Posted on 02/15/2005 3:20:34 AM PST by AliVeritas
A study to be published in the March 2005 issue of the journal Human Genetics, and available online now, actually undermines the commonly held view that homosexual orientation is determined by genetic factors.
The study’s lead author Brian Mustanski from University of Illinois at Chicago said in a UIC news release that "There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."
However, a thorough examination of the actual report reveals no statistically significant findings for any of these DNA regions.
The authors describe in the article three non-X chromosomal "new regions of genetic interest” (7q36, 8p12, and 10q26). In the authors’ view, a noteworthy aspect of the study as follows: "Our strongest finding was on 7q36 with a combined mlod score of 3.45 and equal distribution from maternal and paternal allele transmission. This score falls just short of Lander and Kruglyak's (1995) criteria for genomewide significance." They go on to say "two additional regions (8p12 and 10q26) approached the criteria for suggestive linkage" - again pointing out that neither was statistically significant.
Thus, even the author’s “strongest finding” was not statistically significant by widely accepted scientific criteria.
(Excerpt) Read more at gcc.edu ...
Bad brain wiring allows these "things" to exist. Nothing more.
Deviant behavoir.
I remember about 14 years ago when Newsweak did a front page story about how a "scientist" made the discovery of a "gay gene." The magazine gave this story about 10 pages of coverage. Later, I saw a picture of the "scientist." He was rail thin, with a village person mustache, who had AIDS, and was a homosexual political activist for over 20 years.
To think a national news magazine would do such a thing is really laughable. Today, I doubt Newsweak would try the same thing--the Age of the Internet would expose them too quickly.
"Deviant behavoir."
Right, if it was genetics, you could not have a whole city full of 'em (the men of the city...both young and old), as we read in Gen 19:4-5, "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."
No reproduction results from 'sodomy'.
Liberals hate to admit that anything besides genetics plays a role in sexuality. Anyone who thinks environment and choice don't play a role in this human behavior is either an idiot or dishonest.
Not this crap again!
THERE IS NO "GAY" GENE!
I wonder why nature is not explored more. Homosexual behavior is seen in it, almost always with males and usually because of an absence of females. The lack of females can be because a dominant male has them all or something happened to the availability of females. If the "homosexual" males are given more females, they revert to normal behavior. This behavior is also seen in immature males before they can fight for a female. In every case it is the lack of a female that brings on the behavior.
A race of frogs who exhibited homosexual behavior were studied and when deprived of females a section of their brain grew and seemed to be associated with the homosexual behavior. If there were enough females and they could mate with them, there was no shift to homosexual behavior.
Even the term "homosexual behavior" is misleading since the animals mimicked normal sex but with a male. So are animals releasing sexual tension, keeping in practice or homosexual?
The penguins in the zoo who are being brought females will mate with them and give up their behavior. Happened many times, but the homosexuals do not want it to happen since it will show the penguin's normal behavior.
Yawn...Who gives a crap? Get a life!
Why is the gay gene so important? A bunch of behavioral traits are genetic, good and bad alike, but they're only tendencies, not certainities.
Any REAL study will continue to reveal that homosexuality is simply a choice. Period.
Yes other factors weigh in - including the child's environment while growing up. But it still boils down to a choice.
Thus the reason there are beautiful stories of people turning away from a former homosexual lifestyle.
read later
I've always wondered at how the gene stayed in the pool, since homos don't tend to procreate. The response I suppose is that repressive societies down thru history forced 'genetically gay' men to marry women and have kids while doing the pole smoker thing on the sly.
The irony is, as soon as a society accepts open homosexuality, it should soon die out. History however, doesn't support this. Homosexuality in fact seems to correlate more with the general level decadence of society. Rome and Greece are good examples of this. Rather than dying out, as time went along it got more prevalent. To me that argues against the idea of a 'gay gene.'
Very sound reasoning, sir!
"Yawn...Who gives a crap? Get a life!"
Yes, nothing to see here, move along! /sarc
Obviously you give a crap or you wouldn't have bothered to post. This article hit home a little?
According to a newspaper one out of six gay penguins changed his behavior so fare. But the zoo director said the penguins select theirs partner for just a year. So the remaining 5 penguins may choose a female penguin within the next exchange season or stay gay.
What of it's caused by hormonal conditions in the womb? That would rule out genes.
They might stay gay. The frogs, once their brains changed, stayed gay. Might be the same here, but it is a bit much to extrapolate from a specific race of frogs to penguins.
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.