- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Homosexuality not caused by genetics. They ar not "born that way ETA Addit link added
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:46 pm to cwill
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:46 pm to cwill
Nah. I'll stick around until one of you answers the question I've been asking.
You know, the one you posted.
Sorry, your little PC hearts can't handle it, snowflake.
You know, the one you posted.
Sorry, your little PC hearts can't handle it, snowflake.
1
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:48 pm to Errerrerrwere
That's not how it works.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:51 pm to cwill
Ok then you dumb arse.
This is how it works:
I saw the dumb research he posted from UCLA; been knowing about it; unfortunately you have no idea wtf you are talking about.
BUT MUH SCIENCE AND WHAT NOT!
This is how it works:
quote:
As specified in an article published by The Atlantic, there are a number of holes in the study and enough of them to raise some eyebrows. Firstly, the results were presented during the American Society of Human Genetics conference, before being taken up by Nature News via a press release published by the body. These are non-published results, meaning they have not been subject to a peer review – an indispensable step for the validation of any scientific study. But the real problem comes from the experimental protocol of Tuck Ngun and his team— prettily presented as an infograph by the Telegraph— which really calls the validity of the study into question.
quote:
To carry out the study, UCLA selected 37 pairs of male twins — one gay and the other straight — and 10 pairs of homosexual twins. The study went on to study and analyze 140,000 regions in the genome of the subjects in the hunt for methylation marks— "chemical Post-It notes that dictate when and where genes are activated" as The Atlantic explains. Once in possession of this data, a model was created to try and predict the sexual orientation of a subject in accordance to his genome.
quote:
The first problem: this model was only correct in 67% of cases using just five of the methylation marks. The second problem is that the 94 subjects — a tiny sample — were divided into two groups: the first 'training set' of data was used to build the algorithm and the second 'testing set' whose data was used to verify it. The final problem, and perhaps the most significant, was that Tuck Ngun's team presented the results of only one version of the model: the one with the greatest accuracy when applied to the testing set. Using the results to optimize the predictive quality of the model broke an essential rule of scientific methodology. As The Atlantic explains, "if you use this strategy, chances are you will find a positive result through random chance alone.": in other words, you create a false positive.
I saw the dumb research he posted from UCLA; been knowing about it; unfortunately you have no idea wtf you are talking about.
BUT MUH SCIENCE AND WHAT NOT!
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:53 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
So, while the results provide some proof that there is a relationship between homosexuality and environmental factors, they are not sufficient to constitute a causal link: once again, we have not discovered a 'gay gene'.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:53 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Really? I see a Kasich 2020 as your sig.
I didn't wish for KASICH to be President. That would be make-believe. Like prayer or ignoring science. I'll leave that nonsense to you.
I don't ignore science, I ignore morons who proclaim their perception of science is the only one, and they don't even question their own premises when faced with clear errors in their methodology.
Not sure where you got prayer there. Then again you think a guy who finished 4th in a 3 man race was a great campaigner. So no telling which make believe world you conjured that out of.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:54 pm to llfshoals
quote:
The answer to that question is irrelevant.
Really? So if we got definitive proof that same sex attraction was based on biology that doesn't strengthen the argument for providing the same marriage/union rights to gays as straights?
Or on the flip side, if we got definitive proof that Billy Bob is gay because Uncle Buck touched him inappropriately at the LSU tailgate and not because of some bio-chemical reason, that doesn't sway people's opinions about gay marriage/unions?
This post was edited on 7/4/17 at 10:55 pm
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:56 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:Nah, making fun of morons is entertaining. Like shooting fish in a barrel easy to boot.
Anytime you get that "O" with a buckeye in the name; you're in for a logical black hole you will never be able to get out of.
For your own sanity; ignore.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 10:59 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
Well that's it, "the science is settled."
Are you saying it could be a condition caused from climate change??
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:00 pm to llfshoals
I agree.
Their 8th grade biology teacher told them that being gay was natural. Genetic.
Then they slept during the lab explaining the scientific method.
Their 8th grade biology teacher told them that being gay was natural. Genetic.
