Skip to comments.How Gay Uncles Pass Down Genes
Posted on 02/11/2010 12:53:22 PM PST by Cementjungle
A new study found that homosexual men may be predisposed to nurture their nieces and nephews as a way of helping to ensure their own genes get passed down to the next generation.
Vasey said he suspects that the conditions just aren't right in modern Western societies for this genetic predisposition to express itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I wonder if God approves of this..
So now “genes” can be passed along through social interaction, not just biology.
“As Barack Obama Jr. learned, you can even get them from a “family friend”.”
Not ALL you can get...
Molestation is probably the mechanism for the “gene transfer”.
Wonder who paid for this study? I do not find it “special” or “genetic” that an uncle would be more predisposed to care for a niece or nephew than for a stranger’s children. I tend to favor my own nieces and nephews over children with whom I have no relationship, and I have no need to perpetuate my genes like that.
There is another objection to the notion of a genetically
induced homosexuality. An unreproductive behavior
cannot be genetic and also continue to exist in the population. According to mainstream genetics,
genetically enforced homosexuality (exclusively same-sex
sex) would die out of the population in several generations.
Here’s how. A gene is retained in the gene pool when an average of at least one child is born to every
adult having that gene (one child per person). As unlikely
as it sounds, surveys show that of persons classifying
themselves as exclusively homosexual, one in five has a child. At that rate, a homosexual gene, or
genes, could not be replaced.
But most homosexuals may be married (see Chapter Two). Wouldn’t this preserve any homosexual
gene or genes? Not necessarily. A married homosexual is (usually) bisexual. According to surveys, bisexuals
have an average
of 1.25 children each. On its own, that’s enough to replace the adult gene or genes, but the
average total number of children produced by bisexuals and exclusive homosexuals still comes to less than
one child per person
- 0.9. At that rate, any homosexual gene or genes would still slowly but inevitably breed
out of the population.
Sociobiologists, almost the only group of academics who argue seriously that all human behavior is
by genes, have great difficulty accounting for the persistence of SSA in the population. They
try to argue that genes causing male SSA would also exist in the sisters of gays, and that the homosexual
male would help ensure those genes were passed on by helping his sister and her family - for example, babysitting,
and later helping with money and resources. But these arguments are unusually weak. Those with
SSA have much weaker ties with their biological families than average.
First time that has occurred on this planet since the beginning of life.
Well, the article does exist... the conclusions are a bit twisted I would say.
They keep trying. They failed to prove that there is a “gay gene,” so now they’re trying something new. Just proves that the leftist “mind” is a terrible waste of brain cells.
Homosexuality is not genetic.
New study: “Gay brothers nature’s baby sitter”
Some don't reveal their gaiety until after offspring come along. Such things lead to really sad tales.
Ah yes. Uncle Ernie syndrome.
“Well, the article does exist... the conclusions are a bit twisted I would say.”
What drivel!! I can’t decide if I’m more offended by the subtle suggestion that gay relatives should be suspect of being inappropriate with their relatives or the total idiocy of a theory that a genetic predisposition (to homosexuality in this case) is being passed on in the gene pool by people who aren’t producing offspring!
I don’t disagree with you, but:
1. Gays really have been “out” for about a generation. Before that, they generally had a double life. One generation is not long enough to breed them out.
2. Being queer could be a genetic predisposition, like psycophrenia or some depressions. Many, many people who have the genetic predisposition don’t end up symptomatic.
3. My hunch is it is a combination of genetic and environment, just like most things.
I don’t know WHY, but I’ve seen more than one example of uncle/nephew niece queerness.
Boy they really are confused. I have a question for them tho, if it is natural to be homosexual, why do they have a desire to “nurture” anything? Is their natural desire to have sexual relations that proclude them from procreation or is their desire to procreate their natural state?
Which nature are they denying with their chosen lifestyle?
