Y DNA R1b and homosexuality

@mr y82,

It's all good. When it comes to laws, I support letting people do almost anything. However, I do think many gay couples, which is unlikely for there to be, isn't good for society. And my interpretation of legal "freedom" IMO is differnt from most people(until freedom includes something they disagree with). Legal Freedom isn't actually real freedom. It's freedom to do anything that isn't wrong or crazy. People have differnt limits. My limits on what is crazy or wrong, is pretty small, but it depends on the circumstances. For example, my limits in my family are very differnt.

I'm not sure what Lebrok's deal is. I have caught him lying several times, so.. I'm against a lot of liberalism when it comes to social issues not economics. I don't know much about economics, but from what I do know, I side more with liberals. Your liberal socially and conservative economically, while I'm the opposite. Most Americans, don't understand economics and social issues are two differnt subjects, and you don't have to be liberal or conservative in both.

Define wrong and crazy, what you may define as such might be defined as different by another. As for laws well, there are always laws the individual doesn't agree with, it doesn't however mean one's view be enforced on everyone else. You don't believe people of the same sex have the right to marry? Fine, don't believe in that, you have every right to, but others have the right to disagree with you. As for economics, it's truly funny when it comes to American politics, the so called Conservatives of the GOP are indeed conservative when it comes to issues of family, religion etc, but economically they belong to the "Liberal" school of thought (Liberal in the sense of limited to no state intervention in anything concerning economics), while Democrats, while Liberal on issues of family, religion, culture etc do tend to be more sympathetic to the idea of Universal Healthcare, food stamps, government spending on roads, minimum wage etc. Add to that the fact that until the 1960s when the Southern Democrats switched to the GOP the Democrats were usually the ones with a large Conservative lobby (Southern Democrats), while the GOP was the more Socially Liberal party founded by the one who freed the slaves.
 
^you understand our system more than most Americans, as demonstrated by this point, haha. I do however define myself as "economically liberal" below, even though I lean away what you are defining as "liberalism"... So screw labels, haha, I do explain my position. Conservative implies they resist change... It was socialists, progressives, etc... here in the early 1900s that drove change, thus making those positions "liberal" (I.e. in favor of change)... I touch on some of this below... Of course I am a bumbling idiot too, so enjoy! :)

@mr y82,

It's all good. When it comes to laws, I support letting people do almost anything. However, I do think many gay couples, which is unlikely for there to be, isn't good for society. And my interpretation of legal "freedom" IMO is differnt from most people(until freedom includes something they disagree with). Legal Freedom isn't actually real freedom. It's freedom to do anything that isn't wrong or crazy. People have differnt limits. My limits on what is crazy or wrong, is pretty small, but it depends on the circumstances. For example, my limits in my family are very differnt.

I'm not sure what Lebrok's deal is. I have caught him lying several times, so.. I'm against a lot of liberalism when it comes to social issues not economics. I don't know much about economics, but from what I do know, I side more with liberals. Your liberal socially and conservative economically, while I'm the opposite. Most Americans, don't understand economics and social issues are two differnt subjects, and you don't have to be liberal or conservative in both.

You are exactly right, and so few people here seem to get it, so I will outline if below... you choose a political system and and economic system... Many people equate the 2, but that is misguided... The very fact that you pointed that out show a thoughtfulness that most people lack.

Political system... We chose democracy, we could have chosen monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc... In a democracy the majority consensus rules (theoretically)... but it only works well if you have informed civic-minded citizens who engage in the process... We don't really have that! This is kinda beside the point, the reason I bring it up is because you got the impression I am economically conservative, when in fact it is generally considered a liberal position to extend social safety nets, which I support...I may have said something to mislead you...

