What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

LGBTQ+ Sexual Orientation - Newer Studies Suggest No Single 'Gay Gene,' Sexuality Still Fluid, Still Yet Unknown, Victory Laps Minimal (1 Viewer)

ekbeats said:
I don’t see a lot of dunking in here.  My post was half joke and half just wanting to be accurate.  I for one am very surprised that Ganna didn’t find stronger genetic linkage.  I was actually hoping they’d find one.  But they didn’t.  And I hate to say it, but if people don’t want to get “dunked on” then don’t call people bigots and homophobes for having a different opinion on a valid debate.  That crap is still going on even in this thread.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t feel you were dunking. I’d noticed it ramping up, so mentioned it, but maybe I’m not being fair. Your point is fair. Name calling doesn’t help.

 
rockaction said:
I was dunking. And I misspoke. I've never thought about this as a raw "choice." Simply that the genetic factor isn't as prevalent as we thought. It's pretty clear that certain people, from birth, have sexual attractions to one sex that isn't environmental or learned. I think one would be remiss to counter accepted wisdom and observation regarding this. I don't think I've ever claimed it was a choice in my personal time, nor my own head, and was conflating the two sentiments colloquially in writing today. But 'born this way,' was a loaded phrase designed to cash in on the genetics and heritable nature of the attractions, so thus it came to be.

But I'm re-reading myself and it's not a 'choice' as fundamentalist preachers would have you understand it so that it could be followed by conversion therapy. That's not the road I'm going down.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this, Rock. 👍🏼

 
The Football Freak said:
Thank you for this, Rock. 👍🏼
Click to expand...
It's really no sweat. I'm reading my posts and the implications aren't at all what I'm trying to convey. I got in a heated argument about the genetic aspect of homosexuality and bisexuality and other fluid sexualities. I'm not, as wikkid feared and alerted me to my language, trying to say that all, or even most, or even a significant portion of, homosexual behavior is a choice rather than some sort of hormonal or biological imprint. There are playgrounds full of seven year-olds that can tell you differently than that. So no problem. Mea culpa on some very important wording.

 
The Football Freak said:
But she cautions that the results may not be representative of the overall population — a limitation that the study authors acknowledge. The lion’s share of the genomes comes from the UK Biobankresearch programme and the consumer-genetics company 23andMe, based in Mountain View, California. The people who contribute their genetic and health information to those databases are predominantly of European ancestry and are on the older side. UK Biobank participants were between 40 and 70 years old when their data were collected, and the median age for people in 23andMe’s database is 51.
Click to expand...
Is 23andMe more likely or less likely to include the same proportion of gay people as the rest of society?  I could see the argument going both ways (no pun intended).

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
That shouldn't be news. We knew from the outset, by observing identical twins, that genes couldn't be 100% responsible for sexual preference. But they're more than 0% responsible because literally everything biologically interesting involves genes somehow.

If sexual preference is somewhere between 0% and 100% determined by genes, there can't be just one gene responsible. There have to be several. :math:
Click to expand...
Where does epigenetics fit In? Big role, small role? Nature or nurture? 

 
Roy L Fewks said:
Is 23andMe more likely or less likely to include the same proportion of gay people as the rest of society?  I could see the argument going both ways (no pun intended).
Click to expand...
It seems the number is about right. I found this:

”This study pulled the information for 477,500 people across the UK Biobank and 23andMe who had taken a survey about various life behaviors, including whether they had engaged in a sexual experience with a person of the same sex at any point in their life. About 26,800 individuals — or 5 percent of the subjects — fit this description, which is similar to the percentage reported across society more generally. All of the subjects consented to this research, including those pulled from 23andMe's archives.”

NPR link to (solid, imo) study breakdown

Assuming the random selection was done appropriately, it seems representative, but I can’t answer for sure.
 

edited to add: I think the issue of age and reluctance to admit some behaviors might be more the issue than proper distribution on the gay to straight spectrum. If the study authors admit to that, I have to give it weight, even if that opinion would be hard to quantify or prove out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
Thanks! It was an avalanche of squistion and pals. The heavies (the liberal lawyering set) came out to call bigotry. Thankfully, I was able to find the article from Time advocating for an inclusive culture that included gay/straight issues as a matter of choice rather than determinism. But before the citation, the howls.

The pained, anguished howls. 

I won't soon forget their gaping wounds.

Nah, it's one of these things you spend the entire day getting beat up on the internet over, you're sure it's the truth and that there was a strain of '90s activism that allowed for choice, and yet you get thirty people ganging up on you telling you you must be wrong.

