meaningful snippets of thought.

Because, as 'controversial' as the topic of 'gay marriage' and sexuality is, it's also a very interesting train of inquiry.

What is the case for the argument that sexuality is predetermined by genetics? That is an interesting question. "For the sake of argument, assume sexual orientation is a choice, in that case what are the ethical implications of standardizing a new brand of family, in consideration of kids and adolescants?" Very interesting question, in my opinion.

Personally, pragmatically, I could give a fuck less. Say it is the case that orientation is to some extent a learned value? To me, that's fine. Less kids the better. More abortions the better. Less reproduction? The better. <--- That, is my point of view.

But, since I'm not an "end justifies the means" kind of guy, despite being in favor of the general trend of non-proliferation, I propose that there is some ethical consideration to be made in regard to those children being adopted in the future.

Say thirty years from now they do a study and find that children raised in households with two male or two female parents have a statistically greater chance of being sexually oriented towards their same gender? (Sparrrrrrrrrre me your 2010 studies I mean real, comprehensive studies with huge survey groups spanning decades).

Again, fine.

You and I may be sitting here on TDPF at that time mulling over the numbers saying, 'we (in the 2010's) contributed to that. Nothing wrong with being gay or straight, yet, if not for us, by the numbers, these ten million fellows would be [X] and these seven million ladies would be [X], now, there it is in black and white, the actual implications of a policy, who knew?'

Because, if orientation is an adaptive trait, we're contributing significantly to the probability of one polarity or the other, by standardizing a new family type.

I thought that train of thought was the most interesting part of the Supreme Court hearings.
HuffPo wrote:Kennedy described the issue of gay marriage as "uncharted waters" when the court first heard arguments in March. He expressed support for gay rights as he has in the past but questioned the timing of a decision because "we have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more."


(Quickest snippet ^ I could find).
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby Bludgeon » Mon Jun 03, 2013 7:33 pm

Steve Vokers wrote:
ArturoBandini wrote:
Michael Patrick wrote:I'm one of five siblings. All raised in the same house by the same parents. Four of us are straight, one is gay.

So much for your nurture argument.
Critical thinking fail.


Que?

Traducción: La lógica de M. Patrick fue un desastre. (TM (G)oogle).

...like, he doesn't really get what he is saying.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby rabble » Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:23 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:My problem with same sex households is that I think kids should have a dad and a mom. I think kids need both male and female influence and they do not get that in a same sex household.

Yeah. Right. Better for a kid to grow up in a series of foster homes surrounded by overworked social workers, eh?

johnfajardohenry wrote:I would also say, and think Bludgeon said, that sexual preference is not an issue with consenting adults. I would reserve the right to make it an issue with children. Esp if younger than 14-15 or so.
John Henry

So, being gay is bad if you're under 18?

What the two of you are really saying is "Sure, a grownup can do disgusting unnatural crimes against God and Man that make me want to puk and they'll go to hell for it and I'd stone them if I could but I can't do anything about it so I pretend to go along with it.

But I can try to force gay kids to be straight so I'm going to try it that way."

If being gay was really not an issue with either of you, you wouldn't care whether a kid grew up gay or not.

After I've finished trying to decipher Bludgeon's fever dream masquerading as a response, I might respond to it.

Both of you are skirting the issue.
Last edited by rabble on Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5968
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby rabble » Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:26 pm

Bludgeon wrote:
rabble wrote:All seriousness aside, I would like to repeat my question. It's for Bludge and John Henry:

If sexual preference is not an issue, ie people can be gay or not, as they please, how come we're worried about whether certain households might turn kids into gay people?

All seriousness, indeed, aside. Despite yourself, you have managed to ask a good question.

Great. Did you answer it? I couldn't find one in there.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5968
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby grumpybear » Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:57 pm

Bludgeon,
Your most recent post is fascinating but not in a good way. You start an argument with some absurd supposition a la "let's suppose being gay is a choice", etc. Here's a very easy test for you. Start polling gay and straight people about when they chose to be gay or straight. (Remember the question people asked you at the start of the thread.) The question is not when did you start having sex with members or either sex but did you consciously choose to be attracted to one sex or the other.
Your post conjures that ancient belief that domineering mothers and distant fathers creating gay boys. Get your head out of the 1950s if you still believe that parenting style creates gay and lesbian kids. Your belief that adoptive parents (or biological parents for that matter) can turn kids gay is laughable. Have you even tried to google 'sexual orientation of children with same sex parents'?
grumpybear
Senior Member
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:05 am
Location: near east side

Re: What is the case for the 'genetic sexuality' argument?

Postby Michael Patrick » Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:38 am

ArturoBandini wrote:
Michael Patrick wrote:I'm one of five siblings. All raised in the same house by the same parents. Four of us are straight, one is gay.

So much for your nurture argument.
Critical thinking fail.



Bludgeon is saying that nurture causes homosexuality, specifically that certain households can turn someone gay. I provided an example that clearly demonstrated a case where identical nurture was provided (or as nearly identical as you can have...), yet one of my siblings is gay. Therefore, it must not be nurture.
Michael Patrick
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3936
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:56 am
Location: Around here somewhere

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar