Posted on 02/03/2005 4:20:37 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
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.
Or sockal, or toilet bowlal.
BTTT
Wow, that's quite a statement to make about 'most Freepers'.
Do you really think most FReepers think gays can be good people, or have good values?
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.
I've always suspected that I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
You are quite correct in your assessment. The problem lies in getting Christians and others to realize and propound the truth.
"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.
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.
Why is the timing an issue? Is there ever a time these days when gay rights activists aren't on the march? Does this mean scientists can never release their results, or do they have to ask the activists to stop every once in a while?
This is just Nazi-homo propaganda to avoid the choice argument which homosexuals can use to justify their conduct.
Translation: "if we admit that homosexuality is biological in origin and gays don't have a choice, we'll have to stop calling it a sin. I don't want to do this, so I choose not to believe any science."
When people deny the reality in front of them because of some weird ideology, that's usually called "mental illness." In America, we call it "Fundamentalist Christianity." No matter how much proof scientists have that gays don't get to "choose" to be fairies, you will reject it.
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.
They're looking for correlations. If they find certain genes (in the mother or the homo) correlate to homosexuality, then they can do more research on those genes. That's somehow unscientific?
Note how they don't say this is the area that controls orgams or erections or the existence of a penis.
Why would those have anything to do with who is gay or straight? Straight people can orgasm from putting their dick in a man's behind just as easily as gay men can orgasm by putting their dick into women. Straight men do it in prison; closted gay men do it with women to "prove" they are straight. Orgasms are just a physical process. Preferring men to women is a MENTAL issue, not a penis issue.
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.)
Sorry the scientists didn't come up with results that are convenient for your worldview. Obviously that means the scientists are frauds. Sorry that genetics are too hard for you to understand. But if God wanted you to understand how DNA worked, he would have put it in the Bible ::snicker::
Doesn't she have a kid?
I don't know anyone who does that as indiscriminately as you suggest. You are trivializing the concerns of a good many people who are dismayed by the progress of feminism, easy-access divorce, flippant attitudes toward marriage and sexuality, and the "gay-rights" campaign.
Arthur Bremer was a "good liberal" who only did one bad thing -- he went on a hunting expedition in which he stalked Richard Nixon and George C. Wallace and shot the latter. So guess where he is today?
Point.
Charles Whitman was an exemplar -- an ex-Marine, devoted to his family -- who went off his rocker with an undiagnosed brain tumor and shot 16 people dead from the top of the clock tower on the University of Texas campus. The police killed him. He's still dead. What are the equities in his case? Were the police too quick to "label" him?
Ah, now it comes out.
Cognitive dissonance: I thought you were on the record as opposed to intolerance toward religious people, esp. as expressed by e.g. Ted Turner?
That's almost as much fun as the union thugs vs. the environmental whackos!
If she has a kid, it's not of her womb.
Ah-Ha, fagism is now a birth defect. Now we have justification for abortion? Or not? What do we do with this information, assuming that it is true? There is no simple answer. Your thoughts?
Ah-Ha, fagism is now a birth defect. Now we have justification for abortion? Or not? What do we do with this information, assuming that it is true? There is no simple answer. Your thoughts?
I don't know, I guess I would be surprised if they didn't. But maybe I'm just projecting my views on others.
Like you, I know several personally, and they're good people. I think they're wrong and I actually feel sorry for them to some extent, since it's such a barren life, but overall they are good people.
But I have also known many in the past, when I worked in show business, who were the least moral people I've ever met. Mostly actors.
So, I guess the Homo researchers are really just attemting to uncover their asses.
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.