#10147833, By Dangerous_Dan Sochi games: are we right to criticise Russia for non-games related subjects?

  • Dangerous_Dan 7 Feb 2014 09:58:23 2,390 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Right, let's take it from the top.

    You claimed yesterday that effeminate people are more likely to have gay children. This is wrong on a number of levels, but the most basic couple are: placing a close, causal association between effeminacy and homosexuality, and assuming there was such a thing as a gay gene, that homosexuality is genetic.

    You then wandered off into the whole 'genes make us who we are' wider topic, indulging yourself as you went with lengthy extracts from wikipedia and rambling, borderline-incoherent posts, shifting your topic as you went to the much broader church of genetic pre-disposition. Do our genes, in part, influence who we are? Of course they do. Should we use that knowledge to pre-judge people, as you did yesterday? Absolutely not.

    I apologise for equating genetic pre-disposition with genetic determinism, which you rightly shy away from.

    So homosexuality is not a pre-disposition? Forget the word genetic, I'm asking, is someone born a homosexual or is he nurtured into being one or as a third option is it a mix of both?
    Because if it's exclusively nurturing (education so to speak) then we should expect that homosexual parents who adopt children will make those children gay, no?
    Do they do that?
    Are you heterosexual (I'm presuming) because you were educated to be so? Or were you born that way?

    Because remember if it's just education, then those bible thumpers are right when they say they can re-educate homosexual people. Do you agree with that?

    Is it not much more likely, and reasonable to assume that there is a pre-disposition to who you are? And that that pre-disposition, a potential, gets nurtured by the environment within its limits?

    And there is no gay gene. Of course not. But if it's not only education then we must assume that it's in part pre-disposition. And that is nothing but some genetic component.

    I know you'd prefer to have it both ways. When it's convenient that something is a pre-disposition then it is and when it's not then it's not. We can pretend that it's like that - I don't mind, have to get my work done now.
Log in or register to reply