Is anyone genuinely going to boycott?

[westernpark]

11 minutes ago, shade said:

Wait until you find out, although I've been "in trouble" for stating this before, that ALL the largest and latest studies show that sexuality is only 8-25% genetic (25 being the absolute maximum although probably less), along with hormonal, environmental and social influences. It will blow your mind.

If this were true, the factors you mention still indicate it is not choice. Any chance you could link the articles?

[K1FOX]

8 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

So do you think all men are attracted to all women? And vice versa? Or do you think that you can't help which men/women people are attracted to, you just are attracted to some but not others?

Attraction is a funny thing though isn’t it Debbie, you can have zero attraction to

someone but spend a little while with them and that could change. As Shade mentioned hormonal, environmental and social influences play a BIG part.

[Mark_w]

11 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

Again just to clarify doesn’t bother me one bit. But yeah was a general point and that is definitely the case in general. 
 

Thoughts on what shade has said btw? He’s provided stats?

Umm what Shade's stat that scientists suggest that genetics account for 8%-25% of same sex sexual activity? And the rest is down to hormonal, environmental and social influences?

I mean I know absolutely nothing about the study or studies at all so I don't really have much to say. But I think the idea that genetics (not a choice), hormones (not a choice), environmental influences (many of which aren't a choice) and social influences (many of which aren't a choice) lead people to participate in same sex sexual activity contradicts your view that sexuality is always a choice much more than it threatens mine.

Edited 24 November 2022 by Mark_w

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, K1FOX said:

Attraction is a funny thing though isn’t it Debbie, you can have zero attraction to

someone but spend a little while with them and that could change. As Shade mentioned hormonal, environmental and social influences play a BIG part.

So not choice then?

[shade]

3 minutes ago, westernpark said:

If this were true, the factors you mention still indicate it is not choice. Any chance you could link the articles?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/

 

1 minute ago, Mark_w said:

Umm what Shade's stat that scientists suggest that genetics account for 8%-25% of same sex sexual activity? And the rest is down to hormonal, environmental and social influences?

I mean I know absolutely nothing about the study or studies at all so I don't really have much to say. But I think the idea that genetics (not a choice), hormones (not a choice), environmental influences (many of which aren't a choice) and social influences (many of which aren't a choice) lead people to participate in same sex secual activity contradicts your view that sexuality is always a choice much more than it threatens mine.

I don't disagree with you, I certainly don't believe it's a choice, I would say more a predisposition with aligning personality traits such as openness to experience, and some peripheral social influences.

[K1FOX]

2 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

Umm what Shade's stat that scientists suggest that genetics account for 8%-25% of same sex sexual activity? And the rest is down to hormonal, environmental and social influences?

I mean I know absolutely nothing about the study or studies at all so I don't really have much to say. But I think the idea that genetics (not a choice), hormones (not a choice), environmental influences (many of which aren't a choice) and social influences (many of which aren't a choice) lead people to participate in same sex secual activity contradicts your view that sexuality is always a choice much more than it threatens mine.

All of those points are dictated by choices that are made - hormonal maybe less so but everything else is. 

[K1FOX]

4 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

So not choice then?

Many choices actually in the lead up. 

[hejammy]

41 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

K1FOX has decided to die on his homophobic hill, and BOY is he going for it.

That's a bit harsh. He has multiple times said he has no issue with LGBTQ and what people do is their business. The debate was started as he didn't beleive they should make an issue in a country where it's illegal as its upto the country what they do. He has opinions but the definition of a homophobe is a person with a dislike of or prejudice against gay people. I don't beleive he dislikes or has a prejudice against that particular community. 

[Mark_w]

5 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

All of those points are dictated by choices that are made - hormonal maybe less so but everything else is. 

What including the potentially 25% that they're saying is genetics? 2 of the 4 listed factors have absolutely no element of choice involved at all. And if you think social and environmental factors are all of your choosing then you're mad. I don't see how you can possibly think that study supports your view that attraction to people of the same sex is an active choice? It's completely nonsensical.

Edited 24 November 2022 by Mark_w

[Guest Mickyblueeyes]

**** me. I just wanted to know the Cameroon score

[shade]

Just now, Mickyblueeyes said:

**** me. I just wanted to know the Cameroon score

roger miller just scored a late peno

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

21 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

Thoughts on what shade has said btw? He’s provided stats?

Assuming he's referring to, for example, the study by Ganna et al (2019), the interpretations of the research by the researchers themselves are a great deal more complex and nuanced than he suggested, and include the conclusion that 'there are a lot of genes that influence sexual behaviour, many of which researchers haven't found yet.'

 

Their conclusions have been summarised as 'there is no single gene which determines sexuality' (my italics).

 

 

Edited 24 November 2022 by Manley Farrington-Brown
Edited to correct a typo.

[shade]

1 minute ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Assuming he's referring to, for example, the study by Ganna et al (2019), the interpretations of the research by the researchers themselves are a great deal more complex and nuanced than he suggested, and include the conclusion that 'there are a lot of genes that influence sexual behaviour, many of which researchers haven't found yet.'

 

There conclusions have been summarised as 'there is no single gene which determines sexuality' (my italics).

