Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

I keep reading the the Iowa caucus has become irrelevant as a sampling of the whole of Republicans, and then also seeing it held up as the reason that Santorum is doing extremely well. Given the fact that I'm Canadian and kind of have to take all of this at face value from people, I'm kind of curious which one it is. Is the Iowa caucus irrelevant or not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_2012

All the stuff up til now hasn't even officially been part of the primaries. Iowa starts the primaries, more or less. While a lot can change, coming out with an early lead really helps. If nothing else, it means you won't stop running, as Ms. Bachmann found out the hard way....

Mr. Santorum is currently second place to Mr. Romney. Santorum was only .01% behind Romney so it's incredibly close to the point where you could really say they just about tied. 8 votes difference.... Yeah.... 30,015 to 30,007.... I don't know that we have such a clear winner between these two. Do you?

There are 2,286 delegates. You get 1,144, and you win the party nomination to run for president. In the event of a tie, something called "Superdelegates," decide: politicians and party insiders vote. All wins are good wins....

[G-Flex]

Regarding recent discussion of sexual orientation:

In my opinion, human sexuality is far too complicated and, to some degree, fluid, to reduce it to any one single factor, be it conscious choice or genetics or hormone levels or... well, any other particular thing. Anyone who tries to is engaging in politicized mishandling of a very complex issue. Sexuality is as complicated as any other major aspect of who we are as people, and to say that it's somehow fixed in stone from birth (or conception), or a thing we can choose on a whim, or just the result of how you got along with your dad as a kid, is pretty goddamn ridiculous.

The argument that homosexuality is genetic is terrible and counterproductive for many reasons, even when used to defend homosexuality's legitimacy. It still allows detractors to paint it as pathological, and gives them something to go after (if it's a gene, why not screen for it or find a way to "cure" it?), and it also is a step in a very backward direction because it further constricts possibilities for "valid" human sexuality/sexual orientation, by making the issue appear a lot more simple and less nuanced than it actually is.

[Euld]

I've heard the above argument used in all sorts of places.  I'm curious, where's the proof that human sexuality is not based on genes alone?  Especially if we haven't identified which gene they are on?  And why would it being genetic be a problem?  Hair color and skin color are genetic.  Genetic disorders are genetic, but those are noticeable because they're often caused by a gene being literally too short or long, or a set has an extra gene or is missing one.

I suspect it has something to do with the brain, myself, but that's just me.  There was that story about the straight man who had a stroke, and he was gay when he woke up (and went from being a banker to being a hairdresser).

[DJ]

Wouldn't natural selection remove the gay gene from the pool?

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm curious, where's the proof that human sexuality is not based on genes alone?

Where is the proof that it is?

There was that story about the straight man who had a stroke, and he was gay when he woke up (and went from being a banker to being a hairdresser).

Which might or might not be factual (eg: did the stroke make him gay, or did it provide him with a particularily odd outing story?)

[Jerick]

Where is the proof that it is?

There is no proof of anything, just evidence

[ChairmanPoo]

Two things

- Men are not mice. As you might have noticed

- That doesn't prove that sexual orientation is exclusively gene-based. At best it proves that, at least in mice, you can manipulate it to some degree via genes.

[Jerick]

Two things

- Men are not mice. As you might have noticed

- That doesn't prove that sexual orientation is exclusively gene-based. At best it proves that, at least in mice, you can manipulate it to some degree via genes.

1) No of course they aren't but they're mammals which means their biochemistry is very similar to ours. So if denying a particular chemical to a forming mouse's brian causes it to behave differently when it fully matures I tend to think that carries strong implications for how such things effect us.

2) I never claimed it proved anything and...*reads back over conversation*

I'm curious, where's the proof that human sexuality is not based on genes alone?

Urh
I missed the alone bit on last read through and consequently misunderstood your post.
I apolgise and now feel a bit foolish.

[kaijyuu]

My understand is, when it comes to chemicals, mice and humans react remarkably similar. It's why we test almost all our drugs on them. If more studies show such a link, then it's reasonable to think that humans might have a gene (and resultant protein) that helps regulate sexuality, and thus you'd have a good case to start searching for something similar in our biochemistry.


'Course I don't see much point in all this outside of idle curiosity, though.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm curious, where's the proof that human sexuality is not based on genes alone?