Economic system... We chose capitalism, which exists on a spectrum with communism at the extreme other end... Even though I am a SOCIAL libertarian (support all rights that do not infringe on the rights of others, even drug legalization because prohibition does not work, it fuels cartels and does not curb drug usage, and if you have addicts buy a controlled regulated substance, from a government run site, you can attempt to intervene and help them break the addiction... Prohibition makes drug rebellious and deviant, which is a big draw for many people and one reason it seems to be so ineffective... Imagine using drug revenue to help people break addictions... sounds ironic, but not impossible in my mind...)... So even though I am a social libertarian I do not reflect libertarian economic beliefs (I won't abuse the Adam Smith example like many conservative economists do, not understanding the true context of his work) such as complete deregulation... I think modern China and many other places that US work has been exported to are prime examples of the environmental and social danger of deregulation... People are greedy and will get away with whatever they can to benefit themselves, so there must be rule and regulations regarding what they can get away with... If we had not done that here (making sure there's not human meat [thanks socialist Upton Sinclair] or dangerous chemicals in our food, safe machinery in factories, that toxic waste is not being dumped, minimum wage, benefits, etc...) we would still have jobs, but jobs that disgraced human beings (like the Apple employees that leaped to their death before they added the suicide net in China)... We don't even do a good job at a lot of those things due to the corporate interests that control out political system, but it sure as hell beats working in China! So back to my point... I lean way more toward the communist end of the economic scale, with the likes of Ralph Nader... lol... I think we should have universal single payer healthcare (current profit drive system has failed us for the same reasons as the EPA, FDA, etc...), lots of social programs to improve lives, good schools, hospitals (that are not profit driven, salaries should be incentive enough)... I do not however thing corporations should be government owned, right now we have a dangerous form of "corporatism" where the government and corporations walk hand in hand to the detriment of the American people at large (With the bailouts, etc... that was NOT Laissez Faire capitalism!) and then we leave little guys out to dry... It's a new Gilded age where 95% of the wealth is controlled by less than 5% so corporate interests and lobbies have taken over the political system for their own gain while America plays xbox, and turns a blind eye, because we are so relatively wealthy that most don't even notice they are getting away with this s--t!

Social political issues are a separate thing altogether... Because even if we agree democracy is best we don't necessarily agree on all the issues that arise due to a plethora of worldviews, and the diversity of thought that can exist even within one of those worldviews... So there's where people often differ... I happen to believe that as little intervention into private lives by the government is best... Heck, most Southern's will agree with that immediately... But in essence they contradict themselves by thinking the government has the right to tell me what I can smoke, who I can marry, etc... If they want the government to stay out of private lives, why do they feel so passionately that the government should curb this behavior? I walk my talk... I try not to judge others so long as they do not violate my rights... I think we can pretty clearly define when someone's natural right are being violated, and in my mind if a man and woman have the right to say "I want this person to be my soul heir etc...," which is essentially what marriage is, then 2 men have the right to make the same legal commitment to one another... It is not a religious issue... The Romans government recognized contracts between people... That is really what it is, and in my mind it is a natural right to decide who should inherit you stuff, decide when to pull the plug on life support, etc... Churches can call it whatever they want and chose to serve who they will as far as I am concerned (as I said before I would not go to a church that discriminated against me whether or not I have the legal right to)... You agree gay people have the right to give their stuff to a same sex partner when they die? You agree they have the right to decide said partner can fulfill their wishes regarding life support, etc? You think it serves anyone to not let them file their taxes together? If you don't agree, please explain why not. I am not trying to violate anyone's right to religious freedom here... Quite the contrary... As long as your religion does not infringe on my natural and legal rights, have at it! Please just extend the same freedoms to those that do not share the same worldview... It's a big country and we'll never all be on the same page, that's why respect for tolerance (even if someone is doing something that YOU consider immoral, but is not directly affecting you or hurting a non-compliant person...). So I am a true libertarian in that regard... :)

You are probably economically more conservative than me (since conservative essentially means resisting change, and our current economic system is probably more in line with what you think is proper than what I would wish for...), and, as you said, more socially conservative, which is why we differ so much on this issue specifically... :)

If you have the patience for it, and want to understand the inter workings of my brain, please do read the whole post, haha. I kinda felt like I kept switching gears, but hopefully it is all coherent. Let me know if you have any questions.
 