Then they slept during the lab explaining the scientific method.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:02 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
The 'gay gene': a potentially dangerous discovery This study constitutes the latest in a series of failures in the search for a hypothetical 'gay gene': from Nazi scientific research looking to 'cure' homosexuality, to the discovery, in 1993, of the Xq28 gene — a serious candidate for the role of 'gay gene' debunked in 2014, following an extensive study. The mechanisms of sexuality continue to fascinate science and society in general. In the hypothetical case that homosexuality was clearly identified as an alteration of one or several particular genes, the discovery would radicalize the, already tempestuous, debate surrounding LGBT rights. Supporters of 'born this way' would be given certain scientific proof for the argument that we are born homosexual, contrary to the suggestion that we become gay. But on the other hand, for those considering homosexuality as something to be banned, eradicated or cured, the opposite would offer a terrifying eugenic handbook to test, repair or 'treat' homosexuality like a genetic disease. According to New Scientist, in a terrifying dystopian spirit, this is something that could probably even be done before birth. These ethical challenges are so significant that Tuck Ngun and the gang "left the lab last week", deciding to abandon their research in fear of the "potential for misuse of the information". Given that homosexuality is still penalized in 76 countries and that we have long been rummaging around in the human genome, it may just be best to never find the biological response to the question of sexual orientation.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:04 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:It's irrelevant because you're not going to get it.
Really? So if we got definitive proof that same sex attraction was based on biology that doesn't strengthen the argument for providing the same marriage/union rights to gays as straights?
Or on the flip side, if we got definitive proof that Billy Bob is gay because Uncle Buck touched him inappropriately at the LSU tailgate and not because of some bio-chemical reason, that doesn't sway people's opinions about gay marriage/unions?
Like was also pointed out a couple posts earlier the methodology that is being used in these so-called studies is laughable on its face.
Each side is pushing their own agenda because frankly neither can take the "truth" should either ever actually be right.
Rights are legal issues, not moral ones. Time to stop confusing the 2.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:06 pm to Errerrerrwere
I've never said that a gay gene was discovered. All I and others did was dicredit your OP. That's it. We don't have to offer conclusive proof of a gay gene to do that. Damn. 
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:08 pm to cwill
Shut up, bitch.
You just got owned.
You just got owned.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:10 pm to llfshoals
So to bring this back full circle:
1) you still haven't shown me that simple logic proves same sex attraction is a choice
2) you think that the "why" behind homosexuality is irrelevant to people's moral view of homosexuality
3) you think the "why" behind homosexuality is irrelevant to public support of equal union rights for gays and straights
Okay.
1) you still haven't shown me that simple logic proves same sex attraction is a choice
2) you think that the "why" behind homosexuality is irrelevant to people's moral view of homosexuality
3) you think the "why" behind homosexuality is irrelevant to public support of equal union rights for gays and straights
Okay.
This post was edited on 7/4/17 at 11:12 pm
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:10 pm to Errerrerrwere
Night, night you backwards neck. Hope you have a snuggly closet to keep to tonight.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:10 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:Honestly dude I'm thinking at least 90% of the population would much rather just have someone tell them what to think.
Then they slept during the lab explaining the scientific method.
Makes me sick that most of the people can't argue a point to save their lives.
Just a game of "where's the link" and they can't tell you a thing about why it should say it
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:10 pm to cwill
quote:
The blog post said conclusively that it's not genetic based on the studies.
It's not just based on this study
-Two identical twins, one gay, one straight. Someone is making a choice
-Heterosexual husband with multiple kids, comes out as gay. Made a choice at some point, and was able to perform in either lifestyle
-Straight male sentenced to life in prison, porks his cell mate. Choice
-Priest (who thinks he's gay or straight) remains celibate. Making a choice about his sexuality
-College girl experiments in college. Marries and becomes a mom. Made opposing choices at different times
-Obama claims he made a choice.
quote:
President Barack Obama’s gay allies are ignoring his endorsement of the long-standing claim that sexual orientation is a matter of choice.
A poll by Gallup showed that only 42 percent of Americans believe all gay people are “born that way,” regardless of choice. That’s a shift from 2013, when 47 percent said gays are born that way.
You 'born that way' advocates are losing the battle, because science can't back up the claim any longer
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:11 pm to llfshoals
quote:
I see a Kasich 2020 as your sig.
You sure do. By design.
Everything I said is still accurate.
quote:
perception of science is the only one
Maybe you're correct. You don't ignore it.
You just don't understand it. That's fine.
quote:
Not sure where you got prayer there.
Previous interactions. No point in hiding from it.
You have nothing, so you continue to fall back to incorrect assertions about John Kasich. Melting about it won't make you less wrong here.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:13 pm to League Champs
I love that y'all think you've found a silver bullet here.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:14 pm to llfshoals
quote:
Honestly dude I'm thinking at least 90% of the population would much rather just have someone tell them what to think.
This is fricking precious coming from someone that spends their Sundays getting hollered at by their Preacher Man.
Page 19 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News