~50% for both? Has homosexuality been proven MORE genetically based than alcoholism?

Started by bluewaterrider4 pages

Originally posted by Robtard
Because sexual desire likely isn't a choice, action is. eg a gay woman being attracted to other females isn't a choice she can turn on and off, the action of having sex is sometime she can control.

Your notion that sexual attraction is something you control like a light-switch is silly and why people laugh at you 👆

Did you consciously choose to be straight (if you are)?

I don't recall ever likening sexual attraction to a light switch.

Is desire something malleable, however? Something that can be influenced?

I believe that it is. Most people, when they're being honest, would probably agree. In fact, in one of the links I provided earlier today, one of the researchers state nearly exactly that, attributing the non-genetic factors to be due to "environmental influences".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Dean Byrd, PhD, Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, in his Sep. 2, 2004 article in Meridian Magazine titled "Born That Way? Facts and Fiction About Homosexuality," wrote:
"Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard who focused on identical twins, non-identical twins, non-adopted siblings and adopted siblings... found a 52% concordance rate for the identical twins which means that for every homosexual twin, the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual...
If there is something in the genetic code that makes an individual homosexual, why did not all of the identical twins become homosexual since they have the exact same genetic endowment?... Some comparative data on twin studies [are] the concordance rate for identical twins on measures of extroversion is 50%, religiosity is 50%, divorce is 52%, racial prejudice and bigotry is 58%. From the Bailey and Pillard study one has to conclude that environmental influences play a strong role in the development of homosexuality."

Sep. 2, 2004 - A. Dean Byrd, PhD

http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000019

Recall harder

Environment may factor in, but that wasn't the initial point so nice deflection again 👆

Re: ~50% for both? Has homosexuality been proven MORE genetically based than alcoholism?

I'd be interested in knowing what you think I'm "deflecting".
As for environment not being part of "the initial point", I'd suggest you read my opening post for this thread again.

Here, I'll present it for you again below, for your convenience.

Note the word "environment" is bolded, underlined, and in all capital letters this time. You can refer back to my original post on the first page of this thread if you don't believe this is what is written there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've wondered this with all the legislation being passed, vetoed, and/or discussed in the past few months.

One considered socially unacceptable.
One increasingly considered in the opposite fashion.

Both once labelled as diseases affecting loved ones or people we know.

Both sanctioned to various degrees by law and religion.
Both associated with increased risk of depression.

Both once considered matters of choice entirely.
Both now considered to have a genetic aspect separate from what many of us might consider "true" choice.

Most interestingly, though, the degree to which genetics seems to play a role in either case seems to be right around 50%.

Is such really the case?
If so, why?
Why do the numbers appear so similar to one another?
Why is one considered a matter of choice any more or less than the other?
What accounts for the differing perceptions?

Refer to the bolded and underlined sections for the 10 second summary.

Discuss.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twin studies of homosexuality have shown that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be gay compared to fraternal twins. This means that being gay is partly genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be.

There is one important thing to note, though. If the DNA sequence is the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not, we would expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too 100% of the time.

But this is not what scientists have found – the rate is actually closer to 50%. So while we know that genetics is involved, it doesn’t tell us the whole story. This is where ENVIRONMENT comes in ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/homosexuality


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENETICS OF ALCOHOL USE DISORDER

How do genes influence alcoholism?

Alcoholism often seems to run in families, and we may hear about scientific studies of an “alcoholism gene.” Genetics certainly influence our likelihood of developing alcoholism, but the story isn’t so simple.

Research shows that genes are responsible for about half of the risk for alcoholism. Therefore, genes alone do not determine whether someone will become an alcoholic. Environmental factors, as well as gene and environment interactions account for the remainder of the risk.*

Multiple genes play a role in a person’s risk for developing alcoholism. There are genes that increase a person’s risk, as well as those that may decrease that risk, directly or indirectly. For instance, some people of Asian descent carry a gene variant that alters their rate of alcohol metabolism, causing them to have symptoms like flushing, nausea, and rapid heartbeat when they drink. Many people who experience these effects avoid alcohol, which helps protect them from developing alcoholism.**

As we have learned more about the role genes play in our health, researchers have discovered that different factors can alter the expression of our genes. This field is called epigenetics. Scientists are learning more and more about how epigenetics can affect our risk for developing alcoholism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders/genetics-alcohol-use-disorders

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twin Studies and Adoption Studies: Is Alcoholism Inherited

“Relatives of alcoholics have higher rates of the disease than do relatives of non-alcoholics. But is this nature or nurture? Perhaps some of each, but let’s look at the evidence for heredity.

