Gay DNA found

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
I'm still at a loss as to why anyone cares if homosexuals get married. It doesn't harm me or anyone else in any way so who cares?

This is the justification Bush gave prior to his call for an amendment banning gay marriage (in his SOU address):

"Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them." George W. Bush

So apparently he thinks government sanction of same-sex marriage would undermine your ability to raise moral and responsible children. Gays are a threat to family and faith.



www.andrewsullivan.com:

And this is the justification for banning gay unions in the constitution itself. So I - as a gay person - am somehow a threat to "family and faith"? How dare he? What about my family and my faith? Bringing gay people into the embrace of their own families through marriage is somehow an affront to bringing up responsible, moral children? What about gay children? And what about gay couples bringing up moral, responsible children? Are they not members of families as well? Then this:

Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
personally, i dont think it does make it more right.
but i think it is presented to those people the believe it is wrong in the hope that it will be construed by those it is presented to as being more "right"
im thinking that the people who are opposed to homosexuality tend to be folks who see it as a moral choice. and if it is not a choice, then denying that human being rights would be tantamount to racism. (at least, that would appear to be the logic)
discriminating based on something i have no control over would be unacceptable, no?
so i think thats why homosexual rights advocates tend to hold on to these sorts of things.
as i said, i doubt very many of those advocates believe this makes it more acceptable, i think they just see it as a lever with which to hopefully convince some people.

I see what you're saying, and I have to disagree with whatever the logic is. This would be akin to saying you're only free to practice religion X if you're genetically predisposed to doing so. If you freely choose it, then your right to do so should be restricted. Obviously, this shouldn't be the case.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tommunist
I'm still at a loss as to why anyone cares if homosexuals get married. It doesn't harm me or anyone else in any way so who cares?

This is the justification Bush gave prior to his call for an amendment banning gay marriage (in his SOU address):

"Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them." George W. Bush

So apparently he thinks government sanction of same-sex marriage would undermine your ability to raise moral and responsible children. Gays are a threat to family and faith.



www.andrewsullivan.com:

And this is the justification for banning gay unions in the constitution itself. So I - as a gay person - am somehow a threat to "family and faith"? How dare he? What about my family and my faith? Bringing gay people into the embrace of their own families through marriage is somehow an affront to bringing up responsible, moral children? What about gay children? And what about gay couples bringing up moral, responsible children? Are they not members of families as well? Then this:

Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America.

that's a pretty weak argument by bush - there are other things in society that actually DO cause harm to children but those things aren't illegal. If a major corporation could just figure out a way to make lots of money off gay marriages it would not only be legal - it would be encouraged....

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tommunist
I'm still at a loss as to why anyone cares if homosexuals get married. It doesn't harm me or anyone else in any way so who cares?

This is the justification Bush gave prior to his call for an amendment banning gay marriage (in his SOU address):

"Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them." George W. Bush

So apparently he thinks government sanction of same-sex marriage would undermine your ability to raise moral and responsible children. Gays are a threat to family and faith.



www.andrewsullivan.com:

And this is the justification for banning gay unions in the constitution itself. So I - as a gay person - am somehow a threat to "family and faith"? How dare he? What about my family and my faith? Bringing gay people into the embrace of their own families through marriage is somehow an affront to bringing up responsible, moral children? What about gay children? And what about gay couples bringing up moral, responsible children? Are they not members of families as well? Then this:

Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America.

that's a pretty weak argument by bush - there are other things in society that actually DO cause harm to children but those things aren't illegal. If a major corporation could just figure out a way to make lots of money off gay marriages it would not only be legal - it would be encouraged....

I think he's just tossing a bone to the social conservatives. It's pretty unlikely a federal amendment would get passed, apparently they take years and years to do, you have to get a big majority of states supporting the measure, etc.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: PatboyX
personally, i dont think it does make it more right.
but i think it is presented to those people the believe it is wrong in the hope that it will be construed by those it is presented to as being more "right"
im thinking that the people who are opposed to homosexuality tend to be folks who see it as a moral choice. and if it is not a choice, then denying that human being rights would be tantamount to racism. (at least, that would appear to be the logic)
discriminating based on something i have no control over would be unacceptable, no?
so i think thats why homosexual rights advocates tend to hold on to these sorts of things.
as i said, i doubt very many of those advocates believe this makes it more acceptable, i think they just see it as a lever with which to hopefully convince some people.