I edited the above a couple times, but wanted to add something I thought might be missed otherwise...

I don't think we even have to raise taxes on the lower and middle class to achieve my social goals... Closing tax loopholes and cheating for bigwigs would go a long way... If 95% of Americans have <5% of the wealth, how much can they really fund anyway? The money has to come from the top, but history teaches us that those at the top do not yield so easily... They protect the status quo that ensures them power and wealth (It's one reason the Roman's were threatened by Christianity, it called for egalitarianism; it's one reason Buddhism didn't catch on in China, it called for egalitarianism... Sufism, so on and so forth... Democracy allows us to change this, but not in a climate of ignorant masses listening to debates about penis size and who has the prettiest wife... We can agree that is not democracy, and that our (slave holding) founding fathers would be appalled at the state of our "democracy," yes?

If the likes of John McCain can only own 7 multi-million dollar houses instead of 8 so that some bums that had a psychological break can have some food and healthcare I am not going to loose any sleep over that... Many wealthy crooks pay lower taxes than upper middle class citizens because they own and control the media, the process, and the system...

I believe our society, and its structure, are what allowed people of great wealth and status rise to the level they are at... And, if I were one of them, I would hope that I would recognize the fact that freedom and democracy had granted me a disproportionate reward... and that I would give back to the society that had granted me such a novel opportunity (think the likes of Bill Gates of true Philanthropists.... Guys like Trump would have you believe they could have achieved the same "greatness" under the Qin Dynasty, "Communist" Russia, etc... It's bulls--t...)...

I have strayed from topic... hope it was worth it, but I think I'm done with the explanation unless you want clarification on anything... this is how I spend my spring break from work? I am a loser! lol
 
^you understand our system more than most Americans, as demonstrated by this point, haha. I do however define myself as "economically liberal" below, even though I lean away what you are defining as "liberalism"... So screw labels, haha, I do explain my position. Conservative implies they resist change... It was socialists, progressives, etc... here in the early 1900s that drove change, thus making those positions "liberal" (I.e. in favor of change)... I touch on some of this below... Of course I am a bumbling idiot too, so enjoy! :)



You are exactly right, and so few people here seem to get it, so I will outline if below... you choose a political system and and economic system... Many people equate the 2, but that is misguided... The very fact that you pointed that out show a thoughtfulness that most people lack.

Political system... We chose democracy, we could have chosen monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc... In a democracy the majority consensus rules (theoretically)... but it only works well if you have informed civic-minded citizens who engage in the process... We don't really have that! This is kinda beside the point, the reason I bring it up is because you got the impression I am economically conservative, when in fact it is generally considered a liberal position to extend social safety nets, which I support...I may have said something to mislead you...

Economic system... We chose capitalism, which exists on a spectrum with communism at the extreme other end... Even though I am a SOCIAL libertarian (support all rights that do not infringe on the rights of others, even drug legalization because prohibition does not work, it fuels cartels and does not curb drug usage, and if you have addicts buy a controlled regulated substance, from a government run site, you can attempt to intervene and help them break the addiction... Prohibition makes drug rebellious and deviant, which is a big draw for many people and one reason it seems to be so ineffective... Imagine using drug revenue to help people break addictions... sounds ironic, but not impossible in my mind...)... So even though I am a social libertarian I do not reflect libertarian economic beliefs (I won't abuse the Adam Smith example like many conservative economists do, not understanding the true context of his work) such as complete deregulation... I think modern China and many other places that US work has been exported to are prime examples of the environmental and social danger of deregulation... People are greedy and will get away with whatever they can to benefit themselves, so there must be rule and regulations regarding what they can get away with... If we had not done that here (making sure there's not human meat [thanks socialist Upton Sinclair] or dangerous chemicals in our food, safe machinery in factories, that toxic waste is not being dumped, minimum wage, benefits, etc...) we would still have jobs, but jobs that disgraced human beings (like the Apple employees that leaped to their death before they added the suicide net in China)... We don't even do a good job at a lot of those things due to the corporate interests that control out political system, but it sure as hell beats working in China! So back to my point... I lean way more toward the communist end of the economic scale, with the likes of Ralph Nader... lol... I think we should have universal single payer healthcare (current profit drive system has failed us for the same reasons as the EPA, FDA, etc...), lots of social programs to improve lives, good schools, hospitals (that are not profit driven, salaries should be incentive enough)... I do not however thing corporations should be government owned, right now we have a dangerous form of "corporatism" where the government and corporations walk hand in hand to the detriment of the American people at large (With the bailouts, etc... that was NOT Laissez Faire capitalism!) and then we leave little guys out to dry... It's a new Gilded age where 95% of the wealth is controlled by less than 5% so corporate interests and lobbies have taken over the political system for their own gain while America plays xbox, and turns a blind eye, because we are so relatively wealthy that most don't even notice they are getting away with this s--t!