Current research suggests that homosexuality among men may be caused, at least in part, by hormones encountered in utero. The hormone levels correlate to the number of male children the mother has had. Men who have several older brothers are much more likely to be gay than men who are first-born males.
This could provide a genetic advantage by minimizing fighting among males from the same gene pool, i.e. one is submissive and less likely to compete for dominance, but still available to participate food gathering etc.
Evolution is about the survival of genes, not the survival of a specific organism.
Darwin was a putz. Matter did not randomly mix itself and produce life, much less conciousness. Now we have the believers of Darwin trying to explain away the failings of their theory. Hint, if an exception to a theory is found, we conclude the theory, at a minimum, to not be universal and possibly to be inoperative (false). Gay men cannot pass their genes to the next generation without a woman. Secondly, there is no genetic marker for homosexuality. So, again how would they pass something that doesn’t exist to the next generation? Sticky problems for the church of random selection.
I caught that, too. Besides, there is no such thing a a “gay gene”. Homosexuality is strictly a choice as proven by millions of ex-homosexuals.
Pathetic example of a so-called scientist who twists the data to “prove” what he thought all along.
We are born naked. There is no “cross-dressing” gene. Clothes are dictated by social custom and fashion trends.
I have been saying such for years. Homosexuals who do not reproduce cannot pass on their genes and even the ones who do reproduce, do so at a rate that is so low that they would fade away after only a few generations.
That’s covered in Chapter 7
Does Pre-natal Hormonal Exposure
Make You Homosexual?
Although there are some pre-natal hormonal effects having a major effect on sexual behavior for lower
animals, there is no convincing
evidence for such an effect on sexual orientation in humans. The studies
examining the effects of high doses of female hormones to pregnant women are particularly
because these are very high doses and any hormonal effects on sexual orientation should show up clearly.
But the result is a dubious effect on women and no effects on men. Any effects on sexual orientation appear
to be better explained in terms of gender non-conformity arguably a psychological construct. Sex drugs do
increase or lower sex drive, but that appears to be about all.
The maternal immune hypothesis is very speculative, and needs much more evidence before it can be
We leave the last word to several researchers in the field.
In summary, the evidence from prenatal endocrine
disorders and from the offspring of hormone-treated
pregnancies suggests that hormones may contribute
to, but do not actually determine, the course of sexual
orientation in individuals with an abnormal sexsteroid
history during prenatal life.3
At this time, the literature does not support a causal link between hormones
Men who have several older brothers may find that their mother really wanted a girl and “babies” the youngest.
Same as the “study” that air force pilots have a lot of baby girls (perhaps trying to get a son).
It IS Genetic!
It’s called SIN.
And everyone is born with it.
Just some choose to repent and others choose to make it a lifestyle choice.
Welcome to FR.
Yep. Examples below (in a GLSEN publication):
Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings Favorite Book for Teens Too Lewd for Seattle Times (Parents and Teachers for Responsible Schools | February 7, 2010)
The book is a collection of essays, purportedly written by homosexual teens. Under the guise of offering advice and encouragement several of them detail sexual encounters they enjoyed as children and teens, sometimes with adults! They are presented as fond memories, not as risky behavior or molestation.
So based on their selection, with some self-reporting from the natives, they claim the homosexuals there are philanthropically-minded to nieces and nephews. Of course, married uncles with kids of their own would have less disposable income to spread around, but the article doesn't mention that.
Nor does it touch the vital subject of population genetics on this subject. Sexually reproducing individuals only pass on 50% of their genes to each offspring, so right off the bat you lose half the opportunity to transmit your genes even if you are a parent. For an uncle, nephews/nieces would only have 25% genetic continuity. I challenge anyone to make the math work with these theories of homosexuals and genetics in the context of natural selection. From an evolutionary perspective, your 'selfish genes' are just flat off better with you having your own kids, not helping raise someone else's kids.
There is no direct evidence that the relatives of homosexuals are having more offspring that survive because of the contributions of the homosexual relative. Anecdotal accounts about financial aid and such fall far short of any clear evidence for an evolutionary origin or explanation for sexual perversion.
