Study Finds No Gay Gene. Will Leftists Accept Science Or Still Go With Their Feelings?

[Half-Life]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlR_TKGxalg[/YOUTUBE]

What's the leftists response to this news? The right has repeatedly said, "there is no gay gene" and the left always said, "There is! Just wait! They'll find it!"

Turns out it's a choice.

 

[Metaphor]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlR_TKGxalg[/YOUTUBE]

What's the leftists response to this news? The right has repeatedly said, "there is no gay gene" and the left always said, "There is! Just wait! They'll find it!"

Turns out it's a choice.

Not being genetically determined is not the same thing as "a choice".

 

[Half-Life]

Not being genetically determined is not the same thing as "a choice".

But you guys always said, "they're born that way!" despite the fact that no evidence for that exists except your feelings.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The report says it is many genes instead of one. That actually rather badly undermines your point.

It's almost as if humans are complicated creatures and sexuality is complicated.

 

[Half-Life]

The report says it is many genes instead of one. That actually rather badly undermines your point.

It's almost as if humans are complicated creatures and sexuality is complicated.

But, don't you find it strange that homosexuality used to be listed as a mental illness until the homosexual community complained, whined, and cried, so they took it off the list of mental disorders? I find that fascinating as well.

You also say "it's many genes" but they couldn't find ANY gay gene. And you think this means there's multiple gay genes??? Good grief!

 

[abaddon]

What's the leftists response to this news? The right has repeatedly said, "there is no gay gene" and the left always said, "There is! Just wait! They'll find it!"

Every time you say "the left says", you're making shit up.

Turns out it's a choice.

That'd be ok if that's what is true.

If science said "no hetero gene" would it make being straight into a choice? Was that your experience (assuming you're hetero)? Did you think about it and choose, or did you just find that who you're attracted to is just who you're attracted to?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The report says it is many genes instead of one. That actually rather badly undermines your point.

It's almost as if humans are complicated creatures and sexuality is complicated.

But, don't you find it strange that homosexuality used to be listed as a mental illness until the homosexual community complained, whined, and cried, so they took it off the list of mental disorders? I find that fascinating as well.

You also say "it's many genes" but they couldn't find ANY gay gene. And you think this means there's multiple gay genes??? Good grief!

They didn't fine one gene because it turned out to be a combination of genes as well as environmental factors. It isn't "multiple gay genes", it is "multiple genes that have an overall effect in determining sexuality".

Do I find it strange that homosexuality used to be a mental illness? No, I've known for a very long time that people are stupid.

 

[abaddon]

But, don't you find it strange that homosexuality used to be listed as a mental illness until the homosexual community complained, whined, and cried, so they took it off the list of mental disorders? I find that fascinating as well.

You also say "it's many genes" but they couldn't find ANY gay gene. And you think this means there's multiple gay genes??? Good grief!

Come on and 'fess up, you're trolling. You're not really this stupid, it has to be pretending. The amount of stupid, so consistently and so persistently across all your posts, is hard to believe.

 

[funinspace]

But, don't you find it strange that homosexuality used to be listed as a mental illness until the homosexual community complained, whined, and cried, so they took it off the list of mental disorders? I find that fascinating as well.

You also say "it's many genes" but they couldn't find ANY gay gene. And you think this means there's multiple gay genes??? Good grief!

Come on and 'fess up, you're trolling. You're not really this stupid, it has to be pretending. The amount of stupid, so consistently and so persistently across all your posts, is hard to believe.

Hard to say, but for those that are curious...some details:

https://www.livescience.com/no-single-gene-makes-someone-gay.html

In the end, the scientists could not find any genetic patterns that could be used, in any way, to identify a person's sexual orientation. Instead, the predisposition to same-sex sexual behavior appeared influenced by a complex mix of genetic and environmental influences. That's also the case for many other human traits, such as height.

"It's effectively impossible to predict an individual's sexual behavior from their genome," study co-author Ben Neale, a statistical geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, told Live Science.

However, the finding that there's no single gay gene does not mean that sexual orientation is not genetic or biological, and is therefore a lifestyle choice.

"This is wrong," study co-author Brendan Zietsch, a geneticist at the University of Queensland in Australia, told Live Science. "We find that there are many, many genes that predispose one to same-sex sexual behavior. Each of them individually has a very small effect, but together they have a substantial effect.

"Another possible misinterpretation is to think that if same-sex preference is genetically influenced, it must therefore be totally genetically determined," Zietsch added. "That is not true. Genetically identical individuals — twins — often have different sexual orientations. We know there are non-genetic influences as well, but we don't understand these well, and our study does not say anything about them."

 

[Metaphor]

Not being genetically determined is not the same thing as "a choice".

But you guys always said, "they're born that way!" despite the fact that no evidence for that exists except your feelings.

It wouldn't matter either way. Even if humans had libertarian free will and some chose same sex partners, so what? What is it about that choice (which isn't a choice, but this is a hypothetical) that so angers you?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's polygenic, like hair color.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The report says it is many genes instead of one. That actually rather badly undermines your point.

It's almost as if humans are complicated creatures and sexuality is complicated.

Soooo, Jason actually reads the report and finds that Half's post is not even half true.
At this point, if I were the OP, i would either say, '
shit, i missed that! Sorry!'
Or maybe, 'shit, i gotta stop trusting youffube comments! Sorry!'
Or, maybe, maybe, 'i don't understand. Is it genetic or not?'
Or, i would just leave the site and never come back. I mean, man that has to be embarrassing if you're not a troll....

