Once you state something, like your belief system, it's not possible to ignore it. If you don't want it to factor, don't bring it up.

And no, I don't particularly give weight to "science" TV, any more than I do anything in Reader's Digest. There are plenty of places on the interned to get access to good scientific information, and not all of it dry and boring.

I am going to put more weight in what Slyth and Didzo have to say than anyone else in this particular discussion, since biochemistry and genetics are their areas of expertise. I'm a philosopher and theologian, so know my own tendencies

I did not watch that show, and I only had what I could glean from your original post to reply to. Note that I did not touch any points you marked as speculation, whether it be your own speculation or speculation presented in the show.

Words and phrases that imply absolute certainty such as saying that the "Warrior Gene" causes animalistic behavior or that a genetic discovery (validity aside) proves that there is an innate human wickedness that can corrupt the genetic code are something I felt the need to address. If you make such claims, then you should be prepared to be held accountable for them. When speculation, unproven statements, and personal beliefs are treated as scientific fact, there can be huge, damaging consequences.

sodbuster62 wrote:As you all know the tragic massacre that occurred in Aurora Colorado is still maintaining the headlines of the news, as it should be. However one may ask, why?

I recently watched a science program that sparked my interest. (Before I begin I must say that I fundamentally believe that humans are naturally evil because we need a savior. However that is my personal faith, which is off topic)

The program discussed the "Warrior Gene" which is present among all "psychopaths" as it causes them to be more aggressive or animalistic as the case may be, due to the fact that the front parts of the brain are less active or do not function properly at all. Further research showed that this gene is only activated after environmental situations in the early childhood such as abuse. (In no means do I attempt to lower the horrible issue of abuse)

Now some scientists have claimed that this new research may, and will, fundamentally change the way we view law and punishment. For example, they say, "Was it really his fault? After all, he was more prone to killing all those people due to his unfortunate genetic disorder and his early childhood abuse." This argument is tolerable, but illogical in my opinion. Wrong is wrong, whether someone knows it is or not. Of course that also is my opinion.

I view this genetic discovery as proof that we as humans are so wicked that it actually has corrupted our gene code in some people.

Please discuss . . .

I don't mean to make an assuption here, but if you are referring to Christianity(denominations inclusive) and Original Sin when you say that people are naturally evil and need a savior, you are misinterpreting Christianity. I also think you're logic isn't flowing in the right direction. You say humans are naturally evil because we need a savior, but I think you mean since we are naturally evil we need a savior. It also implies we need a savior, which i guess makes sense if my assumtion is correct about your chosen faith. Christianity does not say humans are naturally evil, Christianity says that humans are naturally good. It is as Jesus said, I can't quote directly, but the point was that Christianity is fundamentally the love of God and love of other people. Hard to love something naturally evil, but I digress.

Would you call this Warrior Gene a genetic disorder? I don't think a predisposition to violence can be called a disorder, but i suppose that's an opinion. Also, it is difficult for me to judge what you say on a scientific basis, because you keep tying what you say into your faith. I respect your views, of course, but I do not agree with them. So, when you say that "wrong is wrong" I find myself at an impass. That statement alone raises questions. You say the statement is illogical, that it is not the perp's fault, because wrong is wrong. However, you also say that the "wrong is wrong" bit is your opinion. Isn't the logic of the scientist's arguement independent of your opinion? The scientist's opinion, regardless of my personal beliefs, seems logical to me. He is saying that, since the person has a predisposition to violence due to genetics and background, it is difficult to fully "blame" him for the incident.

My point is that your opinion cannot quantify the logic of someone else's assertion.

This last sentence is what truly confuses me. You said earlier that humans are naturally evil, correct? However, this is just recently manifesting itself in genetic changes that cause us to be... what, more evil? And gene corruption.. Are you saying this is a process of evolution? I don't think you could be, but I'm having a lot of trouble determining how to reason with what you are saying. Also, how would the fact that the entirety of humanity is corrupt somehow lead to a select few people inheriting a gene (I guess?) that makes them more evil? Your use of the word corrupted seems to assume that somehow genes can be evil or good, which I find silly.

Hax is corrupted with the Warrior Gene.

sodbuster62 wrote:naturally evil
Wrong is wrong wicked

I don't mean to sound like I'm going to argue semantics with you, but I'm going to sound like I'm arguing semantics with you. What is "evil?" You say "wrong is wrong," but what is "wrong?"

