Homosexaulism: genes and environment

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Luiz Henning said:

The parts that are in your "evidence" were dealt with in my topic

I must’ve missed it. Where, exactly?

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, iNow said:

I’m truly devastated reading this. Feelings all hurt and whatnot. 

I am really sorry

Just now, iNow said:

Again? You still haven’t addressed that which was already shared. 

I have already dealt with a large part of them in the text, so come back again.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Luiz Henning said:

if you want to see an explanation of why but duly mistaken, due to the nature of your method, go back to the text.

Right. That’s precisely my question. Which part(s)?

Just now, Luiz Henning said:

I am really sorry

Apology accepted, comrade. 

Just now, Luiz Henning said:

I have already dealt with a large part of them in the text, so come back again.

Again, where?

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, iNow said:

Again, where?

Quote

Bearman and Bruckner (6) analyzed the NLSY data, with a sample size of 18,841. When looking at the genetic influence, they found no significant evidence. Identical twins were 6.7% concordant, DZ twins were 7.2% concordant and whole siblings were 5.5% concordant. It was concluded that a genetic influence, if present, can only be expressed in specific social structures. The authors found support that "less gender socialization in early childhood and pre-adolescence shapes subsequent romantic preferences of the same sex". Although this study suggests almost no genetic influence on same-sex attraction, more research is needed to support this. In contrast to the studies noted above, Kendler et al. (7) analyzed 2,174 people (794 twin pairs and 1,380 non-twin brothers) and measured same-sex attraction using a single item questionnaire. The authors suggest that genetics provides an important influence on same-sex attraction, but care should be taken when observing their results due to low statistical power. Only 19/324 pairs of identical twins had a non-heterosexual member, with 6/19 pairs being concordant. 15/240 fraternal twins of the same sex had any non-sexual members, and only 2/15 of the pairs were in agreement. Because of these problems, it is difficult to draw conclusions from this study.

This and only one, there is much more where I address exactly that. you gave me the idea to coin a fallacy. "I appeal to age", would be a nice name.Lol

Edited March 25, 2021 by Luiz Henning

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

This and only one, there is much more where I address exactly that.

Then please proceed and do so. As I shared already in response to the first time you posted that one study: That over 20 year old paper has since been refuted and the preponderance of current day evidence speaks strongly against your central assertion. 

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, iNow said:

Then please proceed and do so. As I shared already in response to the first time you posted that one study: That over 20 year old paper has since been refuted and the preponderance of current day evidence speaks strongly against your central assertion.

I appeal to the age hahahahahahaha, but I would like then, since this text has been "refuted", to present me who refuted it, what methods were used to refute, and, mainly, on what date were they refuted? (Since most of those wikipedia hyperlinks are as old or as old as these studies mentioned)

[iNow]

Just now, Luiz Henning said:

I appeal to the age hahahahahahaha, but I would like then, since this text has been "refuted"

I accept your concession. Thank you for confirming your agenda here. 

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, iNow said:

I accept your concession. Thank you for confirming your agenda here. 

Lunatic argument, did not show me who refuted this study, what methods were used to refute, and what date they were refuted, just claimed to be old "probably refuted". And he also said that I have agendas at the end. LMAO

However, as I said before, recent studies are in the text above, if the child cannot find it without the help of an adult, I can do nothing. I don't even have time for that.

 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

Lunatic argument, did not show me who refuted this study, what methods were used to refute, and what date they were refuted, just claimed to be old "probably refuted". And he also said that I have agendas at the end. LMAO

However, as I said before, recent studies are in the text above, if the child cannot find it without the help of an adult, I can do nothing. I don't even have time for that.

 

No wonder you show such an affinity with JohnSSM; would you like to join us, on the left hand side?

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

as I said before, recent studies are in the text above

Once again, where? Which ones?

11 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

if the child cannot find it without the help of an adult, I can do nothing.

That mention of agenda? It was about stuff like this. No need for this here. 

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, dimreepr said:

No wonder you show such an affinity with JohnSSM; would you like to join us, on the left hand side?