“Twin studies offer a chance to compare the influence of genetics versus environment. Identical twins (one-egg twins) share exactly the same set of genes while fraternal twins (two-egg twins), like ordinary siblings, share only one-half their genes. A higher rate of concordance (similarity) between identical twins compared with fraternal twins would argue for heredity. In other words, how often are both twins affected together rather than only one. The evidence favors heredity with figures like 60% (identical) versus 39% (fraternal) in one Scandinavian study.

“Even more interesting are the results from adoption studies. When adopted in infancy and studied into adulthood, sons of alcoholics were 4 times as likely to be alcoholic as were sons of non-alcoholics. And this risk was not affected by the alcoholism status of the adopted parent!

“Certainly heredity cannot account for all causation in alcoholism but in that manner it is much like diabetes or heart disease that also have an inherited component.”

From ASK DR. BOB, published by NCADD and written by Robert M. Morse, MD, former Director of Addictive Disorders Services at the Mayo Clinic, NCADD Board Member and member of NCADD’s Medical/Scientific Committee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://ncadd.org/for-parents-overview/family-history-and-genetics/226-family-history-and-genetics

I read the first two sentences, then decided to stop and go on about my life as and don't need yet another round of "gays are mental and they disgust me".

Or to sum it up even shorter: TL;DR

As far as your deflection, you deflected again, good job 👆

Originally posted by Robtard

I read the first two sentences, then decided to stop ...

Finally you were honest enough to admit you were only going off your preconceived notions about what you THOUGHT I might have written in this thread, and not anything you actually examined.

Which would explain why your responses have been around three sentences throughout this thread.

Good to know. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~50% for both? Has homosexuality been proven MORE genetically based than alcohol

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Alcoholics have a choice as to whether or not they drink, and, if they unwisely choose TO drink, are held fully responsible for anything that might result from their actions.

Will the fact that alcoholism seems to have a strong genetic component be enough to get an alcoholic off if he or she, say, has too much to drink and then tries to drive home and gets into a car crash?

Regardless of how much more difficult it may be for the alcoholic to refuse to drink, regardless of the level of his or her desire, he or she is still held fully responsible.

Ultimately, with the proof being that the drinker is held responsible in the event of complications, both the law and the public at large consider the action of drinking a conscious choice, not a genetic mandate that must be followed.

You are making a bad comparison. The rest of your logic (illogic) doesn't work.

Alcoholism is an over sensitivity to alcohol while homosexuality is a type of sexuality. Everyone has a sexuality, but everyone does not drink alcohol.

You can compare Alcoholism to Diabetes or heterosexuality to homosexuality, but you only get nonsense when you compare homosexuality to Alcoholism. It would be like trying to compare Diabetes to heterosexuality.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Finally you were honest enough to admit you were only going off your preconceived notions about what you THOUGHT I might have written in this thread, and not anything you actually examined.

Which would explain why your responses have been around three sentences throughout this thread.

Good to know. Thanks for clearing that up.

Nice strawman tactic 👆

Originally posted by Robtard
Nice strawman tactic 👆

That is all he has.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is all he has.

It's rather sad and pathetic when people need to resort to strawmen bashing

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is all he has.

No, in this one there are actually quite a few stats and studies to back up my assertions.

Which is probably why you are not actually addressing anything I've presented.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
No, in this one there are actually quite a few stats and studies to back up my assertions.

Which is probably why you are not actually addressing anything I've presented.

It's all nonsense. You can have all the stats and data in the world, but if your original primus is wrong, then it doesn't matter.

You cannot compare homosexuality to alcoholism.

You get an F!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

... if your original primus is wrong, then it doesn't matter ...

It actually took me until a few moments ago to figure out what you were trying to type here.