I see what you're saying, and I have to disagree with whatever the logic is. This would be akin to saying you're only free to practice religion X if you're genetically predisposed to doing so. If you freely choose it, then your right to do so should be restricted. Obviously, this shouldn't be the case.

This point, CR's point, strikes me as essentially moot because I do not think being gay 'IS' a choice. There will be nobody not born gay applying to marry gay.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well I was following your line of reasoning rather closely, CW, and i not you fall back on your usual pattern. You pursue a line of reasoning till you get a personal attack and then claim how inferior the other person is because they can't stick to a line of reasoning, never noting the didactic and hence somewhat annoying nature of your presentation if that is the word. I am not annoyed, however, and curious as to the foundation of your claim on the matter of ethics and sex. I share aidanjm's suggestion that it is just your opinion. I do not know why you just don't lay your cards on the table, but I will play along. I do not see a trap in the notion that sex has a purpose. Sex is an accident of evolution as as with evolution has no purpose. It is what is. Purpose is a human intellectual construct without physical reality, a product of duality created by language. Real ethics refers to the spontaneity that proceeds from a presence in the now, the localized action in any given situation of a fully conscious mind. Sometimes that is called Tao, I think. Ethics is what happens when one is cosmically in Love.

As much as I appreciate your viewpoint (as it is unique and obviously developed by you and for you), I can't adopt it as my own. I think we both know why the other thinks/feels the way he does, and it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion on why we are.q]

Hehe, alot of subtle hinting at things here that leaves me out in the cold. I don't understand the intention behind the implication, developed by me for me, but I feel the presence of one, and I also have no idea as to who 'the other' is or why he thinks/feels the way he does.

aidamjr also defined what he assumed was your natural law/ethics thingi and his words which dovetail nicely with what you seem to imply. I agree with his conclusion that nature does not lead to ethics in the manner you imply. Ethical behavior is consciousness. Consciousness is the result of freedom from unconscious motivation that comes from repressed painful experiences. The Buddha sat under the Bo tree and felt it all. You are searching for a truth when your whole being already is the truth. When the seeking you reached the end of its rope and lets go, the real you will remain.

 

[Abe Froman]

May start a new thread with this!

Here is my question:

I have many people debate whether or not being gay was a choice, if it is indeed in your genes, would you want those genes removed/ fixed (no real PC term for this)?

Many people say they would not have chosen that life for themselves. If you are gay now, and found out that you could be genetically altered to become straight and thus conform to society's norm of straight, would you?

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: Abe Froman
Here is my question:

I have many people debate whether or not being gay was a choice, if it is indeed in your genes, would you want those genes removed/ fixed (no real PC term for this)?

Many people say they would not have chosen that life for themselves. If you are gay now, and found out that you could be genetically altered to become straight and thus conform to society's norm of straight, would you?

More than likely, yes. I'm not sure why though. It's not that I am unhappy. May'be just to see what it is like, and compare the two. I know I wouldn't be the same person.
I never asked to be, nor did I ask not to be. I just am.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, alot of subtle hinting at things here that leaves me out in the cold. I don't understand the intention behind the implication, developed by me for me, but I feel the presence of one, and I also have no idea as to who 'the other' is or why he thinks/feels the way he does.

aidamjr also defined what he assumed was your natural law/ethics thingi and his words which dovetail nicely with what you seem to imply. I agree with his conclusion that nature does not lead to ethics in the manner you imply. Ethical behavior is consciousness. Consciousness is the result of freedom from unconscious motivation that comes from repressed painful experiences. The Buddha sat under the Bo tree and felt it all. You are searching for a truth when your whole being already is the truth. When the seeking you reached the end of its rope and lets go, the real you will remain.

I was trying to compliment you on not being a mindless robot like most of the rest of us. It's pretty clear that you make up your own mind, which I certainly respect, even though I doubt we'll ever agree on anything since our governing axioms are just about as opposite as they can be.

I see logic as part of my being. Therefore, I cannot separate myself from the search for that truth, even if I am the wholeness of it. I'm not a completed book by any stretch, so the search continues.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: Abe Froman
Here is my question:

I have many people debate whether or not being gay was a choice, if it is indeed in your genes, would you want those genes removed/ fixed (no real PC term for this)?

Many people say they would not have chosen that life for themselves. If you are gay now, and found out that you could be genetically altered to become straight and thus conform to society's norm of straight, would you?

More than likely, yes. I'm not sure why though. It's not that I am unhappy. May'be just to see what it is like, and compare the two. I know I wouldn't be the same person.
I never asked to be, nor did I ask not to be. I just am.

I have no doubt life would be a bit easier, in some ways, as a straight person.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, alot of subtle hinting at things here that leaves me out in the cold. I don't understand the intention behind the implication, developed by me for me, but I feel the presence of one, and I also have no idea as to who 'the other' is or why he thinks/feels the way he does.

aidamjr also defined what he assumed was your natural law/ethics thingi and his words which dovetail nicely with what you seem to imply. I agree with his conclusion that nature does not lead to ethics in the manner you imply. Ethical behavior is consciousness. Consciousness is the result of freedom from unconscious motivation that comes from repressed painful experiences. The Buddha sat under the Bo tree and felt it all. You are searching for a truth when your whole being already is the truth. When the seeking you reached the end of its rope and lets go, the real you will remain.

I was trying to compliment you on not being a mindless robot like most of the rest of us. It's pretty clear that you make up your own mind, which I certainly respect, even though I doubt we'll ever agree on anything since our governing axioms are just about as opposite as they can be.

I see logic as part of my being. Therefore, I cannot separate myself from the search for that truth, even if I am the wholeness of it. I'm not a completed book by any stretch, so the search continues.

Thank you for the intended comenplement. I think I am very logical too, so logical in fact that it became obvious to me, or logical if you will, that logic cannot carry you. Logic rests upon assumptions and I found that I could make none. Everything is totally meaningless, but fortunatley, so is meaning. Hehe I lost everything and let go. The I that says it cannot separate itself is right. It is that I that must discover it is a rat in an endless maze stuck hopelessly within itself. 'You' can do nothing. 'You' cannot escape. But 'you' is not who you are. He who, surrenders, dies, in hopelessness is reborn.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well I was following your line of reasoning rather closely, CW, and i not you fall back on your usual pattern. You pursue a line of reasoning till you get a personal attack and then claim how inferior the other person is because they can't stick to a line of reasoning, never noting the didactic and hence somewhat annoying nature of your presentation if that is the word. I am not annoyed, however, and curious as to the foundation of your claim on the matter of ethics and sex. I share aidanjm's suggestion that it is just your opinion. I do not know why you just don't lay your cards on the table, but I will play along. I do not see a trap in the notion that sex has a purpose. Sex is an accident of evolution as as with evolution has no purpose. It is what is. Purpose is a human intellectual construct without physical reality, a product of duality created by language. Real ethics refers to the spontaneity that proceeds from a presence in the now, the localized action in any given situation of a fully conscious mind. Sometimes that is called Tao, I think. Ethics is what happens when one is cosmically in Love.

I see you have embraced Eastern (Hindu/Buddhist and its offshoots) thought. But being well-versed in Eastern philosophy, what exactly do you mean by cosmically in Love? I think Ethics is what happens when you believe that there should be a set of rules that govern life as well as your personal actions and follow them.

 

[piasabird]

Accepting people are born gay as a fact is like believing people are born for nobility and the rest of us are just peasants. I guess you also believe people are born as rapists and child molesters, so they are not responsible for their actions.

What a wicked web we weave when we practice to deceive!

It is kind of convenient to blame everything on our genes or our heredity and thus excuse any behavior we choose to perform whether good, bad, or otherwise.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It is kind of convenient to blame everything on our genes or our heredity and thus excuse any behavior we choose to perform whether good, bad, or otherwise.

When your school skipped over evolution, did they leave out genetics too?

 

[hytek369]

interesting

 

[SinNisTeR]

hahahaha gay genes.. what will they think of next? beastiality genes... rofl.. i call shens. i think gay people are looking for a reason to excuse themselves.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: SinNisTeR
hahahaha gay genes.. what will they think of next? beastiality genes... rofl.. i call shens. i think gay people are looking for a reason to excuse themselves.

Excuse themselves for what?

The researchers who conducted this study are heterosexual, married with kids, as far as I am aware.

Most researchers in this field seem to believe genes play an important role in influencing sexual orientation; what information do you have that would indicate they are wrong on this?

 

[Whaspe]

Well, the research so far hasn't proved anything about "gay" genes, but rather that there are similarities that needs an explanation other than chance, that people of gay disposition share similar alleles on more than one segment of our genetic makeup. This doesn't mean that gay genes can't be ruled out, but IMO, you'll never find them. Now this isn't to say that someone who is gay doesn't have a genetic disposition to it, but I think this plus environmental factors are the reason it happens. And so the determinant of homosexuality would be of mainly environmental cause. Much in the same way I would surmise that heterosexual attraction arises or albeit a disposition for rapers to rape, gamblers to gamble, perfectionist to perfect. Our genes encode protiens not emotions. Emotions and complex thought are the summation of the interaction of millions of cells with millions of proteins, carbohydrates and lipids. One to one causation does not apply in this situation. Now if you want to discuss the ethics of men being attracted to men or men being attracted to women that's fine and society will have to decide for itself what and whom is fit to be included in it.

*edited for grammer, guess I should proof read first

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Well, the research so far hasn't proved anything about "gay" genes, but rather that there are similarities that needs an explanation other than chance that people of gay disposition share similar alleles on more than on segment of our genetic makeup. This doesn't mean that gay genes can't be ruled out but IMO you'll never find them. Now this isn't to say that someone who is gay doesn't have a genetic disposition to it, but I think this plus environmental factors are the reason it happens. So it is of mainly environmental cause. Much in the same way I would surmise that heterosexual attraction arises or albeit a disposition for rapers to rape, gamblers to gamble, perfectionist to perfect. Our genes encode protiens not emotions. Emotions and complex thought are the summation of the interaction of millions of cells with millions of proteins, carbohydrates and lipids. One to one causation does not apply in this situation. Now if you want to discuss the ethics of men being attracted to men or men attracted to women that's fine and society will have to decide for itself what and whom is fit to be included in it.

:beer: Very well said.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Well, the research so far hasn't proved anything about "gay" genes, but rather that there are similarities that needs an explanation other than chance that people of gay disposition share similar alleles on more than on segment of our genetic makeup. This doesn't mean that gay genes can't be ruled out but IMO you'll never find them. Now this isn't to say that someone who is gay doesn't have a genetic disposition to it, but I think this plus environmental factors are the reason it happens. So it is of mainly environmental cause. Much in the same way I would surmise that heterosexual attraction arises or albeit a disposition for rapers to rape, gamblers to gamble, perfectionist to perfect. Our genes encode protiens not emotions. Emotions and complex thought are the summation of the interaction of millions of cells with millions of proteins, carbohydrates and lipids. One to one causation does not apply in this situation. Now if you want to discuss the ethics of men being attracted to men or men attracted to women that's fine and society will have to decide for itself what and whom is fit to be included in it.[
:beer: Very well said.

I do not know why you think so.

The author knows nothing and surmises everything and then, having created all sorts of suppositions, creates from them still others. And he was giving an opinion. The thing about logic is that it requires accurate assumptions to reach meaningful conclusions. Logic can function only when there is understanding. Just for example, the implication that there is not a one to one causation between genes and emotion is used to make a one to one assumption that because this is true, behavior is randomly environmentally mysterious. But behavior, motivation via the unconscious is almost universal though well understood only by the conscious. What can be known in consciousness is unknown to most of the world. I would suggest that he who knows himself knows everybody, regardless of environment and gene, because we are all the same.

Humanity will make any ethical rules that it wants, but without consciousness they will be full of unconscious bias and not ethical truly.

============================================
Proletariat:

I see you have embraced Eastern (Hindu/Buddhist and its offshoots) thought. But being well-versed in Eastern philosophy, what exactly do you mean by cosmically in Love? I think Ethics is what happens when you believe that there should be a set of rules that govern life as well as your personal actions and follow them.

I know just a bit about Buddhism and almost nothing about Hinduism but I know that when you look for mushrooms you see them in your sleep. This is why I often say, "I will see it when I believe it rather than the other way round." Again, we use logic according to our suppositions.

I mean by cosmic love the experience that can occur when the ego dissolves, the heart awakens, and one discovers he is the universe. "Oh my Beloved, everywhere I look it appears to be Thou." There is only Love and thus a set of rules can find no room to exist. There is only love.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Accepting people are born gay as a fact is like believing people are born for nobility and the rest of us are just peasants. I guess you also believe people are born as rapists and child molesters, so they are not responsible for their actions.

What a wicked web we weave when we practice to deceive!

It is kind of convenient to blame everything on our genes or our heredity and thus excuse any behavior we choose to perform whether good, bad, or otherwise.

Actually it's nothing like that at all.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: SinNisTeR
hahahaha gay genes.. what will they think of next? beastiality genes... rofl.. i call shens. i think gay people are looking for a reason to excuse themselves.

Excuse themselves? From what? Your societal standards? How about we go to the back of the bus and have seperate water fountains. How does that sound?

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Well, the research so far hasn't proved anything about "gay" genes, but rather that there are similarities that needs an explanation other than chance that people of gay disposition share similar alleles on more than on segment of our genetic makeup. This doesn't mean that gay genes can't be ruled out but IMO you'll never find them. Now this isn't to say that someone who is gay doesn't have a genetic disposition to it, but I think this plus environmental factors are the reason it happens. So it is of mainly environmental cause. Much in the same way I would surmise that heterosexual attraction arises or albeit a disposition for rapers to rape, gamblers to gamble, perfectionist to perfect. Our genes encode protiens not emotions. Emotions and complex thought are the summation of the interaction of millions of cells with millions of proteins, carbohydrates and lipids. One to one causation does not apply in this situation. Now if you want to discuss the ethics of men being attracted to men or men attracted to women that's fine and society will have to decide for itself what and whom is fit to be included in it.[
:beer: Very well said.

I do not know why you think so.

The author knows nothing and surmises everything and then, having created all sorts of suppositions, creates from them still others. And he was giving an opinion. The thing about logic is that it requires accurate assumptions to reach meaningful conclusions. Logic can function only when there is understanding. Just for example, the implication that there is not a one to one causation between genes and emotion is used to make a one to one assumption that because this is true, behavior is randomly environmentally mysterious. But behavior, motivation via the unconscious is almost universal though well understood only by the conscious. What can be known in consciousness is unknown to most of the world. I would suggest that he who knows himself knows everybody, regardless of environment and gene, because we are all the same.

Humanity will make any ethical rules that it wants, but without consciousness they will be full of unconscious bias and not ethical truly.

============================================
Proletariat:

I see you have embraced Eastern (Hindu/Buddhist and its offshoots) thought. But being well-versed in Eastern philosophy, what exactly do you mean by cosmically in Love? I think Ethics is what happens when you believe that there should be a set of rules that govern life as well as your personal actions and follow them.

I know just a bit about Buddhism and almost nothing about Hinduism but I know that when you look for mushrooms you see them in your sleep. This is why I often say, "I will see it when I believe it rather than the other way round." Again, we use logic according to our suppositions.

I mean by cosmic love the experience that can occur when the ego dissolves, the heart awakens, and one discovers he is the universe. "Oh my Beloved, everywhere I look it appears to be Thou." There is only Love and thus a set of rules can find no room to exist. There is only love.

ack, pushed send before writing anything.

So moonbeam since we are of apparently the same "mind", how do you know so much and at the same time claim I know nothing.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: SinNisTeR
hahahaha gay genes.. what will they think of next? beastiality genes... rofl.. i call shens. i think gay people are looking for a reason to excuse themselves.

Excuse themselves for what?

The researchers who conducted this study are heterosexual, married with kids, as far as I am aware.

Most researchers in this field seem to believe genes play an important role in influencing sexual orientation; what information do you have that would indicate they are wrong on this?

