Posted on 02/11/2010 12:53:22 PM PST by Cementjungle
Ah yes. Uncle Ernie syndrome.
“Well, the article does exist... the conclusions are a bit twisted I would say.”
Ya think?
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!
Turkey baster?
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
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Ch7.pdf
Does Pre-natal Hormonal Exposure
Make You Homosexual?
Summary
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
informative
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
taken seriously.
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
and homosexuality.”10
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.
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.