It worked in "Ice Age."
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 ...
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:
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.pdf
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 don’t 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
sequences?
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 isn’t. 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 don’t forget, any genetic influence is
indirect....
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 individual’s response to life’s 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.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.pdf
Those researchers who know most about genes and SSA say “Your genes did not make you do it”.
Let’s review the evidence bearing in mind that many of the following arguments apply to all human
behaviours.
Genetics:
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)
(Ch 6)
There would be a similar incidence of homosexuality in all cultures. But
homosexuality has been unknown in some cultures and mandatory in others.
(Ch 6)
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?
If it were genetic, they would not require artificial lubrication to carry out the act.
Instinct,perhaps?Which brings us to Chapter 4....
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Ch4.pdf
People will sometimes argue that if a behavior isn’t genetic, it is so deeply part of them it might as
well be. They usually mean that the behavior is long-term, thoroughly embedded, and seems to be
quite resistant to efforts to change it.
If people wanted to argue that homosexuality
was akin to a powerful human instinct, what might that mean?
We all have some strong instincts; if a car tries to run us over, we dodge, and faster than we dreamed
we could! Survival is probably our strongest instinct, the maternal instinct could be next, and the infant’s
instinct to suckle, eat, and sleep is a close third....
what the hell???
I’m sure some don’t and of course they die. How do you suggest a baby knows to do this (which is the question you should be asking, instead of the one you asked).
Where does instinct come from? Are you suggesting instinct is not genetic?
I’m so tired of the “gay gene” debate. Wake me when someone has a definitive answer one way or the other...
Placemark.
This makes no sense.
I don’t get how genes are “passed down” by someone helping a kid with his homework.
??
It's about how non-reproducing relatives pass down genes.
That's genes common to the family, not specifically genes for non-reproduction. Certainly not "gay" genes (something not known to exist).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.