Because genes work by interacting with their environment. There is, quite literally, NOTHING about human physiology or psychology that occurs due to "genes alone". It's just a question of how much of a variation environmental changes can cause without causing overriding factors elsewhere. Again, genes don't code for people, they code for chemicals, and different environments result in different chemicals for the same exact set of genes. (This is, in fact fact, the primary assumption that allows something as complex as a human to be built)

Environment effects genetic expression. Period. Especially when you start getting into emergent behavioural patterns and brain structure, you can pretty much guarantee environment is going to play a role.

The question is, how large is the role it plays? (Answer: It varies by individual)

Also, I can testify, personally, that my sexuality varies IMMENSELY based on various conditions.

[Glowcat]

Santorum: “I don’t want to make black blah people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

[ggamer]

Spoiler:  spoiler'd for length (click to show/hide)

ggamer, okay. So you don't really understand that genetics stuff. I'll try to give a bit of an overview.

First: No, there is no "gay" gene. Any more than there is a "blue eyed" gene or a "manic depressive gene" or a "huge muscles gene" or a "really smart" gene.

All genes do is make chemicals.

Second: Sex, brain development, and sexual attraction or all remarkably complicated. Almost identical genes are used to build men and women, even our sexual organs only start differentiating later in life. And genes aren't the only influence that plays a role! Remember, they only code for chemicals: This is why hormone therapies work. So we know both genes and environmental factors can play a role in the much simpler concept of biological sex, but there is definitely more than one gene involved. Hell, genetic sex gets a whole chromosome! That's a whole ton of genes, and its still not the only genetic factor. And this is significantly simpler than anything involving brain development. And even moreso with things involving sex, which involve a fuckton of our cultural circuitry as well. Lots and lots of interaction.

Third: We know genetics, or at the very least prenatal chemistry, play a strong role in homosexuality, though saying anything more than that is difficult. Most likely, homosexuality, like heterosexuality and cancer, has a large number of causes and variations that genetics plays a large but not comprehensive role in explaining.

Fourth: Even assuming it was 100% environmental and not genetic at all, there's no evidence we can change this once it happens. The brain settles into structures fairly early on that are very hard to change, and we only really understand a glimmer of how this happens or how it can be changed.

Fifth: Most evidence points to homosexuality/heterosexuality not being a binary at all, but rather two distinct traits influenced by distinct chemicals. So you'd actually have to fight two sets of chemical challenges to get someone from homosexual to heterosexual.

Sixth: A bit of evo psych: Most people have at least some attraction in both the "same gender" and "opposite gender" category. Straight homosexuals are rare because the chemistry usually goes in the most productive direction for gene propogation, but it needs to use most of those same genes for the opposite gender as well, so new combinations can have unexpected effects. Straight gene that helps guys reproduce by making them want women more may be selected for in a population even if women get the same effect when they have the gene, for example. And this is ignoring the evidence for evolutionary advantages to family members who are not reproductive competitors.

Finally: Most people are some variant of bisexual. See six. This mean culture plays a large role for some component of the population. This is probably part of why there's so much thinking that it is a "choice" - for many people, it probably is! But there are outliers on either end of the bell curve (a bell curve that is probably shifted well over to the heterosexual side for obvious reasons) for whom the attractions are unbalanced enough that no choice is to be had. But the fact is, 100% gay people exist, just like 100% straight people. And it really comes down to how we're going to treat them for it. considering they really don'y have much of a choice.

you were right in guessing that I know jack shit about genetics. and reading this, I can faithfully say that I still understand jack shit about genetics. still, thanks for the post bro.

Let me get this out of the way first: I in no way support Santorum. The man's a stupid bigot jumping on an anti-gay bandwagon in order to garner what little votes he can from the small (neo-conservative?) reactionary population.

That being said, has it been proven that homosexuality is a gene? Last I heard the entire human genome was discovered before homosexual rights were debated.

Choice, biology, who cares honestly? The main thing is the attitude towards it and the very real effort to eradicate gays.

Here's the problem: It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Right now we gays just lose no matter what. People are so caught up in "whether or not it's a choice, but that doesn't matter at all. They've made it so that gay people in the US lose either way: choice or biology.