Social political issues are a separate thing altogether... Because even if we agree democracy is best we don't necessarily agree on all the issues that arise due to a plethora of worldviews, and the diversity of thought that can exist even within one of those worldviews... So there's where people often differ... I happen to believe that as little intervention into private lives by the government is best... Heck, most Southern's will agree with that immediately... But in essence they contradict themselves by thinking the government has the right to tell me what I can smoke, who I can marry, etc... If they want the government to stay out of private lives, why do they feel so passionately that the government should curb this behavior? I walk my talk... I try not to judge others so long as they do not violate my rights... I think we can pretty clearly define when someone's natural right are being violated, and in my mind if a man and woman have the right to say "I want this person to be my soul heir etc...," which is essentially what marriage is, then 2 men have the right to make the same legal commitment to one another... It is not a religious issue... The Romans government recognized contracts between people... That is really what it is, and in my mind it is a natural right to decide who should inherit you stuff, decide when to pull the plug on life support, etc... Churches can call it whatever they want and chose to serve who they will as far as I am concerned (as I said before I would not go to a church that discriminated against me whether or not I have the legal right to)... You agree gay people have the right to give their stuff to a same sex partner when they die? You agree they have the right to decide said partner can fulfill their wishes regarding life support, etc? You think it serves anyone to not let them file their taxes together? If you don't agree, please explain why not. I am not trying to violate anyone's right to religious freedom here... Quite the contrary... As long as your religion does not infringe on my natural and legal rights, have at it! Please just extend the same freedoms to those that do not share the same worldview... It's a big country and we'll never all be on the same page, that's why respect for tolerance (even if someone is doing something that YOU consider immoral, but is not directly affecting you or hurting a non-compliant person...). So I am a true libertarian in that regard... :)

You are probably economically more conservative than me (since conservative essentially means resisting change, and our current economic system is probably more in line with what you think is proper than what I would wish for...), and, as you said, more socially conservative, which is why we differ so much on this issue specifically... :)

If you have the patience for it, and want to understand the inter workings of my brain, please do read the whole post, haha. I kinda felt like I kept switching gears, but hopefully it is all coherent. Let me know if you have any questions.

I read it all, very interesting points you have made. I assume you're a supporter of Bernie Sanders (or were, since his chance of winning the nomination is seemingly, and I say seemingly since the corporate media doesn't really support him yet there's no other source of information but them)?
 
Define wrong and crazy, what you may define as such might be defined as different by another. As for laws well, there are always laws the individual doesn't agree with, it doesn't however mean one's view be enforced on everyone else. You don't believe people of the same sex have the right to marry? Fine, don't believe in that, you have every right to, but others have the right to disagree with you.

