Liberal Forum

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 7:44 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 7:44 pm

Just because they haven't found a homo gene that causes it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means they haven't found it. There is still a lot of research going on.

Here are some rabid rightwing sources that **** on your idea of a gay gene. 

They include PBS, the BBC, and Harvard Magazine.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=proof%20t ... PTAG=22059
 
But if ya want some PSEUDO-science, here's your home for that ****:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gen ... s-straight

Notice that the not-actual-science article, appearing in a pseudo-science journal for the impression of scienciness, has a photo. And notice that the two dues in the photo are near twins - echoing my earlier observation that a lot of gayness is an expression of pathological narcissism:

1. I wanna **** me - I'm too sexy!
2. I cannot master the necessary contortionism.
3. That guy looks like me. He's HOT. I find myself attracted.

 
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 8:10 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:10 pm

This would be true, if we had not in fact mapped the human genome 20 years ago and found no gay gene.

There is no gay gene, son. There are no gay babies. Or trans babies.

Not all genes have instant recognizable traits. It's impossible for a baby to be gay, because they don't even know what sex is. Therefore, it could be latent. No different than a patient with M.S. They have no known symptoms until it begins between 20 to 40 years of age. Yet, they were born with it. 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 8:18 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:18 pm

Not all genes have instant recognizable traits. It's impossible for a baby to be gay, because they don't even know what sex is. Therefore, it could be latent. No different than a patient with M.S. They have no known symptoms until it begins between 20 to 40 years of age. Yet, they were born with it.

20 years, son. It's been 20 years. 

That's more time than the ACTUAL MAPPING took. 

They looked. 

The Bible says, "Seek, and ye shall find." The sought. And they found. There is no gay gene. 

There is no gay SEQUENCE of genes. It isn't hiding. It just isn't there. 
 
 

Nostradamus'omh » 27 Jan 2024, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:13 pm

Nobody knows what that gene looks like comparing race, creed, color, national origin, ideologies ancestry held for hundreds of generation gaps over thousands of years by any calendar.

Okay. Nor will they ever, since it does not exist.

The gene is not only nonexistent. It is not even evolving forward ancestrally in real time here now. 
 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 8:18 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:18 pm

Not all genes have instant recognizable traits. It's impossible for a baby to be gay, because they don't even know what sex is. Therefore, it could be latent. No different than a patient with M.S. They have no known symptoms until it begins between 20 to 40 years of age. Yet, they were born with it.

But they have FOUND the MS gene sequence, son. 

Because it actually exists. you see?

They just cannot seem to find - in spite of the political pressure to do so - the gene that DOESN'T exist. 

No one knows why they cannot find the gene that doesn't exist. It's not for want of trying.

It remains a mystery to science why the thing that does not exist cannot be found. 
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 8:23 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:23 pm

20 years, son. It's been 20 years. 

That's more time than the ACTUAL MAPPING took. 

They looked. 

The Bible says, "Seek, and ye shall find." The sought. And they found. There is no gay gene. 

There is no gay SEQUENCE of genes. It isn't hiding. It just isn't there.

Science always advances. There is obviously a genetic reason for MS, but they haven't found the exact gene yet. However, they know it has something to do with the genes. 

Although the cause of multiple sclerosis is unknown, variations in dozens of genes are thought to be involved in multiple sclerosis risk. Changes in the HLA-DRB1 gene are the strongest genetic risk factors for developing multiple sclerosis.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condit ... 0sclerosis.

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 8:27 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:27 pm

But they have FOUND the MS gene sequence, son. 

Because it actually exists. you see?


 

No, they haven't. They speculate they have, but it has not been confirmed. 

Although the cause of multiple sclerosis is unknown, variations in dozens of genes are thought to be involved in multiple sclerosis risk. Changes in the HLA-DRB1 gene are the strongest genetic risk factors for developing multiple sclerosis.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condit ... 0sclerosis.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 8:30 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:30 pm

No, they haven't. They speculate they have, but it has not been confirmed.

They're no longer even SPECULATING about gay genes or sequences, kid.

No one serious is, anyway. Pseudo-science agenda sources will differ. Fluffily.
 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:28 pm

Science always advances.

It sure does. And it has ruled out a gay gene. 

That is an advancement of which you appear stubbornly unaware.

Google "twin studies for gayness."

If one twin is gay, both should be - assuming a genetic determinant. But that is not the case. 

It turns out that one of them was making a sandwich when the dicksuck clip came on.

If it were genetic, both would be gay or both would be straight. So it's not genetic. 

 
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 8:38 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:38 pm

It sure does. And it has ruled out a gay gene. 

That is an advancement of which you appear stubbornly unaware.

Google "twin studies for gayness."

If one twin is gay, both should be - assuming a genetic component. But that is not the case. 

It turns out that one of them was making a sandwich when the dicksuck clip came on.

It just doesn't make sense to me that it is choice. I mean, there are males that are less masculine than others. Perhaps the less masculine ones were born with less testosterone, thereby tipping them to the gay side. I am just saying, there are too many inconsistencies for it to be a choice. 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 8:43 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:43 pm

It just doesn't make sense to me that it is choice. I mean, there are males that are less masculine than others. Perhaps the less masculine ones were born with less testosterone, thereby tipping them to the gay side. I am just saying, there are too many inconsistencies for it to be a choice.

The problem with that is that many unmasculine men are straight and many high t men are gay. 