See ya, suckers.
Click to expand...
As perhaps one of the “liberal lawyering types” you are referencing, I’ve always maintained that from a civil rights perspective, whether or not sexual orientation is a choice is completely irrelevant. After all, protected classes have never been limited only to concepts of immutable characteristics.

 
bigbottom said:
As perhaps one of the “liberal lawyering types” you are referencing, I’ve always maintained that from a civil rights perspective, whether or not sexual orientation is a choice is completely irrelevant. After all, protected classes have never been limited only to concepts of immutable characteristics.
Click to expand...
But you are in the minority.  Most supporters insisted that it was all about genetics (the gay gene) and that sexuality is hardwired.  It was to the point that bisexual people were often not accepted by gays because that went against the gay gene theory which they made a linchpin of their arguement that you can't discrimimate because we are born this way.  It wasn't neccessary but to suggest there are many influences outside genetics made you mocked as a homophobe and branded as antiscience, despite the complete lack of science supporting their extreme position.  

 
bigbottom said:
As perhaps one of the “liberal lawyering types” you are referencing, I’ve always maintained that from a civil rights perspective, whether or not sexual orientation is a choice is completely irrelevant. After all, protected classes have never been limited only to concepts of immutable characteristics.
Click to expand...
Bingo :goodposting:  

 
jon_mx said:
But you are in the minority.  Most supporters insisted that it was all about genetics (the gay gene) and that sexuality is hardwired.  It was to the point that bisexual people were often not accepted by gays because that went against the gay gene theory which they made a linchpin of their arguement that you can't discrimimate because we are born this way.  It wasn't neccessary but to suggest there are many influences outside genetics made you mocked as a homophobe and branded as antiscience, despite the complete lack of science supporting their extreme position.  
Click to expand...
But it’s worth noting that these discussions typically arose in the context of people on the other side of the debate arguing that homosexuals shouldn’t have equal rights or protection from discrimination because it’s a choice. (And it’s not a choice for most.) I just never thought it was relevant to the civil rights issue.  But for most of the “homosexuality is a choice!” crowd, it was very much relevant - it was the very reason they argued against civil rights protections. So while they may try to maintain that they were “right” in some respects, I wouldn’t say they were “righteous.” My two cents. 

Edit to add that the above is a general statement and does not apply to anyone in particular (e.g. Rockaction).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
But it’s worth noting that these discussions typically arose in the context of people on the other side of the debate arguing that homosexuals shouldn’t have equal rights or protection from discrimination because it’s a choice. (And it’s not a choice for most.) I just never thought it was relevant to the civil rights issue.  But for most of the “homosexuality is a choice!” crowd, it was very much relevant - it was the very reason they argued against civil rights protections. So while they may try to maintain that they were “right” in some respects, I wouldn’t say they were “righteous.” My two cents. 

Edit to add that the above is a general statement and does not apply to anyone in particular (e.g. Rockaction).
Click to expand...
Certainly they were righteous and projecting their values to attack the rights of individuals.  The problem today is the shoe is on the other foot and it is now the left who are the righteous ones and taking away rights of their poltical opponents (free speech, employment and even criminalization).  Of couse this an opinion which is mocked and ridiculed in this forum, but IMHO the current cancel culture environment is just as bad and in some ways worse than the self-righteousness which inflicted the right from the early 80' into the 2000's.  

 
jon_mx said:
Certainly they were righteous and projecting their values to attack the rights of individuals.  The problem today is the shoe is on the other foot and it is now the left who are the righteous ones and taking away rights of their poltical opponents (free speech, employment and even criminalization).  Of couse this an opinion which is mocked and ridiculed in this forum, but IMHO the current cancel culture environment is just as bad and in some ways worse than the self-righteousness which inflicted the right from the early 80' into the 2000's.  
Click to expand...
I think you misconstrued my use of the term “righteous” which has a different meaning than “self-righteous.”

 
I know this is overly simplistic but to me I dont care why you're gay. Be gay.  I couldn't care less.  And I don't need a scientific study telling me why you're gay either.  Thats equivalent to a scientific study telling me why you like chocolate ice cream over vanilla.  Who cares.  

 
supermike80 said:
I know this is overly simplistic but to me I dont care why you're gay. Be gay.  I couldn't care less.  And I don't need a scientific study telling me why you're gay either.  Thats equivalent to a scientific study telling me why you like chocolate ice cream over vanilla.  Who cares.  
Click to expand...
Well, yes it is overly simplistic IMO.

Liking chocolate ice cream over vanilla is a choice. Like any other thing that is a choice, that does not entitle one to any rights over those that choose the other flavor and it can be regulated. And while you don't care why someone is gay, in many states there are laws on the books that discriminate against those who are LGBT+.

An overwhelming majority of those who are LGBT+ will tell you that they did not choose their sexual orientation or identity -  and from their standpoint, it is hardwired. However discrimination against this minority exists over something most don't remember consciously choosing and are unable to change (see success rate of conversion therapy). That's why there are people who care. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Well, yes it is overly simplistic IMO.

Liking chocolate ice cream over vanilla is a choice. Like any other thing that is a choice, that does not entitle one to any rights over those that choose the other flavor and it can be regulated. And while you don't care why someone is gay, in many states there are laws on the books that discriminate against those who are LGBT+.

An overwhelming majority of those who are LGBT+ will tell you that they did not choose their sexual orientation or identity -  and from their standpoint, it is hardwired. However discrimination against this minority exists over something most don't remember consciously choosing and are unable to change (see success rate of conversion therapy). That's why there are people who care. 
Click to expand...
Discrimination against those who are LGBT+ is wrong regardless of whether or not it is a choice. That’s why I tend to agree with supermike80.  When it comes to issues of discrimination, why should I care whether or not it’s a choice? That should be irrelevant. As another example, we protect people’s freedom of religion. That’s a choice.

Also, as a complete aside, I prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate by a wide margin. I don’t really see that preference as a choice. I can’t really choose to like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla. 

 
bigbottom said:
Discrimination against those who are LGBT+ is wrong regardless of whether or not it is a choice. That’s why I tend to agree with supermike80.  When it comes to issues of discrimination, why should I care whether or not it’s a choice? That should be irrelevant. As another example, we protect people’s freedom of religion. That’s a choice.

Also, as a complete aside, I prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate by a wide margin. I don’t really see that preference as a choice. I can’t really choose to like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla. 
Click to expand...
This was my argument all those years ago. That said, it was very important, to this board at least, to see the practical implications of the legislation that would have flowed therefrom if being gay or straight (or anywhere along the continuum) was a choice. Therefore, it was, um, suggested to me that one must toe the line and give the company answer that homosexuality was a function of being 'born that way.'

Seriously. I wish I could find that thread. Maurile sort of saved me (as did the publication citation of Time magazine) by talking about how in the '90s, gender studies had gotten a bit nutty in ascribing behaviors that were almost clearly those of nature to that of nurture, and that what I was positing about gay rights activists (who were insisting that it was a choice or imprint rather than genetics) would simply put them among the outer reaches of those folks who were pushing for a radical nurture argument.

That was how that thread went and how this one got started. But it's all well and good and there are certain things that people remember and that stick in their craw. The arguments that day were something that did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
But it’s worth noting that these discussions typically arose in the context of people on the other side of the debate arguing that homosexuals shouldn’t have equal rights or protection from discrimination because it’s a choice. (And it’s not a choice for most.) I just never thought it was relevant to the civil rights issue.  But for most of the “homosexuality is a choice!” crowd, it was very much relevant - it was the very reason they argued against civil rights protections. So while they may try to maintain that they were “right” in some respects, I wouldn’t say they were “righteous.” My two cents. 

Edit to add that the above is a general statement and does not apply to anyone in particular (e.g. Rockaction).
Click to expand...
Very true, and why the whole discussion that day veered towards my insistence that being 'born that way' was irrelevant to the rights at hand that we were discussing. I think the argument simply goes, if they have no choice, then the characteristic is indeed immutable and there should be rights extended or new rights granted under something like, say, the EEOC and civil rights laws that apply therein; or some newfound right involving compelled cake baking and other performances or accommodations; or establishment religions being forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

These "rights" issues I remember debating and taking the con position on. The EEOC I don't think I argued passionately against so much, because I can't remember feeling strongly about the con position, I do remember defending the cake bakers and priests refusing to perform gay weddings. Those are two issues where I would have seen competing rights butting up against public accommodations and thought the claims animating the gay rights agenda pushed too far into spheres of other guaranteed rights to argue the pro side for. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Well, yes it is overly simplistic IMO.

Liking chocolate ice cream over vanilla is a choice. Like any other thing that is a choice, that does not entitle one to any rights over those that choose the other flavor and it can be regulated. And while you don't care why someone is gay, in many states there are laws on the books that discriminate against those who are LGBT+.

An overwhelming majority of those who are LGBT+ will tell you that they did not choose their sexual orientation or identity -  and from their standpoint, it is hardwired. However discrimination against this minority exists over something most don't remember consciously choosing and are unable to change (see success rate of conversion therapy). That's why there are people who care. 
Click to expand...
Great.  I didn't ask or express disbelief in why people care.  I appreciate you explaining how others think however.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top