Code in watchOS 4.3.1 Hints at Upcoming Apple Watch Face Inspired by Rainbow Flag

WarHeadz said:
I brought up religion because you seem to be using being able to identify DNA as a standard for establishing protected classes, and that’s silly. You can argue this until you’re blue in the face. Just because something isn’t identifiable in DNA, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t still have a biological cause. I was born gay. I was different since I was a child and never developed an attraction to females around puberty, but I loved me some men. I started having crushes on boys in middle school and couldn’t figure out what was going on with me or how to handle it. For someone to imply that I have any say whatsoever in my sexual orientation is quite laughable, to say the least. The medical community disagrees, the scientific community disagrees, the psychological community disagrees. How many more professional communities do you need to tell you that you’re wrong before you accept it? The best part about facts is that they’re true whether you believe them or not.
Click to expand...

Nope. Never said that. I responded to a post stating homosexuality was the same as someones sex or race. Never stated DNA was to be used for protected classes. There have been words put in my mouth by many posters, so maybe this is where you are getting that from?
[doublepost=1528383521][/doublepost]
bandrews said:
For someone to be born a certain way you realise not every trait is genetically inherited? It could be a result of hormonal fluctuations in the mother, external environmental conditions, medication.
Click to expand...

I agree there are many outside influences. Kind of like we are Democrats and Republican, or liberal/conservative. We were not born that way, but many things influence why we are the way we are.

I think there are a lot of people responding to my post that are trying to read into it, or don't know the back story on why I posted what I did. I made the DNA statement based on a response to a poster who stated homosexuality was the same as someones race or sex. I disputed that notion.
 
tshrimp said:
Nope. Never said that. I responded to a post stating homosexuality was the same as someones sex or race. Never stated DNA was to be used for protected classes. There have been words put in my mouth by many posters, so maybe this is where you are getting that from?
[doublepost=1528383521][/doublepost]

I agree there are many outside influences. Kind of like we are Democrats and Republican, or liberal/conservative. We were not born that way, but many things influence why we are the way we are.

I think there are a lot of people responding to my post that are trying to read into it, or don't know the back story on why I posted what I did. I made the DNA statement based on a response to a poster who stated homosexuality was the same as someones race or sex. I disputed that notion.
Click to expand...

Actually, your DNA statement was in response to this exact post of mine:

Fugabutacus said:
The people who think being gay is a choice don't ever seem to be able to pinpoint exactly when they chose to be straight...
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with sex or race. Neither is mentioned.
 
tshrimp said:
Unless I missed something, there was no biological science pertaining to DNA mentioned in any of your links. I specifically brought up that by testing DNA you could see sex and race, but not homosexuality.
Click to expand...

"In 1993, a landmark paper was published in the academic journal, Science, that showed a linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. This spearheaded discussion on the possibility of a male “gay gene” and heritability of the trait.


For the study, Geneticist Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute in the US and his team analysed 114 families of homosexual men. They found increased rates of same-sex orientation in the maternal uncles and male cousins of the subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives. The research revealed that a patch of DNA in the X chromosome – labelled Xq28 – was likely to be shared by brothers who were both gay."
 
tshrimp said:
Nope. Never said that. I responded to a post stating homosexuality was the same as someones sex or race. Never stated DNA was to be used for protected classes. There have been words put in my mouth by many posters, so maybe this is where you are getting that from?
[doublepost=1528383521][/doublepost]

I agree there are many outside influences. Kind of like we are Democrats and Republican, or liberal/conservative. We were not born that way, but many things influence why we are the way we are.

I think there are a lot of people responding to my post that are trying to read into it, or don't know the back story on why I posted what I did. I made the DNA statement based on a response to a poster who stated homosexuality was the same as someones race or sex. I disputed that notion.
Click to expand...

No, that is different. I talking about hormonal influences that can mean we are born a certain way but it's not in our DNA. Think, for want of a better example, thalidomide babies. Those people can't chose or learn to have functioning arms and legs/
 
Mac'nCheese said:
"In 1993, a landmark paper was published in the academic journal, Science, that showed a linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. This spearheaded discussion on the possibility of a male “gay gene” and heritability of the trait.


For the study, Geneticist Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute in the US and his team analysed 114 families of homosexual men. They found increased rates of same-sex orientation in the maternal uncles and male cousins of the subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives. The research revealed that a patch of DNA in the X chromosome – labelled Xq28 – was likely to be shared by brothers who were both gay."
Click to expand...

"Possibility" and "Likely" are both terms that are show lack of positivity. Maybe with more research they will find if those are for sure. You would think given the the 25 more years (since the study) they would have a for sure answer, but sometimes science can take a while.
 
tshrimp said:
"Possibility" and "Likely" are both terms that are show lack of positivity. Maybe with more research they will find if those are for sure. You would think given the the 25 more years (since the study) they would have a for sure answer, but sometimes science can take a while.
Click to expand...

Remind me of the link to your scientific evidence for it being a choice could you? Thanks.
 
tshrimp said:
"Possibility" and "Likely" are both terms that are show lack of positivity. Maybe with more research they will find if those are for sure. You would think given the the 25 more years (since the study) they would have a for sure answer, but sometimes science can take a while.
Click to expand...
That's right. But why are people sure that its not true? First, you said there is no proof of DNA being part of why someone is gay. Now, its a possibility.
 
Mac'nCheese said:
That's right. But why are people sure that its not true? First, you said there is no proof of DNA being part of why someone is gay. Now, its a possibility.
Click to expand...

Possibility, yes. Fact, no. It is definitive within DNA you can determine if someone is male/female or race. With homosexuality there are theories at this point.
 
tshrimp said:
Possibility, yes. Fact, no. It is definitive within DNA you can determine if someone is male/female or race. With homosexuality there are theories at this point.
Click to expand...

@tshrimp do you realise that you can't tell someone's race by their DNA? You can make a good guess based on some markers, but it's just that, a well-informed estimate.
 
WarHeadz said:
The medical community disagrees, the scientific community disagrees, the psychological community disagrees. How many more professional communities do you need to tell you that you’re wrong before you accept it? The best part about facts is that they’re true whether you believe them or not.
Click to expand...
There's a certain segment of the population that will willfully ignore anything that science tells them unless and until their pastor and/or Fox news tells them otherwise.

(And that same sentence holds if you substitute "intelligence community" for "science", and "Trump" for "pastor". If someone chooses to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "la la la la la" when uncomfortable facts are presented, there's not much you can do.)
 
tshrimp said:
Possibility, yes. Fact, no. It is definitive within DNA you can determine if someone is male/female or race. With homosexuality there are theories at this point.
Click to expand...

Did you mean theory or hypothesis? The words are not interchangeable.

Some of the latest studies have strong evidence for sexuality being at least partly biological.
 
tshrimp said:
Possibility, yes. Fact, no. It is definitive within DNA you can determine if someone is male/female or race. With homosexuality there are theories at this point.
Click to expand...

Did you mean theory or hypothesis? Theiroes make your viewpoint questionable at the very least, and there are indeed theories linking sexuality and DNA with some very strong evidence.

Do you have 100% refutable scientific evidence to support your own viewpoint?



Looking at this another way, it's also a reasoanble assumption that homophobia could be genetic. There's a doctorate in the making.....
 
As a heterosexual married father of 2, I have no issues with the new face and it’s now on my rotation.

6500d0260ebd235d78b1ddd4c6b2a4a1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top