That fact turns your objection to dust. 

Many feminine men are straight - many masculine men are gay.
 
And it doesn't HAVE to make sense to you that it is a choice. And the use of the word "choice" opens a whole can of worms - it is assumption based. I never said it was a choice, per se. I said it was not genetic. 

I would be inclined to call it a SERIES of choices. 
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 8:36 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:36 pm

They're no longer even SPECULATING about gay genes or sequences, kid.

No one serious is, anyway. Pseudo-science agenda sources will differ. Fluffily.

That's just bad science then. We should always be keeping an open mind to things and question everything. Ceasing questioning is what the climate and Covid hoaxers do to people who question them. They shut them out. Real science welcomes questions and never shuts the door. 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 8:45 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:45 pm

The problem with that is that many unmasculine men are straight and many high t men are gay. 

That fact turns your objection to dust. 

Many feminine men are straight - many masculine men are gay.

You can't honestly look at some gay men or a gay woman and say they chose that lifestyle. Just look. You have had to known of childhood friends or peers that looked gay, even though they were just kids. I recall a girl in 4th grade that I thought was a boy. She was just built like a dude. 

 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 8:46 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:46 pm

That's just bad science then. We should always be keeping an open mind to things and question everything.

I never said science' mind was close. You assumed that.

I said they have found that gayness is not genetic. If someone comes along and shows science something new, I'm sure science will listen.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 8:46 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:46 pm

Ceasing questioning is what the climate and Covid hoaxers do to people who question them. They shut them out. Real science welcomes questions and never shuts the door.

You are not being shut out. If you have some evidence, present it. The arguments you have made fail the tests of science. Your own argument that people raised in similar circumstances being differently expressed sexually opens the door to the twin studies, which are absolutely BRUTAL to your hypothisis.

If gayness were genetic, we should never identical twin pairs where one is straight and one is gay.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 8:52 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:52 pm

You can't honestly look at some gay men or a gay woman and say they chose that lifestyle. Just look. You have had to known of childhood friends or peers that looked gay, even though they were just kids. I recall a girl in 4th grade that I thought was a boy. She was just built like a dude.

We are back to that word "choice." It's a can of worms. 

Did a kid who got molested choose it? Did a girl who was dressed in masculine clothing choose it?

There are plenty of dude-looking women who want cock. Plenty of fem men who want nothing to do with cock. 

So your example is defeated by those counter examples. 
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 8:53 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:53 pm

You are not being shut out. If you have some evidence, present it. The arguments you have made fail the tests of science. Your own argument that people raised in similar circumstances being differently expressed sexually opens the door to the twin studies, which are absolutely BRUTAL to your hypothisis.

If gayness were genetic, we should never identical twin pairs where one is straight and one is gay.

Were those studies done on identical twins or fraternal ones? The identical ones have 100% of each other's genes. However fraternal ones have 50%.

Identical, or monozygotic (MZ), twins have 100 percent of their genes—including those that influence risk for alcoholism—in common, whereas fraternal, or dizygotic (DZ), twins share (on average) only 50 percent of the genes that vary in the population.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... %20figure).

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 8:55 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:55 pm

We are back to that word "choice." It's a can of worms. 

Did a kid who got molested choose it? Did a girl who was dressed in masculine clothing choose it?

There are plenty of dude-looking women who want cock. Plenty of fem men who want nothing to do with cock. 

So your example is defeated by those counter examples.

The molested kids have no connection to this topic whatsoever. 

Counter examples debunk math proofs just fine, but it has no bearing on human behavior connected with biology. Some people who smoke get lung cancer. Does that mean there is a 100% chance that anyone who smokes will end up with lung cancer? I can give counter examples (such as my uncle), but that does nothing to contradict that some people get lung cancer from smoking. 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 8:58 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:58 pm

Were those studies done on identical twins or fraternal ones? The identical ones have 100% of each other's genes. However fraternal ones have 50%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... %20figure).

Identical. 

I would point you to the 90-10 rule. 10% of men get 90% of the ******. 

The other 90% are just as needful of intimacy. 

The preponderance of the evidence clearly demonstrates gayness is not genetic. The notion that this means it is strictly a "choice" is something that YOU insist on - not I. The issue here is not your misunderstanding of the science. It is your misunderstanding of the myriad issues with this notion that there is some perfect state of "choice" that is floating around in the ether, when in truth what most people imperfectly exercise is OPTIONS. 

People do not CHOOSE to be gay. They select it from the available options. 
 
 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 9:03 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:03 pm

The molested kids have no connection to this topic whatsoever. 

Of course they do. They present an example of gayness not being genetic duh. 
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 9:05 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:05 pm

The preponderance of the evidence clearly demonstrates gayness is not genetic. The notion that this means it is strictly a "choice" is something that YOU insist on - not I. The issue here is not your misunderstanding of the science. It is your misunderstanding of the myriad issues with this notion that there is some perfect state of "choice" that is floating around in there ether, when in truth what most people imperfectly exercise is OPTIONS. 

People do not CHOOSE to be gay. They select it from the available options.

If they do not choose to be gay, but they are because of a lack options, then doesn't that prove my point? Even though they are partaking in homosexuality, due to their lack of options, why does that imply that they are no longer straight? There are many cases of homosexuals who married the opposite sex, had kids, and lived as a heterosexual...but they were still gay.