[Liberator]

So we're to that now?

"It's not my fault I'm a mass murdering psychopath!  I have a genetic predisposition for it!"

Forgive the language...but HORSE ****!

Gene's define how tall or how wide and probably even how fat a person will be.  Fine I'll buy that.  But if we're gonna start blaming gene's for any kind of bad or unacceptable behavior, we as a society are not long from the bin.

[Scotty]

Nope, but there are genes for both homosexuality (a mortal sin in Christianity) and criminal behavior (it's estimated that a significant percentage of the criminal population possesses a certain gene variant or set of gene variants that characterize male antisocial behavior.)

Excuse my language, but HOW THE **** DOES THAT WORK??  How could there possibly be a gene for something that not only does not help, but actively subverts(word choice?) the "natural order" (quotation marks because I imagine some people would disagree with me on that point)?  Looking at it from a biological standpoint, a gene that subverts reproduction is anathema.

"It's not my fault I'm a mass murdering psychopath!  I have a genetic predisposition for it!"

  to that.

I could buy the anti-social aspect to a limited degree, but I refuse to believe that there is a gene of all things that predetermines a person's disposition to societal mores.  Put simply, there cannot be a gene for criminal behavior because criminal behavior is subjective to the culture in which that person is raised.

[General Battuta]

You two are making jokes out of yourselves. You in particular, Liberator, are jumping at shadows, thinking that I'm making some kind of Godless Atheist Science Argument that good and evil are illusions and we all just do what we're programmed to in our genes.

Grow up. There's no conspiracy against you or your beliefs. No one here gives enough of a crap to do that.

So we're to that now?

"It's not my fault I'm a mass murdering psychopath!  I have a genetic predisposition for it!"

Forgive the language...but HORSE ****!

Gene's define how tall or how wide and probably even how fat a person will be.  Fine I'll buy that.  But if we're gonna start blaming gene's for any kind of bad or unacceptable behavior, we as a society are not long from the bin.

Don't construct straw men. No one said that mass murdering psychopaths did it because they were born that way. We're talking about criminal behavior - minor stuff, misdemeanors, some felonies, as well as antisocial behavior like children out of wedlock and drug or spouse abuse. What was stated was that GENES INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR and that one set of alleles characterizes male antisocial behavior. Now, your previous post made it clear that you can't understand that very well, so I can try to break it down for you if you want.

Would you like to be placed in touch with members of the faculty at my school? They'll be happy to lecture you for several weeks on the topic (as they did me) and supply you with all the evidence behind it. They are, of course, accredited scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

Please read a book on behavior genetics. It has nothing to do with blaming and everything to do with the scientific evidence which overwhelmingly points to a correlation between genetic factors and criminal behavior. This is incredibly basic stuff: if you're born with a gene that makes you aggressive and a gene that makes you have trouble paying attention in you're school, you're going to be angry, you might get frustrated with your classes, you may fall into delinquency and become a criminal. You have a potential causative pathway right there. I presume you could've dreamed that up in three minutes, but you didn't want to, because your interpretation is that I'm an Amoral Atheist Scientist who wants to get rid of morality and simply say that good and evil don't exist and all our actions are predetermined.

Address my arguments and evidence, not what talk radio tells you my arguments and evidence are. Then I'll respect you.

AND AT NO POINT WERE GENES BLAMED FOR EVERY KIND OF BAD OR UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR.

You must read posts and understand them before responding.

You complain about being called uneducated and then you come out with stuff like this. A simpleton can see that Asperger's Syndrome and autism provide evidence that genes do influence behavior, so of course they can do so on more subtle levels.

Nope, but there are genes for both homosexuality (a mortal sin in Christianity) and criminal behavior (it's estimated that a significant percentage of the criminal population possesses a certain gene variant or set of gene variants that characterize male antisocial behavior.)

