Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Homosexual Researcher Claims Genome Scan Of Sexual Orientation
TraditionalValuesCoalition ^ | February 3, 2005 | Staff

Posted on 02/03/2005 4:20:37 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist

A team of researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have just published a study that claims to have mapped the human genome and discovered chromosomes related to sexual orientation in males.

The study, "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation," was led by homosexual researcher Dr. Dean Hamer and other pro-homosexual associates.

Dr. A. Dean Byrd, a member of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Scientific Advisory Committee reviewed the study and concluded: "The researchers' attempt to manipulate the data to come up with something meaningful was not realized. They find nothing and yet they insist that they might find something. Good science begins with a strong hypothesis not with a 'fishing expedition.'


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: deanhamer; gaygene; genetics; homosexualagenda; narth; nih; tvc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last
Dr. Hamer - the scientist who failed to find the 'gay gene.'
1 posted on 02/03/2005 4:20:37 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

What a surprise - a vital conflict of interest.


2 posted on 02/03/2005 4:21:57 PM PST by thoughtomator (How do you say Berkeley California in Aramaic?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Implying that genetic engineering can be used to solve the problem?


3 posted on 02/03/2005 4:22:50 PM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter; EdReform; little jeremiah; Coleus; ArGee; nmh; Old Sarge; gidget7

Ping!

To see the in-depth article at NARTH dealing with this genome scan, go to http://www.narth.com/docs/genome.html


4 posted on 02/03/2005 4:23:12 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

The fact of the matter is that it matters not what the cause is -- those with this condition are called to chastity.


5 posted on 02/03/2005 4:23:28 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

So can you abort homo babies?


6 posted on 02/03/2005 4:24:30 PM PST by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The article at Narth dealing with the genome scan and its 'findings.'

http://www.narth.com/docs/genome.html


7 posted on 02/03/2005 4:25:00 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

It would be interesting if they did find the "gay gene". Then people can start prenatal testing for and then aborting genetically damaged (aka. "gay") fetuses. Let the pro-abortion, gay agenda promoting liberals choke on that one.


8 posted on 02/03/2005 4:25:40 PM PST by Spiff (Don't believe everything you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xp38
So can you abort homo babies?

Or, depending on what ideology is in power, the inverse.

9 posted on 02/03/2005 4:26:57 PM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

The genetic engineers and politicians of the future might come up with some requirements to match their agendas - 95% homosexual births, 5% "breeders" - artificially inseminated, of course (see "Brave New World"). This way the genetic makeup of the race would be controlled.


10 posted on 02/03/2005 4:30:37 PM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; SweetCaroline

Ping!

I thought that you also might want to read about the newest 'fishing expedition' dealt with at TVC and Narth.

http://www.narth.com/docs/genome.html


11 posted on 02/03/2005 4:30:52 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Spiff

Do you think that the liberals would be saying "her body, her choice" then?

I doubt it.


13 posted on 02/03/2005 4:33:07 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
I don't think the scenario you envision will come to pass.

People who do not believe in abortion would treat this matter in the same way as if they were going to have a baby with Down's syndrome (or any other diability). It may be a tough road ahead, but with love, patience & faith, any decent human can rise ro the challenge of good parenting.

Liberals would be more likely to abort "oppressive patriarchal heterosexual blobs of tissue" than gay babies.

14 posted on 02/03/2005 4:35:09 PM PST by two134711
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Sure, blame the midgets and genomes. I'm tired of the little people getting all the heat. Sure, they're the right height for a lot of deviant behavior, but that doesn't mean they're game. ;)


15 posted on 02/03/2005 4:35:20 PM PST by small voice in the wilderness (Quick, act casual. If they sense scorn and ridicule, they'll flee..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: two134711

diability = disability


16 posted on 02/03/2005 4:36:15 PM PST by two134711
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wolfgang_Blitzkrieg
No one is forced to take the Hershey Highway. It's an optional route.