If it's a choice, then it's "naturally," the wrong choice. You're an unnatural criminal, a pervert, a sinner [insert insult here]. If you don't buy into it being the "wrong choice," then you're willingly choosing to be bad.... It's one thing to be young an foolish, but if you're old enough to know better, well then, now you're just irredeemable. Also, you're even worse because you'll recruit and teach others to be bad like you. You're a bad example, you immoral bastard....

If it's biology, then you're sick. You're insane. You need therapy or perhaps to be institutionalized and cured. If you don't buy into it being "sickness," then you're refusing to take your medicine and putting everyone else in danger, it's catching and you're going to get other people sick. Just like you, you sick bastard....

See how I just can't win either way?


Who cares why it is? I simply will never be happy in a relationship with a woman, period. I really, really tried to be straight, didn't work.

Being gay hasn't ruined my life, people's fucking attitudes about it has and will continue to do so in very concrete ways. Holy shit, I've lost count of the "friends" I had who disappeared off the face of the earth when they found out I'm gay. People also won't hire a "sissy" lawyer to defend them, no matter how good I am or the fact that it's often my services or prison.... How do you deal with that and the fact that the champion of your misery is being held up as the ideal to lead and save us all...? Yeah.... I vented and got a little pissed on the Internets.... How would you deal with it?

and what do you mean by that?

[G-Flex]

I've heard the above argument used in all sorts of places.  I'm curious, where's the proof that human sexuality is not based on genes alone?  Especially if we haven't identified which gene they are on?  And why would it being genetic be a problem?  Hair color and skin color are genetic.  Genetic disorders are genetic, but those are noticeable because they're often caused by a gene being literally too short or long, or a set has an extra gene or is missing one.

Er, why would you assume that it's strictly genetic even though there's no evidence that it is? That's about as valid as assuming it's strictly environmental, or strictly... anything else.

There's also the fact that human sexuality is too complicated for simple expression of one solitary gene to somehow miraculously be responsible for all of it, as well as the evidence provided by... well, basically anyone whose sexuality has ever changed throughout any of their life.

I suspect it has something to do with the brain, myself, but that's just me.

Yes, you're right. Aspects of how a person thinks and feels have to do with their brain. In other news, I think digestive problems might have to do with the stomach and intestines.

My understand is, when it comes to chemicals, mice and humans react remarkably similar. It's why we test almost all our drugs on them. If more studies show such a link, then it's reasonable to think that humans might have a gene (and resultant protein) that helps regulate sexuality, and thus you'd have a good case to start searching for something similar in our biochemistry.

The thing is that sexual response in most animals almost certainly responds to much simpler signals. It's entirely plausible, for instance, that a mouse responding to one scent differently might account for a difference in what they respond to sexually.

[Euld]

There's also the fact that human sexuality is too complicated for simple expression of one solitary gene to somehow miraculously be responsible for all of it, as well as the evidence provided by... well, basically anyone whose sexuality has ever changed throughout any of their life.

I suspect it has something to do with the brain, myself, but that's just me.

Yes, you're right. Aspects of how a person thinks and feels have to do with their brain. In other news, I think digestive problems might have to do with the stomach and intestines.

Sorry, wasn't implying that sexuality comes from genes and only genes.  I wanted to see the evidence that supports the apparent widespread conclusion that it has nothing to do with genes and why I should feel awful for even considering the thought. *headswish*  I'm curious why it's a fact that human sexuality is complicated.  Did I miss a memo or something?  Got evidence of that, or should I be taking that on faith also to support your claim?  Evidence besides "it's obvious to everyone I've talked to whose sexuality apparently changed over time"?  How about a peer-reviewed study about a few hundred individuals whose sexuality changed?  And how are we defining sexuality in this case?  Are we talking fetishes, or radical changes in sexual orientation?

Oh yes.  And thanks for taking my sentence out of context and using it to insult me.  I figured you would understand that when I said "stroke" in the next few sentences, you would understand that I meant the changes in the brain that can occur after a stroke.  Certain regions dying off and new connections being made quickly and all that.  Resulting in say, a change of sexual orientation.  I'm trying to have a civil discussion here, don't tempt me into insulting you back.

[Heron TSG]

Santorum: “I don’t want to make black blah people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

I've watched the video, it sounds like 'blah' to me. I wouldn't put it past him, though.