Excuse my language, but HOW THE **** DOES THAT WORK??  How could there possibly be a gene for something that not only does not help, but actively subverts(word choice?) the "natural order" (quotation marks because I imagine some people would disagree with me on that point)?  Looking at it from a biological standpoint, a gene that subverts reproduction is anathema.

Watch yourself. A simple Google would have explained to you exactly how it works. It's shameful that you're standing here yelling when you're obviously an intelligent educated person and a moment's education would have taught you something about how these genes are passed on.

Read this. It's a good primer but by no means complete. Then you might want to look up research on the identification of homosexual genes in humans - something that has happened more and more recently. After that, you might want to read a book about why second or third male children are more likely to be homosexual than the first: after the first boy has been born and is capable of having children, later sons are more valuable in helping the family unit survive than having children on their own. See, you could've figured that out on your own if you'd thought for a moment instead of screaming 'HOW THE **** DOES THAT WORK?'

Scotty, I've heard you complain about the characterization of all Christians as ignorant people who put belief before rational thought. And by and large you're very rational and well-educated yourself. But then you go off like this, clearly putting your own ideology before the slightest bit of research, and confirm the stereotype.

"It's not my fault I'm a mass murdering psychopath!  I have a genetic predisposition for it!"

  to that.

I could buy the anti-social aspect to a limited degree, but I refuse to believe that there is a gene of all things that predetermines a person's disposition to societal mores.  Put simply, there cannot be a gene for criminal behavior because criminal behavior is subjective to the culture in which that person is raised.

Don't construct straw men. No one claimed that one gene predetermines everyone's disposition to social mores. There are genes that make men more aggressive, less likely to pair-bond, and less likely to abide by laws. Lo and behold, criminals are more likely to possess these genes.

Simple logic could have you told you that. Instead you're making a fool of yourself.

It's hilarious that you're here screaming 'HOW THE **** COULD THAT WORK' about the genetic basis of homosexuality when over 1500 species how homosexual behavior and it's clear that most of them are in no way capable of making some kind of 'choice to act gay.' Moreover, it's doubly hilarious when the markers responsible for heritable homosexual behavior in humans have been tentatively identified and when homosexuality is clearly heritable.

As far back as 1991 Bailey and Pillard found evidence that monozygotic cotwins were more likely to share homosexuality than dizygotic cotwins. Clear evidence right there, my friend. That's just one selected example from a massive body.

Please don't interpret all this to mean that homosexuality is purely genetic.

I'll be happy to call MP-Ryan in here to clarify things on both sides. I don't have any problem with Christian religious beliefs, but when it crosses into misinterpretation of science, then that's gone too far.

[Scotty]

After that, you might want to read a book about why second or third male children are more likely to be homosexual than the first: after the first boy has been born and is capable of having children, later sons are more valuable in helping the family unit survive than having children on their own.

   I hope you can exuse a little toned down version of a WTF from me on this one too.  Perhaps its simply because I've only been through the basic genetics courses in High School biology, but I thought that the fabled Punnett Square had a little to do with probabilities (or at least representing them) for an allele.  Are you telling me that all of that goes out the window when the first kid can have his own kids?  The fudamental probabilities of allele inheritance do not change as a result of the parents having previously procreated.  For example, just because the first child was a son does not mean that it is more or less likely to have either a son or daughter as a second child.  The probabilities are fundamentally unchanged.

If, and I stress IF there were a gene for homosexuality, the inheritance would not be affected by previous offspring (forgive me, but this is just about the one place I WILL NOT CHANGE my opinion.  Subject is, or course the existance of a homosexuality 'gene').

In fact, based on the example you provided, I would say that argued less in favor of genetics than a "nature vs. nurture" arguement.

It's shameful that you're standing here yelling when you're obviously an intelligent educated person

Incredulity does that sometimes.

Scotty, I've heard you complain about the characterization of all Christians as ignorant people who put belief before rational thought. And by and large you're very rational and well-educated yourself. But then you go off like this, clearly putting your own ideology before the slightest bit of research, and confirm the stereotype.