Or is it an extension of guys "refusing to stop and ask directions"?

Ok, it's not...

17 posted on 02/03/2005 4:37:17 PM PST by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

The fact of the matter is that it matters not what the cause is -- those with this condition are called to chastity.


The fact of the matter is that it matters not what the cause is -- those with this condition are called to chastity.


The fact of the matter is that it matters not what the cause is -- those with this condition are called to chastity.


Bears repeating. If you're not in an "opposing-gender" marriage, you're called to be celibate. EVERYONE is called to be chaste.


18 posted on 02/03/2005 4:38:35 PM PST by HighlyOpinionated (Chastity begins at home. Celibacy begins at home, too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xp38
>>So can you abort homo babies?<<

Oh boy. . .talk about a clash of left-wing agendas. Wow.

Abortion of homo babies because they are homo. . .protested by the prop-abotion crowd and man, what a fight that would be. . .but considering how "hate crimes" evolved, the killing of a homo baby would be a hate crime and therefore prohibited.

You watch. . .that is how it will be argued.
19 posted on 02/03/2005 4:40:39 PM PST by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: two134711
Liberals would be more likely to abort "oppressive patriarchal heterosexual blobs of tissue" than gay babies.

You are ignoring the fact that they are big phonies. They push public education but send their kids to private schools if they can. They want gun control but make sure they are protected by gun-toters if they can.

They would also wear their multicolored scarf on the way to the abortion mill to get rid of that gay baby.

20 posted on 02/03/2005 4:41:44 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2

"prop-abotion" = "pro-abortion". . . but you already knew that.


21 posted on 02/03/2005 4:42:18 PM PST by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: two134711

distant future designer fertility boutiques will give parents the choice whether new born is gay or not.

The end to this abhorant behavior is in sight (no pun intended)


22 posted on 02/03/2005 4:42:44 PM PST by daku
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

There's a port for every semen whether it's anal, vaginal or oral. Just ask Bubba!


23 posted on 02/03/2005 4:43:13 PM PST by Hawk44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

"A team of researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)"

Your tax dollars at work. Money given to a discredited researcher, to boot.


24 posted on 02/03/2005 4:45:47 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
"It would be interesting if they did find the "gay gene"."

Already done....


25 posted on 02/03/2005 4:49:34 PM PST by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
You are ignoring the fact that they are big phonies. True. They always proclaim love of tolerance, but the fact that they hurl insults like "Uncle Tom," "bitch" and "homosexual" at their opponents is telling of how intolerant they truly are.
26 posted on 02/03/2005 5:03:31 PM PST by two134711
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Wait a minute. Liberals wouldn't be upset about having gay children, so that situation wouldn't produce a conflict. Anti-gay, pro-life conservatives, on the other hand would have to reconcile one value against the other.


27 posted on 02/03/2005 5:05:24 PM PST by SocialPragmatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo

My question is, will Homosextuals demand an end to Abortion, because someone might kill a homosextual gened baby?


28 posted on 02/03/2005 5:05:33 PM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
BTTT


Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)


What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda


Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"

29 posted on 02/03/2005 5:06:59 PM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

So we might have a cure ???


30 posted on 02/03/2005 5:07:46 PM PST by 11th_VA (Warning: My posts do not necessarily contribute to the knowledge or purpose of FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Wouldn't the gay gene have to be passed down through the maternal line?


31 posted on 02/03/2005 5:11:34 PM PST by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Right. A persisting genetic feature that causes one to not reproduce. Sure.


32 posted on 02/03/2005 5:12:51 PM PST by ovrtaxt (Go Howard Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: small voice in the wilderness

hehehe!


33 posted on 02/03/2005 5:14:31 PM PST by ovrtaxt (Go Howard Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

in the old days we read in the Bible that the "cause" was
a reprobate mind brought about by rejection of God. Or so
the Apostle Paul seemed to declare in his letter to the
Believers at rome,called to be Saints. (Romans chapter 1
verses 18-32)


34 posted on 02/03/2005 5:20:27 PM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

If it is a congenital factor, it may well not show up as a genetic marker. Perhaps, there is some hormonal anomaly within the womb.