What would be the left side? And I don't admire John, I just found his objections interesting, I was polite to him, because the same was with me

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Luiz Henning said:

And I don't admire John, I just found his objections interesting, I was polite to him, because the same was with me

I didn't say you did, I just thought you'd both benefit; wiv a lickle toke...

[Area54]

14 hours ago, Luiz Henning said:

Anyway, what I say, briefly, was: Homosexuality is largely influenced by the environment, despite having a genetic basis, genetics is not a good explanation at that time. That is why I criticize people who think that Homosexuality is 100% or largely influenced by genetics / Biology, disregarding major factors such as the food hypothesis I mentioned. There are many more things in the family / social environment that influence this, than genetic things themselves.

I got those points. I thought you made them clearly in your OP.

My query was on your very specific point that seemingly condemned those who spoke of "gay genes". Now, I agree with your assertion that homosexual behaviour and orientation is likely determined by both genetics and environment. Consequently, I acknowledge that "gay genes" must almost certainly exist. So I see nothing "chaotic" or negative about mentioning them and am puzzled why you have done so. By all means attack the arguments of those who insist it is only "gay genes", but not the fact that they have been proposed.

[Luiz Henning]

I realized now, it was a typo on my part, I apologize, I meant in the singular "Gene Gay". There are people who think that a single gene plays a unique role in homosexuality, disregarding that in fact, all genetic characteristics are polygenic (With some caveats, which are exceptions and do not prove the rule). The 1990 study by geneticist Dean Hamer was completely misinterpreted in my country's media. To the point of literally saying "Being Homosexual is inirent to human beings" (Yes, they really made that statement) My criticism in question, was that. I believe that homosexuality is much more linked to environmental, hormonal and psycho-social issues, I recommend this great text below:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026959/

 

[Area54]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I didn't say you did, I just thought you'd both benefit; wiv a lickle toke..

Since being periodically silly seems to be your superpower, I didn't think you deserved the neg.rep, so I've countered it for you.

[Luiz Henning]

I still don't understand what he meant by "left side", I'm a 36 year old "boomer" (as they say), I have no idea if this is a joke, or he is talking about the political left side.

[iNow]

45 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

I still don't understand what he meant by "left side", I'm a 36 year old "boomer" (as they say), I have no idea if this is a joke, or he is talking about the political left side.

It was a throwaway comment. Encourage you not to waste any further time wondering about it. 

[Der_Neugierige]

dont forget hormones and epigenetic.

 

would you ask me, I would respond that my embroy has experience some hormonal;epigenetic disturbance.

 

epigenetics and transcriptomics 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Der_Neugierige

[Luiz Henning]

On 5/10/2021 at 7:46 PM, Der_Neugierige said:

dont forget hormones and epigenetic.

 

would you ask me, I would respond that my embroy has experience some hormonal;epigenetic disturbance.

 

epigenetics and transcriptomics 

I talked about the hormonal hypothesis, and about food, epigenetics is a subject that I’m still delving into. So I prefer not to give much opinion (But I have some doubts about the epigenetic cause in Homosexuality)

[Der_Neugierige]

On 3/25/2021 at 4:10 AM, iNow said:

Lol. Still absolutely unrelated to my actual point.
 

You’re clearly under no obligation to share or confirm, but perhaps you suffer from some sort of mental handicap that leads to these consistently absurd and ridiculous exchanges every. single. time you post here?

I affected I have to say in my case its disordered!

On 5/22/2021 at 1:48 AM, Luiz Henning said:

I talked about the hormonal hypothesis, and about food, epigenetics is a subject that I’m still delving into. So I prefer not to give much opinion (But I have some doubts about the epigenetic cause in Homosexuality)

Nobody can force me to live this shit life through. I can leave if I want.

[Der_Neugierige]

On 3/24/2021 at 10:10 PM, MigL said:

OK.
There is a genetic element, a hormonal element and an environmental element.
Possibly all three in varying combinations.

I don't think anyone has ever argued for a totally genetic basis.

Hormonal yes, genetic yes environment no!

otherwise do explain what environment can influence sexual orientation? There is none its inborn!

 

[MigL]

I would explain, but you left without saying goodbye ...