|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:50 am
[[please note: this happened early in the year and I have not followed this research. If any of the more science minded members know what I am talking about and there have been developements opposite to my rant, please tell me.]]
From the top, this thread is about sexuality, and the science (and socialism is a science) of it.
There was a lot of talk over here earlier in the year about homosexuality, and the predictable papist backlash, with claiming of sins and replies that god would not make people sin through genetics.
Now, here is the crux of the matter: in reply to the stupid ******** christians, the gay movement unilateraly declares its sexual preference to be geneticlay determined, so, they cannot be sinning, because it was gods choice to give them those genes...
We will ignore the utter idiocy of claiming god against god, and go straight to the science: There is no gene coding for homosexuality, there are no genes that code for things that may make you gay. Nothing has been found thit even implies such: the closest, that twin homosexual usually have a gertain gene is irrelevant: the incidence in gay twins only matters if it also occurs in non-batch(is there a word meaning non-twin/triplet, etc.?) born persons. Until such a correlation is found, all talk of being born gay is unscientific and idealist.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 am
Actually... pretty much anytime something ends with an "ism" it's an ideology, or at least a particular interpretation of facts which almost automatically implies other view points. Fields of science in their totality usually end in "ology" or "onomy".
Socialism crosses many fields: sociology, anthropology, economy, psychology, etc.
Kind of like in economics, you have Austrian, Chicagoschool, Keynesian, Marxian, etc. They're all interpretations of the science of economics. When none of those schools seem to work, new ideas will be spawned, and new schools will be created. So it goes.
And to the point of the thread...
Chances are, there are a number of factors that lead any one person to being gay, and they will be both biological and social. It is possible for homosexuality to be triggered by differences in hormones while in the womb. This doesn't necessarily point to a "gay gene" per se, but something more subtle than that.
As you should be aware, the default gender for a mammal is always female. (Females are always XX, males are YX. The "Y" always has to come from a male. There are mutations of XXY, YYX, and such which often result in hermaphrodites... but could also appear more subtly in homosexuals.)
In order to become "male" the fetus is bathed in hormones, especially testosterone, and this spurs the growth of the genitals and such towards which ever gender the hormones determine. There's also a huge likelihood that whatever the mother does or is exposed to could influence the amount of hormones the fetus receives.
So there's not only the chance of having odd numbers of chromosomes that could chance you for being gay, you also need the right amount of hormones for adequate development of your gender.
It IS possible for there to be "shades" of homosexuality, because of the influence of hormones. Which could explain a tendency towards bisexuality.
That isn't to say that culture doesn't play some major roles in the choices the person ultimately makes. And some of it can get quite complicated.
Like males raping another male is often a form of dominance in countries where women are not really "out there" in society. That doesn't necessarily mean they're gay. Coming from a culture like that, the idea that two males might just naturally like having sex would seem really bizarre. And put any religious person in a situation they don't understand, and they're bound consider it an abomination against Allah.. or something.
Just like how every time you don't understand the other point of view, you call it "idealist" ....rather than taking the more objective position that you or they just don't know all the facts yet. What is "idealist" is the part where gods... or religion.. or things that have nothing directly to do with sex come in.
Always be suspicious of sweeping assumptions, comrade. All of them. ;P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:45 pm
... Just do this community a favor and read before you post, mkay?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:22 pm
Kage: I called the position Idealist because it assumed an 'essence' of homosexuality, one that was independent of the persons knowledge of science, and the fact that it often times resorts to the religious plea: "We cannot be sinning because He made us this way."
My only sweeping assumption was that such a view disregarded science.
Thanks to Zin below you, I see that there is some backing. Did yoi nit nitice the disclaimer at the top?
Zin, thanks for the read (which you wouldn't have provided had I not poster), that is just what I was looking for, thus the disclaimer at the top.
Don't be so pointlessly mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:01 pm
I am not being mean. It 'tis simply critique with information. rolleyes
And I think you should be more concerned with the irrational, rather than the idealistic. People often sum up these concepts into "gay gene," "god particle," "missing link," etc. It implies a a kind of false materialism or concreteness that doesn't really exist.