35 posted on 02/03/2005 5:37:34 PM PST by punster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
funded by the National Institutes of Health

My tax dollars paid for this crap? !!!

As our idiot RAT, tongue twisted, Boston mayor, Mumbles Menino, might say, "That really fries my nose"

36 posted on 02/03/2005 6:06:28 PM PST by benjaminjjones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

lol


37 posted on 02/03/2005 6:12:40 PM PST by WriteOn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Right. A persisting genetic feature that causes one to not reproduce. Sure.

For the gene to survive, it would have to have big benefits for the family members of the homosexual. That's really not the case--at least, I can't really imagine it being the case. So yes, it is absurd to think that genetic factors are the most important thing in determining homosexuality.

However, it is possible that some genes have a relation to homosexuality, but are not completely determinate.

This is a completely hypothetical example: maybe there is a gene that gives people a better ability to speak and learn languages and also, when found in men, causes a 10% chance of homosexuality. So straight men and women with this gene would usually have an increased chance of reproducing (because they would be more successful in our society), even if there was a small increase in homosexuality as well. This is a completely hypothetical, made-up example, but I think something like it could be possible.


First: why am I "fisking" NARTH's position? Is it because I care deeply about the issue of the origins of homosexuality? NO. I do have gay friends, but I don't really care whether they got that way through genetics or the environment, they're my friends. I don't even care that NARTH is anti-gay. What pisses me off is how anti-science NARTH is. I will freely admit I have a MASSIVE BIAS in favor of SCIENCE, and unscientific stuff being passed off as science makes me mad!

I am not satisfied with some of the UNSCIENTIFIC criticisms NARTH makes of the article, and they make me suspicious that NARTH is full of s--- (because the critique is full of obvious logical fallacies and is short on substance).

According to Dr. Gerald Schoenewolf, the study's most noted researcher, Dr. Dean Hamer, is gay and has a pre-existing bias. The report, says Schoenewolf, "is written in super-scientific language in order to cover up the fact that it's totally biased. There is no balance in the article--no attempt to weigh various evidences or to speculate whether it could be interpreted environmentally. There is not even a mention of the environment. This is apparently a group of very intelligent homosexuals and pro-gay researchers looking for evidence of homosexual heredity."
Logical fallacy 1: they're attacking the messengers instead of the research (just because Dr. Hamer is possibly biased doesn't mean he's WRONG or that he's done bad research, any more than a Republican professor is always lying if he comes up with data to support President Bush's policies). Other points: just because Dr. Hamer is gay doesn't automatically mean he's biased. Also: is he a radical activist? He freely admits at the start of the paper that homosexuality in men is found in somewhere between 2 and 6 percent of the population. Gay activists like to claim 10% (Kinsey's figure), but those numbers are too high. Right off the bat, Dr. Hamer is associating himself with sober scientists rather than political activists (which is better than I can say about NARTH).

Logical fallacy 2: Attacking the research for not mentioning environmental factors. Environmental factors are OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of the research. Hamer is not denying that they might play some role, and he's not trying to measure the role they do have. He's ONLY looking at whether or not there is a correlation between certain genes and homosexuality. The fact that he's found a correlation does not mean fer sure that those genes cause homosexuality, it's more complicated than that.


This is a "noble" effort that came up with nothing. Although the authors claim that the technology does not exist to do what they are trying to do, most scientists would be skeptical that they would be "successful" even with the technology. No significant loci were found that would identify male sexual orientation. The researchers' attempt to manipulate the data to come up with something meaningful was not realized. They find nothing and yet they insist that they might find something. Good science begins with a strong hypothesis not with a "fishing expedition" which is interpreted as something other than for what it is. Complex behaviors such as those involved with sexual orientation are likely polygenic and multifactoral--at the very most predispositions whose emergence and maintenance is strongly influenced by cultural and environmental factors.
Again, more logical fallacies. Attacking the messenger is repeated.