Another way of looking at is this...Hamer, now retired, disagrees. His study, which analysed the genomes of 40 pairs of gay brothers, looked exclusively at people who identified as homosexual. He sees the new paper as an analysis of risky behavior or openness to experience, noting that participants who engaged in at least one same-sex experience were also more likely to report having smoked marijuana and having more sexual partners overall. Hamer says that the findings do not reveal any biological pathways for sexual orientation. “I’m glad they did it and did a big study, but it doesn’t point us where to look.”

[K1FOX]

3 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

What including the potentially 25% that they're saying is genetics? 2 of the 4 listed factors have absolutely no element of choice involved at all. And if you think social and environmental factors are all of your choosing then you're mad. I don't see how you can possibly think that study supports your view that attraction to people of the same sex is an active choice? It's completely nonsensical.

8-25% with it more likely being towards the lower side. I’d like to think it supports my opinion a lot more than yours. What it does mean that even if it’s 25% genetic, 3 out of 4 people have some element of choice.

[FoxesDeb]

7 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

Many choices actually in the lead up. 

 'hormonal, environmental and social influences'

 

Which ones are the many choices?

[K1FOX]

Just now, FoxesDeb said:

 'hormonal, environmental and social influences'

 

Which ones are the many choices?

Do you not believe any of these things which are proven to significantly enhance chances of being ‘gay’ would need you to have made certain choices along the way for them to impact you? 

[Mark_w]

14 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

8-25% with it more likely being towards the lower side. I’d like to think it supports my opinion a lot more than yours. What it does mean that even if it’s 25% genetic, 3 out of 4 people have some element of choice.

Did the study say how much was hormonal?

How many of the environmental influences were a result of the choice of the person in question?

How many of the social influences were a result of the choice of the person in question?

How much are the environmental and social things that influence us ever our choice for that matter? I mean I might choose to live in a city but I don't choose my neighbours, or who I work with or who I encounter. I might choose to apply for a job at an organisation but I don't choose whether I get it or who I'm working with if I do. I didn't choose who my parents were. I didn't choose what country I was born in. I didn't choose what faith my parents were. I didn't choose the faith of my teachers. I didn't choose the curriculum of my school. Very few of the environmental and social things that influence us day to day are actually our choice. And even the choices I do make about what I agree and disagree with for example, are massively influenced by all those factors I didn't choose.

Edited 24 November 2022 by Mark_w

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

10 minutes ago, K1FOX said:

What it does mean that even if it’s 25% genetic, 3 out of 4 people have some element of choice.

That is emphatically not what it means. Whatever it does mean, it has nothing to do with the proportion of people. The percentages are to do with the relative proportions of influencing factors pertaining to a person.

[shade]

1 minute ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

That is emphatically not what it means. Whatever it does mean, it has nothing to do with the proportion of people. The percentages are to do with the relative proportions of influencing factors pertaining to a person.

I emphatically agree with you.

[K1FOX]

4 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

Did the study say how much was hormonal?

How many of the environmental influences were a result of the choice of the person in question?

How many of the social influences were a result of the choice of the person in question?

How much are the environmental and social things that influence us ever our choice for that matter? I mean I might choose to live in a city but I don't choose my neighbours, or who I work with or who I encounter. I might choose to apply for a job at an organisation but I don't choose whether I get it or who I'm working with if I do. I didn't choose who my parents were. I didn't choose what country I was born in. I didn't choose what faith my parents were. I didn't choose the faith of my teachers. I didn't choose the curriculum of my school. Very few of the environmental and social things that influence us day to day are actually our choice. And even the choices I do make about what I agree and disagree with for example, are massively influenced by all those factors I didn't choose.

Point is we’ve gone from zero choice to how much of a choice. 

[K1FOX]

4 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

That is emphatically not what it means. Whatever it does mean, it has nothing to do with the proportion of people. The percentages are to do with the relative proportions of influencing factors pertaining to a person.

Ok let me rephrase 75% of external factors. All of which in some way, shape or form are influenced by decisions we make.

[Mark_w]

Just now, K1FOX said:

Point is we’ve gone from zero choice to how much of a choice. 

In terms of sexual attraction, we’ve gone from zero to zero. It is not an active choice to be sexually attracted to someone. That study does not suggest otherwise.

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, K1FOX said:

Do you not believe any of these things which are proven to significantly enhance chances of being ‘gay’ would need you to have made certain choices along the way for them to impact you? 

I can't really take you seriously when you talk about enhancing chances of being gay tbh. 

 

People are born the way they are. I don't believe anyone 'chooses' to be gay any more than I believe people choose to be heterosexual. I haven't ever made a choice to be a hetero woman, it's just who I am. I don't choose who I am attracted to, either I am or I'm not, it's not a choice. The fact that I am only attracted to men is not a choice, it's just who I am. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[K1FOX]

Just now, Mark_w said:

In terms of sexual attraction, we’ve gone from zero to zero. It is not an active choice to be sexually attracted to someone. That study does not suggest otherwise.

So don’t you think the external factors mentioned in the study would also apply to sexual attraction. If it’s got a big hand in being gay surely it comes under a similar umbrella?

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

1 minute ago, K1FOX said:

Ok let me rephrase 75% of external factors. All of which in some way, shape or form are influenced by decisions we make.

Fair enough. Rephrase accepted!

 

Although from what I can see the conclusions aren't by any means as straightforward as 'Maximum 25% of sexuality is genetic, the rest isn't.'