Let's see what half does with thus revelation.

But, don't you find it strange that homosexuality used to be listed as a mental illness until the homosexual community complained, whined, and cried, so they took it off the list of mental disorders? I find that fascinating as well.

so, off on a tangent, no response to being caught so balls-out stupid as to post a stuudy that actually disproves your claim you said it proved.
Just blame Teh Gays for Teh Gay not being craziness anymore.

You also say "it's many genes" but they couldn't find ANY gay gene. And you think this means there's multiple gay genes??? Good grief!

...and putting yet more dumbass words into The Left's mouth.

No, what i think it means is that interested groups will not be able to develop gaytest strips, like blood sugar monitors, where you can tell if someone's gay by putting a drop of their blood in the machine, or a drop of urine.

Which is a good thing. I think such detection would be ripe for abuse.
About the only good thing i can imagine it being used for is testing the more outspoken graduates of reversion therapy.
"It's a choice! God made me straight!"
Um, no, sweetie, the dipstick says he didn't...

 

[Bronzeage]

Not being genetically determined is not the same thing as "a choice".

But you guys always said, "they're born that way!" despite the fact that no evidence for that exists except your feelings.

If every human trait were determined by a specific gene, we would run out of genes somewhere in the 3rd month of gestation. It's a lot more complicated than that.

A poor understanding of science will lead a person to make a lot of foolish statements, especially when they believe science supports their personal prejudices.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If science said "no hetero gene" would it make being straight into a choice? Was that your experience (assuming you're hetero)? Did you think about it and choose, or did you just find that who you're attracted to is just who you're attracted to?

That's the right question. Few anti-gay people are be bold enough to try to answer it. It shows the error of their thoughts.

 

[Derec]

Not being genetically determined is not the same thing as "a choice".

Not being controlled by a single gene is not the same thing as "not being (to some extent) genetically determined".

I do not think anybody scientifically literate ever believed there was literally a "gay gene". Even much less complex traits than sexual attraction are often influenced by multiple genes as well as the environment.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not being genetically determined is not the same thing as "a choice".

But you guys always said, "they're born that way!" despite the fact that no evidence for that exists except your feelings.

Even if genes did not determine it (or even if they played no role at all), that would not imply they're not born that way. They might if it's the result of the conditions during embryonic or fetal development (though in reality, it's more complicated than that). But in my experience, nearly all people on either (or any) side of the debate (or any other politically charged debate) tend to jump to conclusions, so yes, many people say that without good evidence (though not without any evidence, usually they have some pretty weak evidence).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The report says it is many genes instead of one. That actually rather badly undermines your point.

It's almost as if humans are complicated creatures and sexuality is complicated.

But, don't you find it strange that homosexuality used to be listed as a mental illness until the homosexual community complained, whined, and cried, so they took it off the list of mental disorders? I find that fascinating as well.

Because fundies had too much power and got it labeled as a mental illness when it isn't.

You also say "it's many genes" but they couldn't find ANY gay gene. And you think this means there's multiple gay genes??? Good grief!

It's more complex than a simple switch--but that should be obvious as a simple switch couldn't explain the range of sexualities that we see. (There are also those of us who don't believe that's how it operates in the first place--there's no "gay" gene because homosexuality doesn't exist--but neither does heterosexuality. It makes much more sense if there are two triggers for sexual attraction: attracted to males and attracted to females. A "gay" has the attracted-to-men trigger turned on, a "straight" male has the attracted-to-women trigger turned on, a "straight" female as the attracted-to-men trigger turned on, a "lesbian" has the attracted-to-female trigger turned on, a bisexual has both systems turned on, an aromantic has neither system turned on. One trigger can't explain a 2D spread of points, the interaction of two systems easily can.)

There's no "black" gene--obviously black people simply want to be that way! Quit worrying about white genocide, raise your kids white and they'll be white.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The report says it is many genes instead of one. That actually rather badly undermines your point.

It's almost as if humans are complicated creatures and sexuality is complicated.

But, don't you find it strange that homosexuality used to be listed as a mental illness until the homosexual community complained, whined, and cried, so they took it off the list of mental disorders? I find that fascinating as well.

You also say "it's many genes" but they couldn't find ANY gay gene. And you think this means there's multiple gay genes??? Good grief!

They didn't fine one gene because it turned out to be a combination of genes as well as environmental factors. It isn't "multiple gay genes", it is "multiple genes that have an overall effect in determining sexuality".

Do I find it strange that homosexuality used to be a mental illness? No, I've known for a very long time that people are stupid.

There's also the fact that when a woman has a lot of children later males are more likely to be gay--epigentic, not genetic. The genes are there, the question is if they are activated.

 

[Trausti]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlR_TKGxalg[/YOUTUBE]

What's the leftists response to this news? The right has repeatedly said, "there is no gay gene" and the left always said, "There is! Just wait! They'll find it!"

Turns out it's a choice.

Your critique of leftists is a bit off. As others have noted, the fourth law of behavioral genetics is that heritable traits are usually caused by a huge number of genes each with a tiny effect, not a single "Gene for X." The better critique is that leftists usually abhor that genetics play any role in behavior. But they'll make exceptions.

 

[blastula]

What's the leftists response to this news? The right has repeatedly said, "there is no gay gene" and the left always said, "There is! Just wait! They'll find it!"

Turns out it's a choice.

You're wrong about everything as per yuzh. Did you not pay attention in biology class?

Liberals in YouTube comments have said all along that we don't care if it's a choice or not. It's irrelevant in any social or legal sense.