Sometimes "essence" is just a place holder for what is unknown anyway. Some people do that with "God" ... though that is often messy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:53 pm
(I was telling Zin to not be mean, not you..) The gay gene, in a situation where much is unknown (or even the existence of such is unknown) is unscientific, and I whinged about that a little in the OP. Quote: It 'tis simply critique with information. um, if you are going to say "'tis", why have "it" before it, seems redundant... and just wrong, seeing as though "'tis" is only a contraction of "it is"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:18 am
Yes, yes. I didn't proofread for grammar. It was late.
It's normal for people have these theories they just sum up into "gay gene" or whatever. It's scientific as long as it remains a hypothesis and is ultimately subject to study/experiment.
But even though the scientists know the nuances behind the name... the people reporting on the concepts don't always reflect that part.
The hardest thing sometimes, is putting complex concepts into common sense language.
Like the Human Genome Project. Everyone will tell you we have mapped the human genome -- and this is quite important in discovering cures for genetic illnesses. But in reality there is no "human genome." Every single person has their own genome. So there's really as many human genomes as there are humans. Does that make the Human Genome Project flawed? Not really. Just the way it's presented, and in some sense has to be presented in order to get the support/attention it deserves.
See the problem with these things?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:32 am
I understand that completely, but... I am not too fond of oversimplification even when I do it myself (however that is when I assume the other knows what I am talking about and so such oversimplification becomes nothing other than verbal shorthand-- admittedly I may use that shorthand at those who do not know it, however when they ask I explain).
About the HGP: I thought they were using multiple sets to get a generalized picture? if they are not, then how do they figure out what does what, do they just recreate the gene in the lab or something? (I am nowhere as knowing about the HGE as I would like to be unfortunately)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:00 am
The HGP ultimately involves both genders and a number of races, as well as numerous other donors. But I think the initial project was just to get an over all map of the human genome. People are still working to figure out what the individual genes do. That's why you'll frequently see news headlines saying they found some gene or other for aging, weight-gain, sexual preferences, etc.
Of course, people are starting to realize now that it's not just single genes that cause certain traits... but also the interactions between genes. And some genes may be more important as links between others.
It's roughly the same concept I'm going to use for my MFA thesis. I'm going to research the interconnection between science and art through history. The newest science right now concerns graph theory, networks, spontaneous organization, etc. The cultural paradigm is just starting to catch up to it.. so I think it'd be fun to write a hypothesis for what that may look like.
If you know anything that might be helpful towards that end, do tell. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:39 am
Quote: The HGP ultimately involves both genders and a number of races, as well as numerous other donors. But I think the initial project was just to get an over all map of the human genome. pretty much what I thought, though I didn't know they went for diferent races (so cool). About art, I know ******** all, othr than the fact that most of it is either the constant last gasp of the petty-bourgeoisie, screaming against its fate, or just pure philistinism declaring anything that likes its tasteless crap philistine... As you can see, I can yell at them, but I know nothing of art theory (It is contrived crap for the most part...).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:18 am
Demon Kagerou It's roughly the same concept I'm going to use for my MFA thesis. I'm going to research the interconnection between science and art through history. The newest science right now concerns graph theory, networks, spontaneous organization, etc. The cultural paradigm is just starting to catch up to it.. so I think it'd be fun to write a hypothesis for what that may look like. What's graph theory and spontaneous organization? I looked it up and found a ok site here. http://www.utm.edu/departments/math/graph/I read it and it's just basic concept of it. Right now it looks like normal Cartesian graphing with |x|=f(x) then goes into spacing. Though I know that it's more than that, what I'm I missing? Edit: Is it possible that you could post more on this matter, so I can look it over?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:42 am
I can do a thread on the general concepts, sometime, if you like. I know I've posted articles I've found before... maybe I can recover a few.
But to avoid derailing this topic any further, I'll cease here for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