Sorry.  I tried to keep just my beliefs from coloring every aspect of my disagreement.  Hence, the reason I included some of my (apparently limited) biological understanding to the post.

[General Battuta]

After that, you might want to read a book about why second or third male children are more likely to be homosexual than the first: after the first boy has been born and is capable of having children, later sons are more valuable in helping the family unit survive than having children on their own.

   I hope you can exuse a little toned down version of a WTF from me on this one too.  Perhaps its simply because I've only been through the basic genetics courses in High School biology, but I thought that the fabled Punnett Square had a little to do with probabilities (or at least representing them) for an allele.  Are you telling me that all of that goes out the window when the first kid can have his own kids?  The fudamental probabilities of allele inheritance do not change as a result of the parents having previously procreated.  For example, just because the first child was a son does not mean that it is more or less likely to have either a son or daughter as a second child.  The probabilities are fundamentally unchanged.

If, and I stress IF there were a gene for homosexuality, the inheritance would not be affected by previous offspring (forgive me, but this is just about the one place I WILL NOT CHANGE my opinion.  Subject is, or course the existance of a homosexuality 'gene').

Elementary Punnett squares rarely apply to the inheritance of actual traits. They're only applicable to Mendelian single-gene traits, which are fairly rare.

Yet this increased prevalence of homosexuality in later sons is a statistical truth. It may be an epigenetic factor. It may be that there's a gene which kicks in when an older child is 'detected' in the environment - that's epigenetics. It might be that the later sons can't get any girlfriends with a big brother around. However, it provides an example of the useful and positive function of homosexuality in a family unit. Gay sons can provide for the family without using up resources by having their own offspring.

That was a good question, though, and a good scientific one.

I really suggest you read that article I linked, as well as other papers I'll dig up. Homosexuality is currently strongly believed to be epigenetic, not least because concordance rates for the homosexual trait in monozygotic twins are so much higher than in dizygotes. And you still have to look at that overwhelming list of the occurrence of homosexuality in nature.

In fact, based on the example you provided, I would say that argued less in favor of genetics than a "nature vs. nurture" arguement.

The son example was a single one that may have involved epigenetics. Please don't cherrypick in an effort to salvage your incredulity.

I am impressed by how level-headed that response was. Sorry if I got too angry, but I really think religion infringing on science is a big issue.

And you didn't hear anything about the gay penguins? That was a big deal a month or so ago.

[Scotty]

I am impressed by how level-headed that response was. Sorry if I got too angry, but I really think religion infringing on science is a big issue.

It's a button of mine too, but in reverse.  Also, see my personal title(?)

And you didn't hear anything about the gay penguins? That was a big deal a month or so ago

Can't say I did.  Then again, it wouldn't color my arguments all too much.  My faith encompasses the belief that humans are higher than animals.  That, and Leviticus doesn't say anything about animals not being able to do whatever the heck they want.

[General Battuta]

Well, the genetic basis of homosexual behavior in humans is now pretty much a scientific fact. Hotly debated, of course, but only because of its political connotations. The twin data is damning.

Which I'm afraid makes continued discrimination against it morally difficult. Unless you're planning to go 'cure' it with gene therapy.

Best idea might be to just live and let live.

[Liberator]

Contrary to what you may think from some of my posts, I'd be perfectly happy to, except they won't let me.

It's not my business what goes on in your bedroom, but keep it in the bedroom.  Of course I'm somewhat strongly against any public showing of affection other than perhaps holding hands, and then only if the couple is elderly or just married.

[General Battuta]

Well, maybe if you'd let them have the same financial and legal rights as you do, then it wouldn't be such an issue.

[Scotty]

I have no issue with the people who choose to do something like that.  I may dislike how they choose to live their lives, but they themselves are not the object of my dislike.

Also, from the wording in Liberator's post, it seems he is making that statement for ALL people, not simply homosexuals, and I happen to agree with that (if not what he actually meant).