Logical Fallacy 3: calling this a "fishing expedition." Yes, that's exactly what it is. That's how scientists cull information from big piles of statistics, they fish it out. This research doesn't prove that those genes cause homosexuality, it just suggests that there might be a connection which would be worth following up in future research. Which leads us to...

Logical Fallacy 4: overstating what Hamer claims to have found, in order to claim Hamer is overreaching. They claim Hamer claims to have found genes that guarantee homosexuality--when Hamer has made no such claim ("No significant loci were found that would identify male sexual orientation"). Likewise, NARTH says "Complex behaviors such as those involved with sexual orientation are likely polygenic and multifactoral--at the very most predispositions whose emergence and maintenance is strongly influenced by cultural and environmental factors." What part of that is contrary to Hamer's research? Hamer just shows a correlation between homosexuality and certain genes, that's not the same as saying that those genes will always cause homosexuality, or that the environment plays no role. By pretending Hamer said something he didn't say, they can attack it. Classic straw-man fallacy.


The initial casual perusal of the title and abstract would lead one to believe that this study has proven some genetic determinants for homosexuality.
Really? I perused the friggin' abstract and title ("A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation") and found NOTHING that lead me to believe this. This isn't a logical fallacy, it's a DAMN DIRTY LIE.

Further, there is a statement that is completely invalid; "family and twin studies have provided evidence for a genetic component to male sexual orientation." At the end of the same paragraph there is a statement that indicates there is no hereditary component: "The results from family and twin studies demonstrate that sexual orientation is a complex (i.e. does not show simple Mendalian inheritance) and multifactorial phenotype."
I don't get what is so terrible about this. Dr. Hamer says that some studies show a link between genetics and homosexuality. He provides CITATIONS TO STUDIES (something NARTH has not done) which have found some sort of link between genetics and homosexuality. Dr. Hamer then says that while some studies have found links, others haven't, and that this means the link between genetics and homosexuality isn't perfectly clear (he uses the term "Mendelevian," which is to say, from the genotype you can know th phenotype with 100% accuracy). Dr. Hamer has NOT overstated the link between genetics and homosexuality, as NARTH wants you to believe.
He then acknowledges that the study sample is too small to draw any conclusions. The author then makes an interesting statement; "our results may not extrapolate to individuals who do not meet our exclusion criteria."
So Dr. Hamer is honest.
The author also eliminates female sexual orientation since it may have a different basis genetically than male sexual orientation.
Why the hell wouldn't it??? Gay men are different than gay women! If there is in fact a genetic basis for homosexuality, why would it be the same for men and women?

As a side note (just because I find this interesting, not because it has anything to do with what I am arguing above): correlation does not normally imply causation, but in the case of genetics it might, because we know genes can't/won't change. Whatever the genes are in gay people, the gay people got those genes from their parents, and their parents had those genes from theirs, etc., long before anyone knew if the kid would turn out gay. Being gay can't cause genes to change in a person (at least, that would be astonishing to modern science). And there is no "third force" factor that could cause homosexuality and change genes. So it is pretty safe to believe that correlation between genes and behavior has a causal relationship.

The only example I can think of where this might not be true is if there was a gene that caused women to behave meanly towards their children but did not affect men. We might expect for male children having this gene would correlate to bad behavior, but this would be because their mothers mistreated them, not because the gene actually affects their behavior. Maybe those gay people share common genes because those genes came from their mothers and made their mothers act in a way that turned them gay, or caused their mothers to expose the children in their womb to certain chemicals that made the children more likely to turn gay.