It worked in "Ice Age."
There was a military expert-type guest on the Rusty Humphries program from Hawaii on, well it was near Noon on Thursday where I am in Asia (over the Internet). Rusty was not there, he had someone sitting in.
The guest was talking about sodomites in the Military (He didn’t use the word “sodomite,” but that is the correct word).
A very important point he raised:
Military hospitals, even under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” are spending an awful lot of money on the injuries caused by sodomite behavior-—yes, injuries caused by a form of sex that males were not made to perform!
Evidently, when this medical work is being carried out, still, nobody is asking, and nobody is telling-—but of course the doctors and surgeons must know the cause of what they are trying to treat and/or repair.
And this is further very strong evidence that there is no gene for sodomy. If there was a gene for it, men would not be suffering injury from it.
That’s pretty much the conclusion reached in the lik I posted.
Here’s a brief look at the summary:
Genetic content of homosexuality is minimal.
Geneticists, anthropologists, developmental psychologists, sociologists, endocrinologists, neuroanatomists,
medical researchers into gender, and twin study researchers are in broad agreement about the role of
genetics in homosexuality. Genes dont make you do it. There is no genetic determinism, and genetic
influence at most is minor.
Is this consensus likely to change? Might some major biological link be discovered which could change
everything? After all, science is about discovery
For most of these scientific disciplines, the findings have been clearly established from facts that will
not change (eg. the diversity of homosexual practices between and within cultures; the clearly established
stages of human development; the over-riding role of upbringing in the ultimate gender choice of people with
ambiguous genitalia). But what of future studies of brain micro-structure, or detailed analysis of genes and
function? Will they reveal links between brain structure and human behaviours, or behaviours and genetic
Of course they will. Papers will continue to be published. But we can safely conclude that even authors
wanting to find such links will almost always include the standard scientific caveats that the influence is
minor, and that the environment is important. What we can reasonably say about future research is that it will
enter new fields and come up with new links, but none of them will be definitive.
This is proved once and for all by studies of identical twins. They have identical genes, and other
influences, but if one is homosexual the identical brother or sister usually isnt. There is only an 11 % chance
he/she is homosexual. This includes all the influences we know nothing about and are yet to discover.
All added together only have a rather weak effect.
The first edition of this book in 1999 floated a trial balloon: the genetic content of SSA will ultimately turn
out to be 10%. That is quite imprecise, and could be in the range 0-20% - allowing for a 10% margin of error.
But even if the final result is 20%, this is still a weak influence. Even at the time of writing, late 2007, this 10%
conclusion still holds, and the evidence is stronger than in 1999. And dont forget, any genetic influence is
What is the cause of SSA?
There is no one cause. No single genetic, hormonal, social, or environmental factor is predominant. There
are similar themes: childhood gender non-conformity, sexual abuse, peer dynamics, family dynamics,
sexual history, but the mix varies with individuals, making the individuals response to lifes events the single
overriding factor. Random reactions of children to their circumstances are important. The overriding outcome
of these contributors is often a sense of feeling different and withdrawal from gender norms, along with
admiration and envy and a drive to reconnect that focuses on certain individuals and becomes confused after
puberty with genital sex. This sexual response to emotional signals can become a repeating pattern, leading
to type-casting (I am a homosexual), and not infrequently, to addiction.
So, let me get this straight: a college professor and one of his male students traveled to Samoa and studied effeminate, homosexual men.
They found that the men were more nurturing to their nieces and nephews than normal men.
When the two returned to the USA they tried the same study with Americans and did not get the same results.
When asked why this “finding” could not be found in the USA, the professor replied that conditions just aren’t right in Western societies for this genetic predisposition to express itself, thus revealing that his conclusions were based on what he set out to prove, and not on reality.
