What's new
By:

Jason Collins is gay

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
carolinajazz said:
Much attention has been given to genetic studies. Among homosexual males and females who have identical twins, about half of their twins are likewise homosexual. Since monozygotic [identical] twins are genetic duplicates, it seemed logical to conclude that some mysterious gene caused the deviation. However, note that half the twin siblings were not homosexual. If this trait were really genetically programmed, would not all the twins have it? True, genes and hormones may play some role. Even so, Scientific American reported the findings of some that the evidence “strongly suggests that environment contributes significantly to sexual orientation.”
Click to expand...

My opinion on homosexuality has not changed, nor will it. If you're gay, you go do your thing. If you're not, you're still gonna go do your thing. I'm not convinced I could care less should a person prefer clam or bratwurst.

But it does open up some ground for the religious type that have always said it's not genetic. And I don't care for that.

Also, I'm gonna back UGLI up. With the level of acceptance homosexuality has in this day and age, it's hard to give an opinion to the contrary without being labeled a bigot. I don't agree with what Broussard said, and I think he has a lot to accept about the direction the world is headed, and it probably wasn't hard for him to say it at the time.. but I bet it's harder for CB to live with what he said than it will be for Mr Collins to live post-closet.
 
Last edited:
UGLI baby said:
Google both of their names. Who is the hero and who is facing backlash?
Click to expand...

Broussard just regurgitated what he's been taught all his life. Collins had to reconcile who he was with his beliefs.

Collins will get more vicious hate mail, will be the butt of ugly jokes (see carolinajazz in the Jazz Forum topic), will be accused of being a token where ever he is hired, etc.
 
ElRoach0 said:
But it does open up some ground for the religious type that have always said it's not genetic. And I don't care for that.
Click to expand...

If you look at non-identical twins where one twin is gay, the other twin is gay with about the same frequency as if they had not been a twin (that is, the same as if they had been an older/younger sibling). If the twins are identical, the other twin is gay about five times as often. Being gay may not be completely genetically determined, but there is an obvious genetic component. However, this is only evidence, and religious types usually ignore evidence they don't like.
 
One Brow said:
If you look at non-identical twins where one twin is gay, the other twin is gay with about the same frequency as if they had not been a twin (that is, the same as if they had been an older/younger sibling). If the twins are identical, the other twin is gay about five times as often. Being gay may not be completely genetically determined, but there is an obvious genetic component. However, this is only evidence, and religious types usually ignore evidence they don't like.
Click to expand...

Even one in a million is enough for a fanatic to build a "castle" on.

But since you've got so much information about it, a link would be helpful. :)
 
One Brow said:
If you look at non-identical twins where one twin is gay, the other twin is gay with about the same frequency as if they had not been a twin (that is, the same as if they had been an older/younger sibling). If the twins are identical, the other twin is gay about five times as often. Being gay may not be completely genetically determined, but there is an obvious genetic component. However, this is only evidence, and religious types usually ignore evidence they don't like.
Click to expand...

Some intellectual honesty wrapped up with an obvious trolling conclusion (no, wait, I'm sure you've got data that indicates that religious types are more prone to confirmation bias and ignoring conflicting evidence than a-religious types, right?) It's nothing more than hate-speech cloaked in faux-intellectualism, and I'd like to think you're better than that.

"Being gay may not be completely genetically determined, but there is an obvious genetic component"

That conclusion seems to be consistent with most studies: that there is a genetic component. In other words, there is some level of genetics and some level of choice or conditioning...but that statement doesn't fit anyone's polarized argument. The associate with whom I've discussed the topic the most, a gay man who is very much at the front of advocacy in this area, feels it insulting to be labeled as being helpless in the matter and merely at the mercy of genetics. Anecdotal to be sure, but interesting.
 
bordelais7 said:
Some intellectual honesty wrapped up with an obvious trolling conclusion (no, wait, I'm sure you've got data that indicates that religious types are more prone to confirmation bias and ignoring conflicting evidence than a-religious types, right?) It's nothing more than hate-speech cloaked in faux-intellectualism, and I'd like to think you're better than that.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I mean, I certainly have my own deeply attached beliefs. In recent years, I have endeavored to make one of those deeply attached beliefs "deeply attached beliefs are likely to mislead you", but I can't vouch for my personal success in that, and I'm sure others will say I've had no success at all.

https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2009/08/10364.html

bordelais7 said:
"Being gay may not be completely genetically determined, but there is an obvious genetic component"

That conclusion seems to be consistent with most studies: that there is a genetic component. In other words, there is some level of genetics and some level of choice or conditioning...but that statement doesn't fit anyone's polarized argument. The associate with whom I've discussed the topic the most, a gay man who is very much at the front of advocacy in this area, feels it insulting to be labeled as being helpless in the matter and merely at the mercy of genetics. Anecdotal to be sure, but interesting.
Click to expand...

The lure of individuality is very strong. We all like to think ourselves masters of our world.

However, for me, this is a matter of definitions. If you have no choice, you are attracted to members of the opposite sex, then you are heterosexual. If you have no choice, you are attracted to members of the same sex, then you are homosexual. If you have a choice, you are attracted to members of the either sex, then you are bisexual (this is not meant to be an exhaustive list). I don't see why the existence of bisexuals would be evidence homosexuals don't exist, or vice-versa.
 
bordelais7 said:
"Being gay may not be completely genetically determined, but there is an obvious genetic component"

That conclusion seems to be consistent with most studies: that there is a genetic component. In other words, there is some level of genetics and some level of choice or conditioning....
Click to expand...

.....it's true that some males are born with two x's and a y.....while some females are born with two y's and an x. However, here is where the need for both parents to play their role! Again, although born male you still have to learn "masculinity" and when born female you still have to learn "femininity." However, if homosexuals had there way the earth's population would gradually disappear....since homosexuals and lesbians cannot reproduce.
 
One Brow said:
He probably was. What's your point?
Click to expand...

....so when did he become homosexual? Obviously, he started out heterosexual. So was it his association with homosexuals? There are those who try to change their sexual role in life from one to the other. However, the Bible does not set out any alternative life-styles approved by God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top