Doctor Hamer actually takes this into account: he doesn't just look for a correlation between genes in the man and homosexuality in the man, he looks at genes in the mother and homosexuality in the man and genes in the father and homosexuality in the man. It seems to me that Dr. Hamer is doing intelligent, honest research, and that NARTH is deliberately distorting what he's said because it doesn't like what he's looking for and what he's found.


What did Dr. Hamer find? He did not find proof that homosexuality has its origins in genetics. But he found some interesting genes to look at for future research! He's found certain genes that might have some relationship to homosexuality. His theory that those genes have a relationship with homosexuality is a useful theory, because it is easy to create falsifiable hypotheses (note that "useful" has nothing to do with "true," "useful" just means it's easier to test). For instance:

If those genes have a relationship with homosexuality in men, and we carry out a much larger study, we will expect to find a stastically significant correlation between the two.
That hypothesis is easily falsifiable: do a bigger study, and if there's no correlation, then those genes aren't associated with homosexuality. That's what SCIENCE is.

Note that science cannot prove that no genes have any relationship to homosexuality, because proving the absence of an indirect relationship is basically impossible. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand science, and you shouldn't post on science threads until you do get an understanding (hint: google the "scientific method" or "falsifiable" or read some books by Karl Popper)

38 posted on 02/03/2005 6:12:54 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
It would be interesting if they did find the "gay gene". Then people can start prenatal testing for and then aborting genetically damaged (aka. "gay") fetuses. Let the pro-abortion, gay agenda promoting liberals choke on that one.

There are gay men who are against abortion. For one thing, they're never going to want one, and they're never going to feel a need to pressure anyone into one.

Another point is exactly the one you raise above: if/when genes correlating to increased chance of homosexuality are found, women might choose to abort their maybe-gay unborn children.

Another reason some gays are against abortion is because it's sick to kill human beings like that. Of course, most FReepers wouldn't associate gays with any sort of conservative values, but that's only because they're so interested in labeling gays as "bad guys" opposed to everything good and decent.

39 posted on 02/03/2005 6:19:01 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: punster
If it is a congenital factor, it may well not show up as a genetic marker. Perhaps, there is some hormonal anomaly within the womb.

Perhaps if you read Dr. Hamer's study, you would see that he explicitly tests for that (by looking not only at the gay men's genetics, but at their mothers' and fathers' separately).

40 posted on 02/03/2005 6:20:18 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wildbill
Wouldn't the gay gene have to be passed down through the maternal line?

Any gene that had a 100% chance of causing homosexuality in males would (if we assume homosexual men rarely father children, which is probably true). But even then, if only one quarter of the woman's children would reproduce (only the females and the half of the males who got the mother's non-gay gene), that gene would still die out pretty quickly. Having a 50% disadvantage in reproduction generally causes genes to die out in a short time (it's a 50% disadvantage because the straight son and the daughter without the gay gene wouldn't spread the gay gene, even though they could reproduce, because they wouldn't have it. 3/4 children would be able to reproduce, but only 1/3 reproducing children would carry the gene).

If the "gay gene" was recessive (you need copies from both the mother and the father for it to be active), then it would not suffer a 50% hit to the reproduction rate, but it would still suffer. We would expect that unless it provided some other sort of reproductive benefit (unrelated to causing homosexuality), then it would die out. If having a gay relative helped women to get married and have more kids, then that could be the basis for a recessive "gay gene" staying in the gene pool. If the "gay gene" had some sort of other effect that made carriers more likely to reproduce, it could stay in the gene pool (for instance, if it made carriers smarter or stronger). I'm not saying it's likely, I'm saying it's possible. With science, you have to accept that a lot is POSSIBLE, even if it's not what you WANT to be true.

41 posted on 02/03/2005 6:32:29 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hawk44
There's a port for every semen whether it's anal, vaginal or oral.

Or sockal, or toilet bowlal.

42 posted on 02/03/2005 6:36:32 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

BTTT


43 posted on 02/03/2005 6:40:12 PM PST by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Of course, most FReepers wouldn't associate gays with any sort of conservative values, but that's only because they're so interested in labeling gays as "bad guys" opposed to everything good and decent.