Why did I ask these questions? No reason.

This is interesting enough.

Depending on both genetics (depending on who you ask) & upbringing (which probably explains some of the more long-term aggression due to the psychological imprint of negative upbringing & how this is more likely to spur people on), you may end up with either the crazy 20-second ragers we've mentioned or the more long-temr psychopathic types.

To be long-term with your rage & aggression (or will to exert destruction) is more likely to be onset by environmenta/ social factors.

If you've had negative past experiences, that's more likely to stick.
Short bursts of rage, however, are most likely more due ot biochemicla factors within the brain, which subside & thus cannot maintain long-term aggressive agendas.

Feel free to correct me, of course.

Hax,

Have you read the bible? It may be foolishness to you, or it may be just a bunch of good teachings. I did mean that because we are evil that we need a savior, for that I am glad you corrected me. However we are indeed all evil.
Jesus said in Mark 7: 20-22

20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

This text above clearly explains WHAT evil is and that it comes out of the heart of man, not from without. You may cross reference it if you want.
The text bellow is again Jesus speaking to Nicodemus. Now Nicodemus had asked in the verses before, "Rabbi, we all know that GOd has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you." (John 3: 2) Jesus in turn replied "I tell you the truth, unless you are born again (this in here is originally translated from the greek as I tell you the truth, what is born of Spirit is spirit, you cannot see the kingdom of God.") Then the dialogue progresses so that Jesus explains the you must be born again. He elaborates that humans are born of humans, but that you must be born of the spirit into the "spiritual life." Of course Nicodemus is confounded and slightly insulted so he asks "How are these things possible?" (I personally imagine him as asking this question sarcastically and slightly in a rude manner) Then Jesus says (and I'm going to copy the whole next text here and I will put it in quotes for better reading)

10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you[f] do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.[g] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

Notice what I underlined. Jesus clearly states here that people are evil and love the darkness, but if they repent and come to Jesus and trust in him and throw themselves upon his Grace, then they may be saved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

*Phew*

Well my theological argument is over, so now I can answer the questions about the Genes!

Let's consider for a moment the seemingly endless search for the "gay gene." Scientists have been searching for a gene in homosexuals that would make homosexuality an inescapable condition, rather than a choice or personal preference. When the MAO-A (Or is it MOA-O? I can't remember . . . ) was discovered it was a major breakthrough in that it could give those with psychopathy an excuse for their crimes. HOWEVER! Scientists stressed the point that the gene itself does not render freewill absent, but rather it only causes free will to be diminished. Furthermore it makes the person bearing the gene more "susceptible" to certain mentalities. This accompanied by environmental factors.

Now how does this tie into the "gay gene" that has yet to be discovered (if it ever will, or if it has please tell me)? Well if the MAO-A gene merely REDUCES free will or causes a certain mentality to override the person accompanied with Environmental conditions, then surely if a "gay gene" was discovered it would not render free will obsolete! Rather it would only make a person susceptible to the mentality of being attracted to the same gender.

You see, if one gene causes a certain mentality or "disorder" (Homosexuality was removed from the list of psychological disorders in the late sixties. The man who led the movement is actually trying to reverse his achievement. It's very strange.) then you can't say that one gene merely REDUCES or SUPPRESSES free will, while the other FORCES the person to be a certain way. (i.e. being a homosexual.) There is an inconsistency there. It'd be like saying that straight people are forced to be straight simply because their genetics predispose them to be so. However this is not always the case! Biologically speaking, the survival of a species depends on the reproduction and the passing on of "good" genetics to the children. If homosexuality is a gene induced mentality, then it would have died off since homosexuals wouldn't mate with the opposite gender! However if it is a gene, this would mean that they DID have to mate and have offspring, meaning that they CHOSE to be with the opposite gender and reproduce. If this is the case, then homosexuality is a choice, so is being straight. Rather some people are more INCLINED to certain things than others. I would know as (please keep this private, but I suppose it won't be since I'm posting it on a public forum! ) I am bisexual, or would consider myself as such. I am attracted to men, but I have chosen not to be and am fine with that choice.

*Phew. . . again. . .*

I have written a lot, sorry for a long post. But this is a very intriguing discussion.