Like everyone else here, you're allowing your prejudices to determine how you think of me. My whole point, was that differnt people have a differnt definition of wrong and crazy. I never disputed this, yet you assumed I did! You put on your prejudice glasses, and wrongly translated what I wrote. To some people gay marriage is wrong and crazy, to other people the limit is bestiality. Seeing homosexuality as immoral isn't anymore crazy than seeing bestiality as immoral. To you and everyone posting here it isn't, but that's just based on your definition of wrong and crazy.
 
^please respond to my specific questions; that will help people know how they feel about your stance. :)

I didn't type all that for just some John Doe to read it! LOL :p

I read it all, very interesting points you have made. I assume you're a supporter of Bernie Sanders (or were, since his chance of winning the nomination is seemingly, and I say seemingly since the corporate media doesn't really support him yet there's no other source of information but them)?

Yes, I tend to support him on most fronts. He seems to have joined the Establishment mainly because that's the only way you have a shot (otherwise you just follow in Nader's footsteps and people blame you for lost/stolen elections...)... He did just pick up 3 states... He should get a lot outside the South, we'll see if somehow it can be a contested convention... I try to maintain hope mainly because Clinton represents a lot that I don't agree with, even if she's trying to talk a good talk right now (her voice is still extremely irritating... something about it grates at me... I know Sanders has that thick NE thing going on, but at least it sounds genuine...). My statement to read it all was primarily for Fire-Haired since we have been going back and forth, but I appreciate you taking the time! I have spent hours of my break from work pouring over info here on the forums, haha...
 
I'm not usually wrong or corrected in my thinking of genetics. I'm the most up to date person here in that regard. Look at the threads I post. That can be a good thing or a bad thing.What I don't know a lot about is archaeology and history, and I never claim to be an expert in those subjects.
Ok, you make mistakes because you are not verst very well in archeology, genetics or history. Don't you think that it is the same for you with subject of sexuality? Are you verst well in it? Can you be mistaken about it?
Helping clue is your age, 16, and many experienced and smart people telling you so. Take it from here.
 
^I hope he will read my posts and respond about the legal rights aspect... that's really enough for me... tolerance is a step towards acceptance, and then respect.... I hope you will read it all my bloated posts too and you'll be able to infer everything I would have to say about the Bushes... haha... I have interesting views for a Southerner, or maybe American in general... my sister lives in Germany and I have 2 cute little German nieces. I am fond of their modern system, but the refugee thing is becoming increasingly complicated...
 
Such a wrong analogy would be comparable to saying that baldness is caused by having haplogroup J1 or that all bald/balding men are J1 carriers or that J1 carriers are more prone to baldness than carriers of other Y-chromosomes. Pretty presproterous way of thinking if you ask me.

A correlation between early male pattern baldness/hair loss, mucho chest hair, thick beard growth and Haplos I and J is very well researched imho.
And regarding gay people,...well imo it's a combination of some mutated snps and cat shit
You have these mutations then sniff too much cat shit,... e voila your highly likely to be going gay or at least think about it.
Another guy sniffs too much cat shit, yet no mutations on those snps,...e voila he will get super high IQ,...others might just go bipolar.
Some can "handle" cat shit some don't,...
 
Last edited:
Some people laugh at this theory and tend to point to cultural patterns linked to economic development to explain higher LGBTI acceptance.

But I believe that your Haplogroup can be very influential in your perception of homosexuality and your chances of being gay.
Mainly because an Y-DNA Hp only purpose is to define how are you as a man. And sexism is the main responsible for homophobia.

See for example, Latin America. It's not a wealthy place, and has 67-76% of Homosexuality acceptance.
That is a lot, same as the US and Italy, and a whole lot more than Korea and other places with same economic development. Like Russia, Middle...
One of the main differences is they have R1b Haplogroup.https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists
Anither poll shows Latin Americans have a lot of same sex attraction. Lot of people have gone to a gay bar and spoken in defence of LGBTQ people.https://www.ipsos.com/en/lgbt-pride...-around-gender-identity-and-sexual-attraction
 
Not quite. Dude thinks that the pattern of gay-marriage (and similar social peculiarities) is linked with it. You'd have to add, for example, J1 area females burning hot for bald men, to complete your analogy. Anyway this makes sense:



BTW, it doesn't matter if they claim it or not. It's a logical assumption that there could be hereditary factors involved. Their opinion is of no importance so you don't have to involve it in your theory.