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."


best guess....

potentially interacting with environmental influences.....


that's not so much evidence as it is speculation.

genetic makup doesn't equall homosexuality

genetic makeup + outside stimuli can result in homosexuality.

simply put a person isn't born gay..... that's like saying someone is genetically jewish.... while they are jewish by blood from birth and have no choice but to be so, they a jewish by culture as a result of outside stimuli, or they're upbringing.

so while a certain genetic trait may allow a person to be suseptible to homosexuality, that doesn't mean that ALL people with such genetic traits will be homosexual, nor does it mean that all homosexuals will possess these traits.


"Dr. Richard Pillard, a professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine who was involved in a study of twins and sexual orientation, has done research showing that sexuality is greatly influenced by environment, and that the role of genetics is, in the end, limited."

"The Globe article goes on to quote Ruth Hubbard, a board member of The Council for Responsible Genetics, and the author of Exploding the Gene Myth, who says that searching for a gay gene "'is not even a worthwhile pursuit...Let me be very clear: I don't think there is any single gene that governs any complex human behavior. There are genetic components in everything we do, and it is foolish to say genes are not involved, but I don't think they are decisive.'"



link

i'm not a gay hater.... i make no claim that it's deplorable or something to be ridiculed for. EVERYONE deserves a fair shake. NO ONE is gonna get it. unfortunately, a good cause (i say it's a good cause, not because of the exact problem it represents, but for it's desire toward equality as a whole) will always be destroyed by the powers that be, because just like slavery someone has alot to lose, while someone else has alot to gain and it's not liberty, equality, or justice. it's money and power.

we are all equal..... in our liberties and our shortcomings.


-----------

my post from a couple of pages back.... no one dignified it with a response, so instead of paraphrasing it to answer your question, i just copy/pasted it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Whaspe

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Well, the research so far hasn't proved anything about "gay" genes, but rather that there are similarities that needs an explanation other than chance that people of gay disposition share similar alleles on more than on segment of our genetic makeup. This doesn't mean that gay genes can't be ruled out but IMO you'll never find them. Now this isn't to say that someone who is gay doesn't have a genetic disposition to it, but I think this plus environmental factors are the reason it happens. So it is of mainly environmental cause. Much in the same way I would surmise that heterosexual attraction arises or albeit a disposition for rapers to rape, gamblers to gamble, perfectionist to perfect. Our genes encode protiens not emotions. Emotions and complex thought are the summation of the interaction of millions of cells with millions of proteins, carbohydrates and lipids. One to one causation does not apply in this situation. Now if you want to discuss the ethics of men being attracted to men or men attracted to women that's fine and society will have to decide for itself what and whom is fit to be included in it.[
:beer: Very well said.

I do not know why you think so.

The author knows nothing and surmises everything and then, having created all sorts of suppositions, creates from them still others. And he was giving an opinion. The thing about logic is that it requires accurate assumptions to reach meaningful conclusions. Logic can function only when there is understanding. Just for example, the implication that there is not a one to one causation between genes and emotion is used to make a one to one assumption that because this is true, behavior is randomly environmentally mysterious. But behavior, motivation via the unconscious is almost universal though well understood only by the conscious. What can be known in consciousness is unknown to most of the world. I would suggest that he who knows himself knows everybody, regardless of environment and gene, because we are all the same.

Humanity will make any ethical rules that it wants, but without consciousness they will be full of unconscious bias and not ethical truly.

============================================
Proletariat:

I see you have embraced Eastern (Hindu/Buddhist and its offshoots) thought. But being well-versed in Eastern philosophy, what exactly do you mean by cosmically in Love? I think Ethics is what happens when you believe that there should be a set of rules that govern life as well as your personal actions and follow them.

I know just a bit about Buddhism and almost nothing about Hinduism but I know that when you look for mushrooms you see them in your sleep. This is why I often say, "I will see it when I believe it rather than the other way round." Again, we use logic according to our suppositions.

I mean by cosmic love the experience that can occur when the ego dissolves, the heart awakens, and one discovers he is the universe. "Oh my Beloved, everywhere I look it appears to be Thou." There is only Love and thus a set of rules can find no room to exist. There is only love.

ack, pushed send before writing anything.

So moonbeam since we are of apparently the same "mind", how do you know so much and at the same time claim I know nothing.

Because I know I know nothing.