Wow, that's quite a statement to make about 'most Freepers'.

44 posted on 02/03/2005 6:53:51 PM PST by ovrtaxt (Go Howard Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

Do you really think most FReepers think gays can be good people, or have good values?


45 posted on 02/03/2005 6:56:34 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: All

Just in time for the We are Family homo-love pledge comming to a video machine near your child. This is just Nazi-homo propaganda to avoid the choice argument which homosexuals can use to justify their conduct.

This is the same utter BS as before. They have nothing so they have isolated a theory of a gene near a discredited gene might be THE gene or genes, maybe.

Note how they don't say this is the area that controls orgams or erections or the existence of a penis. No, the puff piece screeeeeeeaaaaaaaam homo!

(and conveniently since it is more than one gene, they could never exactly test for the homo"gene" and abort the fetus or treat the illness.)

Utter bad science and pure BS.


46 posted on 02/03/2005 7:14:15 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

I've always suspected that I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.


47 posted on 02/03/2005 7:32:35 PM PST by white trash redneck (Everything I needed to know about Islam I learned on 9-11-01.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

You are quite correct in your assessment. The problem lies in getting Christians and others to realize and propound the truth.


48 posted on 02/03/2005 7:47:46 PM PST by Don W (The most inhospitable places for free inquiry today are the universities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2

"Perhaps if you read Dr. Hamer's study, you would see that he explicitly tests for that (by looking not only at the gay men's genetics, but at their mothers' and fathers' separately)."

Genetics may not have anything to do with it.

Example: The DES (diethyle stilbestrol) daughters.

These girls exhibited a higher incidence of being lesbian than usual for females.

Example: Girls with CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

These girls experience some degree of masculinization of their genitals and behavior because of an over-active adrenal gland (within the womb). These girls are also much more likely to be lesbian.

There have been some twin studies run on incidence of homosexuality. There has been some corelation in pairs of twins, which could be explained by congenital effects, such as the hormonal environment in the womb.

It has been established the action of testosterone is necessary for the masculinization of the fetus, both in physical structure and behavior. If there is no testosterone, the default outcome for gestation is female. It does not matter if the fetus is XX or XY, without testosterone, the baby will look female and behave like a girl.

Example: Gonadal Agenesis.

This can have the genotype XO, XX, XY, or even be a chimera. No gonads, the external phenotype will be female, and the behavior will be female.

Example: Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. The XY fetus does not respond to androgens. The result is a female phenotype and female behavior.

More research needs to be done on the effects of hormones and drugs on the fetal nervous system.


49 posted on 02/03/2005 7:58:05 PM PST by punster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: punster
Genetics may not have anything to do with it.

Correct.

Genetics may have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Or they might have a lot to do with it, we don't know.

Example: The DES (diethyle stilbestrol) daughters.

These girls exhibited a higher incidence of being lesbian than usual for females.

Example: Girls with CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

These girls experience some degree of masculinization of their genitals and behavior because of an over-active adrenal gland (within the womb). These girls are also much more likely to be lesbian.

How do you know DES and CAH are not caused by genetics, like certain genes the mother might have? How do you know certain genes don't make the mother more likely to have a DES or CAH baby? Is it ever possible to prove that there is no connection at all between DES/CAH and certain genes? Tests like Dr. Hamer's would be useful for finding whatever genes might be associated with those conditions, if there are any.

More research needs to be done on the effects of hormones and drugs on the fetal nervous system.

Sure, I agree completely.

Example: Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. The XY fetus does not respond to androgens. The result is a female phenotype and female behavior.

Ayup. Jamie Lee Curtis is a MAN, BABY. XY Chromosomes yet everything about her personality and mental makeup is feminine. This gives lie to the idea that XY makes someone a man and XX makes someone a woman and there's nothing else at all.

50 posted on 02/03/2005 8:49:22 PM PST by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson