Skip to comments.'God gene' discovered by scientist behind gay DNA theory (reader beware)
Posted on 11/13/2004 7:47:12 PM PST by Former Military Chick
click here to read article
Look, speaking as a straight guy -- I've had some hideous dates. I've been in some nightmare relationships. And I've encountered women that Rod Serling couldn't imagine. But the gay thing was never an option for me.
If one is a Calvinist, one might say that God gives the "brain chemicals" necessary for belief to his elect. And many classical Christians, who are not Calivinists, view belief to be an act of God on man (regeneration) rather than a voluntary act of man, himself.
"The guy publishes a paper about god genes or gay genes and some other guy reads the paper and does his own research."
I get it. You want more and more people to read homo stuff in the hope that more will be brainwashed and turn homos. And, in turn more and more homos will disseminate homosexuality in the hope that it poisons the minds and spirits of more abonormal young men. And so it continues, ad infinitum.
Maybe they just discovered the genetic source of spiritualist wackoism. I have never met a Christian who described their faith as being "spiritually connected to the universe." Puh-LEEEZE.
Of course it means that. It also throws out any idea of objective truth. If I believe in God because my genes force me to do so, and some scientist does not believe in God because his genes force him NOT to do so, then there's no way to question or change our conclusions; it's all a matter of "my genes" vs. "his genes." This scientist probably thinks that his so-called research is a positive step in the direction of tolerance and mutual understanding; it's not. It's a step in the direction of stifling any sort of rational debate on important issues.
If you were really straight as a board you would not disseminate this homo trash or make inappropriate use of the word "gay."
You have given yourself away by your own words.
Unbelievable. This is crap.
I'd say -- if I had to guess -- there are probably under 5,000 people on the planet who read neurological studies at that level. The number of people who are active players in the field is probably under 500.
Yes, I can tell you why. We are unable to read people's minds, therefore, we cannot say that a specific gene is responsible for a way of thinking. Do you really believe that we have such a technology? Can you look at a chemical formula, and tell me what my zodiac sign is? This is modern science at it's most religious, and is total nonsense. A God gene. Riiiight. I suppose you can try to break down every behavior, every preference, every conviction, into a formula. I'd like to see the study, who, how many, methodology, etc. I'm willing to bet it's as bogus as a Jackalope's antlers.
Well put, rhetor. Just another way of evading responsibility for our decisions. Liberals always seem to come up with them.
Well, in that case there must be a gene that causes not only idiocy but the need to proselytize the idiocy.
Maybe I'll ping the list. Thanks!
I agree with you that the field of neurology is important and very much worth exploring---especially as technology improves at the exponential rate that it does and allows us to examine the mind and how it works with greater and greater integrity. However, I always hate to see causation implied regarding behavior in these types of neurological studies. You simply cannot derive causation of behavior from correlational studies. It is simply a matter of internal validity---or in the case of such studies, the lack-thereof.
Any time anyone has sex they can choose to do it or not do it.
And if someone feels homosexual urges, they can choose to stay that way or they can choose to change. There are thousands of ex-"gays".
Just as some people feel strong urges to cheat on their spouse - such people can choose to give in to their desires, or they can control them, and learn to overcome such desires.
Desires are funny things - the more you give in to them and express them, the more hold they have over you. The more you let them know that you are the master, and they must to do your bidding, the tamer they get. And another funny thing, that's the key to happiness.
Desires make very bad masters.
You've caught the meme meme, and now you're spreading it.
You shouldn't be so preachy about things you don't understand. And just to make sure you spread it correctly in the future, the "parasitical" adjective is inappropriate as part of the definition, since a meme might be quite beneficial to its host.
You're also wrong about that which you attempt to imply regarding "gayness." It's safe for the rest of us to assume that your own gayness and the urge to facillitate the propagation that meme have corrupted your thinking with respect to many such loosely related concepts.
Do you see what I'm doing here?
Yes, you're lying and spewing sophistry in a effort to aggrandize yourself in your own eyes and in the eyes your gay friends by toying with "conservatives" on an internet forum.
Cute screen name, btw.
Here, read this. Promising research on brain function and behavior...
My suspicion is that it's social propaganda. If certain people with certain prejudices get positions of influence at respected journals a lot of public policy will end up being based on bad science.
See global warming and the Kyoto Treaty as one example. The claims of the gay gene have been found to be way overblown, too but many accept them without question.
I'm guessing that more than 500 people have read this article, and that if it is given credence by the MSM, even greater numbers will be exposed to this eugenics propoganda (dysgenics?). It looks more to me like a political ploy, than a scientific discovery. No shouts of eureka from a great discovery, more like someone forcing the results to match his preconceived idea, for a purpose that has little to do with science.
The trouble is -- this research leaks out into the mainstream press and they choose the most sensational angle. They treat initial research as definitive. And they ignore all notes of caution the researchers usually provide.
I have only one objection to the idea of predestination: it eliminates totally the need for a Savior and makes the death of Christ a cruel joke. If certain people are "programmed" to believe and therefore receive salvation, God would have not needed to send His Son here for "us men and our salvation."
I was speaking of peer reviewed technical or scientific articles. Yeah, more than 500 people read the article posted here, but I'd bet that was a highly watered down version.
I got it.
If he really wants to do the world a favor he needs to find and eliminate the gene pool that makes people believe that crap he's shoveling.
If there wasn't a "viable" alternative, what need would there be for faith?
"more like someone forcing the results to match his preconceived idea.."
Agreed. There is no room in serious science for such foolishness.
Not if they get caught.
Then they will be put in a place where they will get introduced to the gay gene.
"If one is a Calvinist, one might say that God gives the "brain chemicals" necessary for belief to his elect. And many classical Christians, who are not Calivinists, view belief to be an act of God on man (regeneration) rather than a voluntary act of man, himself."
As a 'Calvinist', I would not say that. I may say that God, from all eternity foreknew the 'brain chemicals' I would have at any point during my life. And, that I would not have the "God Gene" when I was (physically) born; and He would, as an act of mercy and grace alter my brain chemical make-up so that I would believe and accept his offer of salvation. That point of changing my brain chemical make-up could be called "regeneration".
For the record, let me make it clear that I believe that the "God Gene" construct is total nonsense.
Religion and science have been clashing for centuries and both have somehow managed to thrive.
Yes, the guy gave us the "gay gene". A discovery that, other more objective scientists ,are UNABLE to duplicate.
I would take this guys " discoveries" with a LOT of skepticism.
"I refuse to accept that religious belief, like love, is a condition of the organs."
No, but there is evidence of the opposite being true: faith having an effect on our organs, most notably the brain. Since the advent of PET scans and functional MRIs, they can actually see certain areas of the brain light up when one prays or meditates. And repetitive prayer, like the saying of the rosary or buddhist chanting actually raises levels of serotonin and other chemicals that promote a sense of peace and well-being.
"No, but I have gay friends who have confided in me that it isn't a choice. And that all things being equal, they would rather not be gay."
I can't imagine anyone choosing to be gay either, but I think the science isn't definitive yet. There was one small study, though, that found marked differences in a certain part of the hypothalmus btwn. straight men and gay men. I think it was smaller in gay men, but I don't know that they were able to conclude that it was a congenital finding vs. a developmental issue. And I can't recall whether the study included women.
Yes, but homosexuals in a lifelong monogomous relationship are doomed to become members of the "Darwin Society".
If there is a 'Gay Gene' it is either an abnormal mutation of a normal gene, or they choose to 'create one in their own mind' to justify abnormal behavior. I suppose you could postulate that some individuals with a gay gene are "unfaithful" and have relations with a heterosexual, thus keeping the gay gene in the gene pool.
And, if two (hetero's) with dominant God Genes came together, their offspring would all have God Genes - which I have seen not to hold true in a number of instances. Reducto Absurdum.
There are neither God Genes, nor Gay Genes. I'm beginning to think that the whole article is a trolling exercise.
Homosexual Agenda + Moral Absolutes Ping.
I just have to ping you all to this one. Wasn't going to, but something got the better of me.
It's just too rich that the faux scientist who "discovered" the gay gene that wasn't, now wants to find a chemical reason for belief in God.
Couldn't accept the fact that God actually exists, and some people want to know Him, and some people don't. Nope, everything's chemicals. That way there is absolutely no personal responsibility for anything whatsoever at any time.
The next step is for some idiot nihilist to "prove" that Actually None of Us Really Exist! (Actually there is a school of thought, if you want to call it that, that the sense of "self" is just a phantasm. But then, who is seeing and believing the phantasm?)
My DNA made me do it.
So what about Satan worshippers - do they have the God worshipping gene, but it was installed backwards?
Let me and Scripter know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
(As an ex-atheist, am I fighting my genes now, or before?)
"If you were really straight as a board you would not disseminate this homo trash or make inappropriate use of the word "gay."
You have given yourself away by your own words."
Wow. You've got one heck of a debating position staked out there: everyone who disagrees with you on the issue must be gay.
Check up Scripter's links. The study was non-replicatable, made up of a small number of cadavers, and IIRC they didn't know who was "gay" and who wasn't, and some may have had AIDS but they didn't know which ones. They entire thing was 100% bogus. Total junk.
This "scientist" may be the author, can't remember.
But it hardly matters, since there are thousands of ex-"gays".
People often mistake license to do whatever their minds suggest to them for freedom.
Real freedom means being able to tell your mind "No, I think not." And then having it shut up.
That was Simon LeVay's study - debunked and discredited, by LeVay himself. We have some info on the subject if you're interested.
Science tells us the major factor behind homosexuality is environment, and the tens of thousands of former homosexuals testify and support what science tells us.
My money is on mutation or some kind of recessive gene. Who knows? Maybe mutation that combines with some form of conditioning/environment to set up neural pathways. Human behavior is complex stuff.
Thanks for the ping. This is a good thread to debunk the bad science.
"They entire thing was 100% bogus. Total junk."
Well, that's why I said the study was small and the science wasn't definitive. If I had to characterize it, I'd probably say it was intriguing, but I'm obviously not as familiar with the particulars as you. So, I'll defer to you.
"But it hardly matters, since there are thousands of ex-"gays"."
I personally think they're only ex-gay in the sense that they've chosen to ignore or fight their preferred attractions. I also happen to suspect that homosexuality is a biological glitch in the wiring. No point in arguing the point, though, since neither one of us can really know what's in the mind or heart of every gay person.
Indeed! Of course the same logic can be applied to former homosexuals.
Are you interested in reading what some former homosexuals have said about that very subject?
Hey, thanks for the defense on that -- a pointless exercise, but it's the thought that counts.
"Science tells us the major factor behind homosexuality is environment,"
It may be the major factor. It may not. My point is that nobody definitively knows and, until the science, including our understanding of the human psyche, improves, we won't know. Until then, I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.
That's what science tells us. That's what science tells us at every turn. And that's one of the very big reasons why former homosexuals exist. But you're certainly entitled to an uninformed opinion on the matter.
If you want to change that status of your opinion from uninformed to informed, start here: Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links
A similar thing happens occasionally in linguistics. Lefties like Steven Pinker (author of "The Language Instinct") have written of a "grammar gene" that causes us to use, for example, prepositions in a certain way. In theory, if the gene is faulty, such a person would consistently misuse this part of speech, despite training; additionlly, the bad gene should be transmissible to offspring. Pinker et al. became very excited back in the 1990s when such a family was in fact discovered (in Britain, I think) and wrote that this proved the existence of such a gene. On closer study by a different group of researchers, however, the family turned out to be simply SEVERELY mentally handicapped -- not just in language, but in everything, including an inability to tie their shoelaces correctly. Would this therefore point to the existence of a "shoelace tying gene?" It turns out Pinker and his fellow libs simply selected which parts of the data they wanted to look at and ignored the rest.
"...an American molecular geneticist has concluded that a person's capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals."
Hmmmmmmm. And all this time I thought it was faith?
I guess I still do.
Turn it around. Those with an absence of this gene may be predisposed to a reluctance accepting a higher authority than themselves.
11 Bob J
Turn it around again. Assume all those who subscribe to this nonsense are stupid.
--- Stupid is as stupid does.
In regards to homosexuality and genetics, the work of homosexual activist Dr. Simon LeVay has often been used to support the idea that homosexuality is genetic, and his work is still quoted to this day. But what did LeVay really find? Here is what LeVay said of his own work in a March 1994 interview with Discover magazine:
"[His 1991 research] made the unassuming LeVay one of the most misunderstood men in America. "It's important to stress what I didn't find," he points out with the courtly patience of someone who long ago got used to waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are 'born that way,' the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain --INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior. My work is just a hint in that direction--a spur, I hope, to future work."Source: Interview with David Nimmons (March, 1994) "Sex and the Brain", Discover, Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 64-71.
That's actually a responsible statement. Good science reporting. And the way a scientist should think.
You got anything on autism?
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.