There is also a possibility that it is imprinted in all of us, but some societies have also imprinted a better tolerance towards that kind of behavior.

Honestly, I don't even know how I happened into this thread or why I am actually responding, but your latter statement, is likely the most accurate. The bold.

So, I am not suggesting that homosexuality is or isn't "nature" (genetic) or that it is or isn't "nurture" (conditioning), but the most likely answer, like everything else in the "nature vs. nurture" debate, is BOTH. It is not an either or scenario. It is almost certainly, like all other behaviors, a multivariate causation. Nurture accentuating aspects of nature. Meaning the capability or the possibility lives within each of us, but the let's say, causation is accentuated in some more than others either naturally or conditionally AND triggered in some more than others either naturally or conditionally, but always some interplay of the two.

At this point in time, I don't think anyone has a good excuse to be attempting to attach certain behaviors with solely either "nature" or "nurture" because it's almost clear as day it is both.

And if you want proof of that, how do you explain the behavior in other primates? Other mammals? But in some "clans" or groups more so than others of the same species? Or in some species at higher rates than others?

It's likely or at least possible, that these behaviors, all sexual behaviors really, are impacted by reactive aggression as well. In species or subspecies that have to some extent overcome reactive aggression, or the need and ability of the alpha male to dominate sexual behavior, the remaining members of the group are more free to explore their proclivities. Since males aren't as focused on becoming or maintaining the alpha position, there are no longer social restraints in place preventing such expression from hindering ones "ascent" or the competition between males. At least to some effect. And the effect that then has on females of the group who are no longer the "property" or whatever term you want to use, of the alpha male.

I mean, it's almost certain at this point that all domestication, in humans, what we would call social evolution, and in animals, domestication, directly correlates with a reduction of reactive aggression. Meaning, beta males forming cohesive units to shut down alpha male tyranny. So basically, there are no human "alpha" males. All humans today are beta males or below. I kind of don't want to say "below" because that makes it seem as if "beta" or "zeta" or whatever is somehow lesser than alpha, when in reality, it's the "alpha" who ultimately loses to the others in this "competition". And alpha males, i mean, really, who wants to live like that? Knowing you'll have to fend off newcomers until the day one of them takes your life and your place?

But anyway. Many of these behavioral debates are just a microcosm of the larger "nature vs. nurture" debates of the last 50 years. And ALL signs point to the answer being BOTH. In concert with one another.
 
I am not agreeing or disagreeing here, but I will add something to this:
Nations high in R1b tend to also have high frequencies of Rh negative blood.
Brazil, btw. is very high in R1b.
There was a study published many years ago claiming
The present study sought to expand the limited evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by genetic factors. This was accomplished by seeking statistical differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals for four traits that are known to be genetically determined: eye color, natural hair color, blood type, and the Rhesus factor. Using a sample of over 7,000 U.S. and Canadian college students supplemented with additional homosexual subjects obtained through internet contacts, we found no significant differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals regarding eye color or hair color. In the case of blood type and the Rh factor, however, interesting patterns emerged. Heterosexual males and females exhibited statistically identical frequencies of the A blood type, while gay men exhibited a relatively low incidence and lesbians had a relatively high incidence (p < .05). In the case of the Rh factor, unusually high proportions of homosexuals of both sexes were Rh- when compared to heterosexuals (p < .06). The findings suggest that a connection may exist between sexual orientation and genes both on chromosome 9 (where blood type is determined) and on chromosome 1 (where the Rh factor is regulated).

https://www.rhesusnegative.net/stay...-percentage-rh-negatives-amongst-homosexuals/
 

This thread has been viewed 114796 times.

Back
Top