Since I was married, with prior knowledge, to an openly, well adjusted gay man, who is also father to our sons, I can tell you that your knowledge of gay men is limited and simplistic. Many of the gay and lesbian people are or have been in opposite sex relationships, often long term. w We are divorced now, after 20 years of marriage and he is married to a wonderful man who has two daughters and 4 grandchildren.

Aside... before you assert that one long-term relationship with a strikingly androgynous straight woman ( who you initially thought was male) makes him "bi", it really doesn't. I'm the only woman he was ever attracted to, and that would've been most unlikely if the gods had not seen fit to keep my body a child's well past adulthood, and give me a bass-baritone voice

There is a wealth of study material done in the last 20 years, some of it by geneticist friends at the U of IA. One study that shows much promise is that in families with multiple sons who are gay, they very typically all get the same copy of her X chromosome, while the straight sons get the opposite one. again, as has been pointed out, its too simplistic to hunt for single devil-genes to exorcize, since there are myriad effects in human lives and raising people in bell jars is immoral.

BTW, next to MinionJoe, my ex is my best friend,was so before and during our long relationship, which did not dissolve over sexual, but financial issues, specifically my lack of health insurance, as he has chronic, inherited heart disease related to being almost 7' tall.

I suggest if you're interested contact your local glbt association. The do enjoy sharing information with non-confrontational straight people.

I was about to make another long post containing analysis and points based in reality, but then I remembered why I usually keep to sarcastic, dry responses topped with a general disdain.

Poking holes in things brought up here would be utterly pointless.

Now excuse me while I flagellate myself to atone for sins I was inclined to commit due to my Masochism Gene.

Palamino.

Didzo wrote:Now excuse me while I flagellate myself to atone for sins I was inclined to commit due to my Masochism Gene.

LOL

ashkelon wrote:I can tell you that your knowledge of gay men is limited and simplistic.

Probably, though I being in the condition that I'm in would give me an advantage over others as to how the mind of a bi/gay guy works.

I do offer my condolences, though, ashkelon concerning your marriage and I appreciate your advice and well thought input for me.

It is impossible to single out a specific gene for any one problem/issue/mentality/whatever you want to call it. That is why the upbringing in a childhood is critical, and having the best environment.

Speaking of which, some studies show that homosexuality is associated with the lack of a father. Or at least a loving father. I believe it was somewhere around 85% percent of gay men and women said their relationships with their fathers were either abusive or nonexistent. (Wish I could source that for you)

Going back to the whole issue concerning the MAO-A gene, we must also include all the other factors as well. Merely having a gene that makes you prone to aggressive or cruel behavior doesn't mean a person will act on it. Free will, self control, social skills, and the list goes on plays into this.

ashkelon wrote:Palamino.

Snark.

ashkelon wrote:Palamino.

Science!

@sodbuster62 :: I don't need condolences, thank you. I'm very happy and feel very fortunate to have my ex in my family.

Again, I don't know where your research comes from, but in the 50's and 60's the rage was that autism was a result of "refrigerator mothers" who neglected their children. Which is not at all true and was cruel to many loving women.

What are the statistics for the number of black men with adult males in the house? Are there more gay men black?

These are facile conclusions drawn from accidental statistics. They are only significant if you can prove correlation and that might be difficult given the overall number of single family households. Has their been an increase in the number of gay men since the 90's in the USA? Or are men more comfortable being out? Or neither?

Is it possible that the child's orientation was the cause of the abuse, rather than the other way round? Or since their fathers are absent, are their mothers the abusers? Perhaps forcing them into drag and watching I Love Lucy?

I wish Joe was here. Statistics are his business, as code is mine, but I learned a bit in my life about drawing false conclusions from statistics.

Very many of the gay men I know are much loved and were not abused. The first out gay man I knew was born before 1900 and was my great uncle, an art and antiquities dealer and collector, and military history maven. I know he was not abused, but cherished by the whole family, and is still remembered with loving and funny stories.

I think you need, despite your orientation, more experience. Simple orientation without direction is rarely enough. Otherwise you end up like Temple Grandin. Most decently sized towns now have youth GLBT groups. Check with local universities and county social services.

sodbuster62 wrote:I being in the condition that I'm in would give me an advantage over others as to how the mind of a bi/gay guy works.

Bisexual =/= Homosexual.

And your idea of bisexuality is awfully loose as it is.