If the gene were recessive, requiring two copies for expression, then it could persist in the population. If it also had another beneficial result then it would be even more likely to persist. I am not saying I agree that homosexuality is genetic (I think it’s far more complex than that) however just because a gene keeps one from being reproductive in some instances, does not mean it will die out.
I didn’t even bother to read the article because it’s likely dumb. BUT I suspect what they are saying (because I have heard it before) is that having a homosexual man who will nurture nieces and nephews (that is, helping the parents raise their kids) will increase the odds of his SHARED genes surviving. Not his particular personal genes, but those of his family.
Those researchers who know most about genes and SSA say Your genes did not make you do it.
Lets review the evidence bearing in mind that many of the following arguments apply to all human
Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically
dictated behaviors of the one-gene-one-trait variety have been found only in very simple
organisms. (Ch 1)
From an understanding of gene structure and function
there are no plausible means by which
genes could inescapably force SSA or other behaviors on a person (Ch 1)
No genetically determined human behavior has yet been found. The most closely geneticallyrelated
behavior yet discovered (mono-amine oxidase deficiency leading to aggression) has
shown itself remarkably responsive
to counselling. (Ch 1)
If (exclusive) SSA were genetically inherited, it would have bred itself out of the population in
only several generations, and wouldn’t be around today. (ie. gays with no children would not be
able to reproduce their genes.) (Ch 1)
Generally, geneticists settle for some genetic influence
of rather undefined degree, most
agreeing that many genes (from at least five or six to many hundreds) contribute to any
particular human behavior. (Ch 1) This means:
If SSA were caused by many genes it could not suddenly appear and disappear
in families the way it does. It would stay around for many (eg. at least 30)
generations because it would take that long for that many genes to be bred out.
Therefore SSA cannot be caused by many genes. (Ch 1)
The occurrence of SSA (2.6%) in the population is too frequent to be caused by a chance
mutation in a single gene. Therefore SSA cannot be caused by a single gene. (Ch 1)
Researchers trying to find homosexual sequences of genes on the recently mapped
human genome have not found any such sequences although they have found them for
schizophrenia, alcoholism etc. (Ch 9)
The occurrence of SSA is about five time too high to be caused by a faulty (non-genetic)
pre-natal developmental process, so it is not innate in that sense either. (Ch 1)
First same-sex attraction occurs over a very long time span, unlike pre-programmed genetic
events eg puberty, menopause. This argues that first same-sex attraction is not a genetically
programmed event. (Ch 1)
The human race shares most of its genes - something between 99.7 percent and 99.9 percent.
That means all ethnic groups will have most of them. This has the following three implications.
If homosexuality is genetically dictated, homosexual practices will be identical or
extremely similar in all cultures. But there is an enormous range and diversity of
homosexual practice and customs among different cultures (and within cultures)
There would be a similar incidence of homosexuality in all cultures. But
homosexuality has been unknown in some cultures and mandatory in others.
Changes in homosexual practice and behavior in different cultures would take
place very slowly, over many centuries. But this is not what history shows. The
decline of whole models of homosexuality (the Greek, over a couple of centuries,
and the Melanesian, within a century); the relatively sudden [in genetic terms]
emergence of the present Western model over a couple of centuries; and abrupt
changes of practice within an ethnic group, even over a single generation, are not
consistent with anything genetic. Even less so the swiftly changing sexual practices
within the current Western model. (Ch 6)
The drop in SSA attraction and practice over the lifespan is too great to attribute to genetic
change or for that matter, deaths from AIDS. It could indicate some change in sexual
orientation. (Ch 2)
Recent increases in the percentage of those experimenting with same-sex behaviour suggest
social influence rather than genetic change. (Ch 2)
Dean Hamer, one of the strongest advocates of a genetically-based homosexuality, has
remarked that he doesn’t think a gene exists for sexual orientation. (Ch 9)
Really? How about suckling in a newborn infant?
Probably they want to prove to themselves that their lifestyle is "normal" and "widely accepted."
Some babies are genetically programmed NOT to suckle then?