[The E]

Of course I'm somewhat strongly against any public showing of affection other than perhaps holding hands, and then only if the couple is elderly or just married.

And what is so bad about that?

[Flipside]

Must admit, much of the band I work with (who are, for the most part, homosexuals in their 40-50's) aren't over-enamoured with the idea of Gay Pride parades. As one member put it, 'I'm no more proud of being Gay than you are of being heterosexual, I just am.'



So yes, I can understand people's frustration at the 'in your face'-ness of Gay Pride parades, but then, in retrospect, seeing as the amount of years they weren't allowed to show the slightest affection for each other, it's not that surprising that they exist.

Personally, I think the concept of these parades will only last a generation or two, it only happens because it gets up the noses of people who would rather sexuality was neither seen nor heard, but they haven't quite got things right.

Someone's sexuality is no-ones' business but their own, in my opinion, and it's for that exact reason that Gay Pride marches will only last as long as people care about other people being homosexual.

Once people stop caring, then it will all go back to 'in the bedroom only' behaviour, and maybe we can all get some peace and quiet.

As for public shows of affection, I honestly don't have a problem with that, I'd be much happier seeing a couple snogging on a corner than, for example, seeing a husband beating the crap out of his wife.

[MP-Ryan]

Well, the genetic basis of homosexual behavior in humans is now pretty much a scientific fact. Hotly debated, of course, but only because of its political connotations. The twin data is damning.

Which I'm afraid makes continued discrimination against it morally difficult. Unless you're planning to go 'cure' it with gene therapy.

Sorry, I'm going to have to nitpick you on this one.  You're making a very dangerous generalization.

Homosexuality is biologically based, but it's not genetic.  Genetic means it's heritable, a region of DNA capable of being passed from parent to offspring.  The study you've cited about the heritability of homosexual traits is badly out of date; it shows only that homosexuality often appeared in genetically identical twins (and there are other explanations for why a trait can be common more often in MZ twins than DZ twins, especially in large-scale studies), not that the trait was passed between generations.  No DNA region has been identified, and the few attempts to verify a "homosexuality gene," which focused on the X chromosome, were discredited [rather spectacularly, I might add] several years ago.  As for twin studies, there are all kinds of problems with using them to study a biological basis for psychosocial behaviour (the biggest one is that twin studies don't control enough variables to eliminate developmental influence as a potential cause).

It's also incorrect to use homosexual behaviour in animals as an analogue for human homosexuality, because behaviour is different from sexual preference.  In the majority of animal species, homosexuality is a behaviour and not an orientation (dogs, goats, and several other mammalian species fall in this category).  There are only a very small number of species with individuals that exhibit a homosexual orientation or sexual preference in the same way humans do.  That 1500 species number gets thrown around in behavioural genetics all the time, but the usage is totally incorrect, and I wish instructors would stop it because they're doing their students a serious disservice.

It looks more like homosexuality is a developmental condition than a genetic one, and hormone dosage in the womb appears to be the most likely responsible factor behind variation in both sexual identity and sexual preference, in addition to learning factors during early development.  Once again, a complex interplay of effects ranging from epigenetic modification of gene expression patterns, hormone dosages, and psychological factors of the individual are responsible for what is a combined biological, social, and psychological condition.

That doesn't mean individuals have any conscious control over their sexual identity and orientation, however; just that it isn't determined directly by our DNA.

[Flipside]

In other words 'far too complex to be the product of random chance?'

Sorry, I couldn't resist that

[General Battuta]

Well, the genetic basis of homosexual behavior in humans is now pretty much a scientific fact. Hotly debated, of course, but only because of its political connotations. The twin data is damning.

Which I'm afraid makes continued discrimination against it morally difficult. Unless you're planning to go 'cure' it with gene therapy.

Sorry, I'm going to have to nitpick you on this one.  You're making a very dangerous generalization.

Homosexuality is biologically based, but it's not genetic.  Genetic means it's heritable, a region of DNA capable of being passed from parent to offspring.  No such region has been identified, and the few attempts to verify a "homosexuality gene" (which focused on the X chromosome) were discredited [rather spectacularly, I might add] several years ago.  As for twin studies, there are all kinds of problems with using them to study a biological basis for psychosocial behaviour (the biggest one is that twin studies don't control enough variables to eliminate developmental influence as a potential cause).

It looks more like homosexuality is a developmental condition than a genetic one, and hormone dosage in the womb appears to be the most likely responsible factor behind variation in both sexual identity and sexual preference, in addition to learning factors during early development.  Once again, a complex interplay of effects ranging from epigenetic modification of gene expression patterns, hormone dosages, and psychological factors of the individual are responsible for what is a biological, social, and psychological condition.

That doesn't mean individuals have any conscious control over their sexual identity and orientation, however; just that it isn't determined directly by our DNA.

It's worth clarifying that point, yes. Thank you.

I think I did take a moment to note that there is no single 'gay gene'. But there are definitely genes which increase the probability of being homosexual, and these have been identified at least in a correlative sense. As with most complex behaviors, they definitely interplay with other factors.

And, yeah, the message I was hoping Liberator and Scotty would take away (which they were obviously unaware of) was

That doesn't mean individuals have any conscious control over their sexual identity and orientation

particularly since Scotty seemed incredulous that such a behavior could arise naturally and be useful when in fact it's broadly prevalent.

[MP-Ryan]

Battuta, I just went back and did some further editing to my post.  You may want to read it over again, more as an FYI than anything.

But there are definitely genes which increase the probability of being homosexual

To my knowledge, no genes of this nature have been isolated.  I think there have been some attempts at mapping linkages with SNPs to see whole regions that show up uniquely to homosexuals on autosomes (this after the X chromosome debacle of the early 2000s), but I'm not aware of anything remotely concrete being generated out of that field.  Last I read, there were some extremely tenuous correlations common to some individuals but not others, all of whom self-identified as homosexuals.

Personally, I think the whole attempt is a waste of time.  As usual, some geneticists have gotten it in their heads to look for a gene rather than learning any lessons from behavioural genetics (and I can say this as I am a trained geneticist who HAS taken behaviour genetics and learned his lesson about silly narrow assumptions ).  There are more important things to worry about the cause of homosexuality.  It exists, it always has existed, let's get over it and focus on something worthwhile... like improving our gene therapy delivery systems for a whole host of nasty human diseases that DO actually need curing.

DISCLAIMER:  None of my comments to Battuta should be taken as "doubt" as to the biological roots of homosexuality in humans.  The fact is, it is determined outside of conscious control of the individual.  So that's your take-home message.  Don't be quoting anything I've said as evidence against unless you'd like to be treated to a lengthy and short-tempered discussion on why reading comprehension is important.

[General Battuta]

As long as that last paragraph is clear to the reader I don't have a problem.

However, I've read a lot of the support for and criticism of twin studies and I've never been completely convinced they don't produce useful data. They probably shouldn't serve as the centerpiece of an argument (a flaw my post may have had) but I think they still at least provide some tendentious data.

The epigenetic factors were more of what I had in mind when discussing the biological roots. And as for the issue of 'genes which increase the probability of homosexuality' I believe I've read correlative data to that effect but I'll need to check with my PI about it.

[MP-Ryan]

However, I've read a lot of the support for and criticism of twin studies and I've never been completely convinced they don't produce useful data. They probably shouldn't serve as the centerpiece of an argument (a flaw my post may have had) but I think they still at least provide some tendentious data.

The problem with twin studies is that they can't sort out what's genetic from what's the result of a common shared developmental environment unless you look at very narrow specific criteria on the pregnancy itself, which isn't always available in large-scale twin studies.  It's a factor that commonly gets overlooked.  Beyond that, learning factors in early childhood are quite variable for all types of twins raised together or apart, so it's not as reliable a tool as researchers once thought.  Not to say that twin studies aren't valuable for other reasons, just that they have some big caveats when you move into complex processes.

And as for the issue of 'genes which increase the probability of homosexuality' I believe I've read correlative data to that effect but I'll need to check with my PI about it.

If you find it again please post or send me the source; I'd be very interested in reading it.  I haven't been keeping up as much lately as I should be.

[portej05]

I know I'm about a year behind on this conversation, but this just popped up in my feeds, so I thought I'd post it here:
BBC

A traditionalist Anglican group has warned the issue of homosexuality could split the Church of England the way the Episcopal Church has done in the US.

"The Bible's teaching shows that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the way to express our sexual nature.

"We welcome homosexuals, we don't want to exclude people, but we want them to repent and be changed."

[colecampbell666]

  Why, of all the times, did one of these arguments pop up during THE ONLY WEEK OF THE YEAR I CAN'T GET ON THE COMPUTER??

The churches are pretty specific on the hell thing, and didn't God create those genes?

Personally, I can't accept that there is a gene for that.  It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

Doesn't matter. God did it, it doesn't need to make sense to you. He created everything, did he not? Plus what Battuta said.

So doesn't he know everything that's gonna happen? If so, why does he react to things, why does he allow sinners to live if he knows that they're going to sin?

He does.  Because anything He does after the fact would be considered a reaction.  For the second part, because everyone sins and that if He didn't, the world would be awfully empty of people.  The flipside to the second part of your other question is that were He to simply kill all sinners for no other reason than they sin, that would be the closest I can think He would come to something I, personally, would call evil (also, I'm fairly certain that He said he wouldn't do that again.  See: The Flood.  It has a promise at the end.)

Once again, wouldn't the more merciful path have been to not create them, thus having no need to kill them? And aren't we all saved or some such BS? Wasn'tthere that Jewish guy that died or whatever?

I do that too. I'm not Christian.

Well, bully for you.

So if I can do it, what's to say that other people can't? Why do we need God to tell us what to do, and wouldn't him telling us what to do be a reaction? Why wouldn't he build into our minds a Christian predisposition?

How do you know that they're wrong, and you're right?  I thought that you weren't allowed to pick and choose.

That sentiment is a personal opinion, which, while held by many, does not appear in the New Testament, as far as I have read.

As I said, I thought you weren't allowed to choose. Isn't the bible infalliable? Isn't it god's word? Why write a part that was worth **** all?

There is no free will if god knows everything that will happen and has a plan.

Ah.  So, if I were to know, unequivocally, that one of my classmates would be going to school on a given day, that person has no free will?  Knowledge of actions != dictations of will.

So you're saying that god is not omnipotent? You didn't create your classmate to your exact specifications. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, right? He created everything to carry out a carefully scripted set of responses, correct? (i.e. his plan) If he created everything, and he knows everything that will happen, having created it so that said things would happen towards his goal, wouldn't we only have the illusion of free will?

However 93% do not. Most intelligent people on Earth.

Fixed.  Intelligent != Infallibility, nor does it equal Common Sense.

Religion =/= Infallibility, and science is based on logic (common sense's bigger, non-convoluted brother).

then why did he not create the universe as it will be one second after the plan has succeeded? Who or what prevented him from doing that?

I'm not sure I understand what your question is here.  Are you basically asking why he didn't just skip His plan in its entirety and simply make the universe as it would be?  Based on my own interpretations, the universe one second after the plan has succeeded is going to suck something serious.  Keep in mind that I'm assuming (ASSUMING, MIND YOU) that his plan would be complete when Jesus returns, at which point there is a good deal of description of what that will be like in Revelation.

But why make the universe jump through all of these hoops? Why lay out the pieces so that all of these sinners will die and go to hell with no choice or say on the matter (see previous response on free will) just to watch us kill each other, much like a 5 year old does with ants?