I even looked up the word "primus" on several websites, including Merriam Webster,
which told me that "primus" is the presiding bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primus

It actually made me wonder if you had some really profound and unusual truth you were trying to get across.

(Just for a moment, mind you, but it DID make me wonder that.)

Certainly if you're trying to convey the point that relatively minor miscommunication(s) can fairly or unfairly hurt a cause, you provided a good illustration here.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It actually took me until a few moments ago to figure out what you were trying to type here.

I even looked up the word "primus" on several websites, including Merriam Webster,
which told me that "primus" is the presiding bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church:

It actually made me wonder if you had some really profound and unusual truth you were trying to get across.

(Just for a moment, mind you, but it DID make me wonder that.)

Certainly if you're trying to convey the point that relatively minor miscommunication(s) can fairly or unfairly hurt a cause, you provided a good illustration here.

This is absolutely stupid on your part. Why would you spend so much time thinking about a typo?

Did you not understand?

You are making an incorrect comparison. Do you need help with that statement? Do I need me to look up some of word for you?

__________________________________________
com·par·i·son
noun: comparison; plural noun: comparisons
1.
the act or instance of comparing.
"they drew a comparison between Gandhi's teaching and that of other teachers"

synonyms: juxtaposition, collation, differentiation
"a comparison of the results"

•an analogy.
"perhaps the best comparison is that of seasickness"

•the quality of being similar or equivalent.
"if you want a thrill, there's no comparison to climbing on a truck and going out there on the expressway"

synonyms: resemblance, likeness, similarity, correspondence, correlation, parallel, parity, comparability
"there's no comparison between them"

2.
Grammar
the formation of the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs.

____________________________________________
in·cor·rect

adjective: incorrect

1.
not in accordance with fact; wrong.
"the doctor gave you incorrect advice"

synonyms: wrong, erroneous, in error, mistaken, inaccurate, imprecise, wide of the mark, off target; More
untrue, false, fallacious;

informalout, way out

"an incorrect answer"

2. not in accordance with particular standards or rules.
"strictly speaking, the form of address was incorrect"

____________________________________

What would be more interesting to me to talk about is your homophobia.

Why would you make such an illogical argument just to try and say that homosexuality is a disease?

Do homosexuals cause you fear? Do you have latent homosexual tendencies that you are trying to hide or excuse away?

Perhaps I should define more words for you?

_________________________________
il·log·i·cal
adjective: illogical

lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
_______________________________
la·tent

adjective: latent

(of a quality or state) existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden; concealed.

______________________________________

Sorry if there are more words that you do not know. You will just have to look them up yourself.

Brace yourself, deflection incoming

Originally posted by red g jacks
YouTube video

I love how he owns the hipsters and how some can't even take it and have to walk out. The funny thing is he did it all by mostly just stating facts in a funny way.

I also like how at the end they are whining at him for his hate speech and then tell him to KILL HIMSELF. They call him an internet troll and then respond by acting like internet trolls. Dipshits I swear..

Originally posted by Robtard
Brace yourself, deflection incoming

Is running away considered a deflection?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of people actually DO find the material and delivery of those 2 clips "funny". I don't imagine it's a particularly high percentage.
yea... i can agree with you there.

On the internet, everything is serious.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are comparing apples to oranges.

So, what you are saying is that Alcoholics choose to be Alcoholics? That’s bull shit!

They don't? Hold on a second now. There are many people that are born and aren't alcoholics, but later on in life gain a taste for alcohol. many of these people become alcoholics, and it was by choice. Am I right? You've confused me. 😕

I also posted some pretty interesting stuff that has been studied for quite some time that leans toward sexuality originating from the brain. Can you make heads or tails of it?

Originally posted by Stoic
You see here's the thing. Fetuses have been monitored, and it was shown that they masturbate before ever being born. Yes they touch themselves. Sexuality originates from the brain.

There is quite a lot of informative material on this page that I'm posting. The reason that I posted it was because there is a movie on the page that shows some pretty compelling evidence in favor of the researchers working on the project. http://discovermagazine.com/2009/oct/10-where-does-sex-live-in-brain-from-top-to-bottom