Posted on 06/06/2005 10:50:27 PM PDT by scripter
My cousin is a research scientist in this arena so Im well aware of studies on homsexuality
He is a devout baptist and was trying for many years to disprove that Homosexuality could have any genetic or in utero origination.
But much of research has forced him to open his mind to the causes of it. And he now regards it has a mutative or infectious causation.
What I specified was "based on this study." I have no doubt that the sort of self-destructive habits engaged in by gays in disproportionate numbers compared to the general population do indeed cause greater mortality. But gays who don't do drugs, engage in random sex with strangers, drink heavily, etc. don't die in greater numbers. So congratulations, you've proven that people who drink heavily, take lots of drugs, and have random unprotected sex die, whether they're gay or straight.
I can guaran-damn-tee you we won't be reading that breathless headline in the NYT!
No it didn't you didn't read Balakireva et al, 1998. And then you cut and paste a passage out of the summary, that you can't explain, other than "completely different area" and you've proved what?
How is it different than Balakireva et al, 1998?
Come on girl friend, you can do better.
I would really appreciate it if folks would stop posting immeasurables, such as what you did with your cousin. I could post immeasurables myself but it does nothing for the discussion. I encourage you to read the links I've provided.
I was referring to first-hand use of tobacco. It's interesting to note that society is so rabidly against tobacco use that second-hand smoke is now of concern. I was trying to point out that society should also be adamantly against first-hand (or whatever body part) use of homosexuality. I hadn't thought about extending that to second-hand homosexuality--although perhaps we should frown upon the use of flamboyant interior designers.
Im sorry but you can't easily figure out for yourself. How is the feminization of the olfactory system in fruit flies the same thing as altering a sex gene in the current study of fruit flies?
Scientists reverse sex roles in fruit flies
She'll sing, vibrate her wings and lick a potential female suitor. But it's all for naught, as nature doesn't let the flip-flopped sexual advances proceed to any productive conclusion... The study has no immediate implications for human sexuality, Dickson told LiveScience.From Fruit fly gene success
The researchers said they had deciphered more than 97% of the fly's genetic code and more than 99% of the actual genes. In all, it turns out that every fruit fly cell contains 13,601 genes. Human cells, by contrast, are thought to have more 70,000 genes...But while some believe it proves that the technology used to decode the genome is effective, others believe that unravelling the human DNA sequence will be much more difficult.This is really off topic. I posted the main article to further inform folks of the great dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. And that homosexuals who want to, have the choice to leave the severe health hazards of the lifestyle.
If genetics has a part, then, why hasn't homosexuality been cleaned out of the gene pool.. They don't breed for the most part.. A conscious choice on the other hand could make homosexuality be an ever present option.. And pedophilia (as the first sexual encounter) could also impact life long choices.. sexually and other ways.. and dysfunctional infantile choices "it felt good", could also be a factor..
Basically, it IS a choice.. the obsession could emerge with time.. Pedophilia was an unknown word to most 30 years ago.. and even more as time regresses.. and probably more prevalent than now(pedophilia). "US" being so enlightened and sensitive to the issue.. "WHO AM I", is a question most teenagers and even younger ask themselves.. arriving at purely anecdotal answers.. not having any real facts to base the answer on.. And the indenity arrived at with that question, shapes many lives from then on.. Convincing some, maybe most, of their lot in life.. in a lot of areas.. especially sexual.. Lives based on anecdotal evidence is what the Jerry Springer Show is based on.. and probably Oprah too..
Queer Normalphobes are not just faggots.. and Bull Daggers.
they are Democrats.. and RINOS(generally).. as well..
Excellent information, but there is more. Gays have a much higher rate of suicide than either the general population or heteros, and are much more likely to commit violence against other homosexuals. Most gay-directed violence is not generated by gay-bashers, but by other gays. The whole tragic lifestyle is awash with despair, but those are the dirty little secrets the gay community loves to whitewash.
The study has no immediate implications for human sexuality.
In the URL you provided,
But the researchers caution that controls on a fruitfly's sexual behaviour are undoubtedly different from our own. "In the case of humans, we know that our sexual behaviours are not irreversibly set by our genes," says Dickson. "But that doesn't mean the genes have no influence," he adds. "There's still a lot of mystery surrounding the causes of homosexuality," says Hans Van Gossum of the University of Antwerp, Belgium, who has studied fly mating patterns. "It's too early to draw strong conclusions on simple mechanisms like this."What I believe is happening here is more of the same stuff we see all the time. Certain news makes headlines but it really can't be tied into human homosexuality. The following link summarizes a lot of the headlines we see from the main stream media: The Animal Homosexuality Myth
I've read that as well. The more folks read about homosexuality, the worse it looks for homosexuals. If I were to write an article (it would be more like a book) summarizing everything we know about homosexuality, I think readers would probably be overwhelmed in a very short time. Overwhelmed with what? Overwhelmed with, as you said, despair for those stuck in the lifestyle.
It's no longer surprising to me that some folks take such offense at our message. I expect it.
Putting gene X into another species and expecting to see a behavior is unrealistic--a 'flight' gene from Drosophila, if it existed, is not going to make a mouse fly," Dickson explains, noting that only members of the same species might be expected to share the same set of "normal" behaviors.
"So you need to put gene X in a normal animal of the same species that doesn't normally do Y. This is really only possible with sex-specific behaviors" like courtship, he says.
Nice try genius, but i can state chapter and verse ad nauseaum of studies documenting the abuse of illegal drugs by gays. It happens that they use them to facilitate anal entry, heightened pleasure, and maintain turgidity. The problem is that over a period of time poppers, coke and meth destroy the immune system which then facilitates heightened susceptibility to vicious and pernicious venereal diseases.
Anyone unable to see that a limited number of sexual partners for heterosexuals vs. 250 a year for male homosexuals, and the resultant longterm damage by contact with virulent pathogens, illegal drugs, and powerful immne-depressing medications must have their head up their ass! Gee, I made a funny!
In BOTH studies various amounts of fru alleles were spliced into the fly and in BOTH studies cause different pheromone receptivity in both male and female.
Only difference, each study affected one gender differently than another.
Again proving, if science is valid it's replicable.
From your study: "Strong fru alleles completely block courtship behavior, but weaker fru alleles variously disrupt individual steps",
From mine: "various fru mutant alleles diversely affect male courtship behavior"
"They courted other females, just as a normal male would, except that their sexual advances didn't get very far,"That's a direct quote from Dickson. It also mentioned how putting a fly's flight gene into a mouse can't make the mouse fly, which you quoted from your link. That has no bearing on the subject.
What does any of this have to do with human homosexuality?
If you know that then you might have the capacity to understand both studies cause their specimens to chemically have intersex disorder...ie. mosaic syndrome.
Which is cited where? Balakireva et al, 1998 thank you.
But it's not a bright shiny new study like yours so I guess it's bogus too.
But much of research has forced him to open his mind to the causes of it. And he now regards it has a mutative or infectious causation.
Have you got your boots on scrip? It's getting deep around here. LG said theirs a lot of GLAAD plants working the sodomy threads lately, I think we got one.
That's a BS statistic that has been widely discredited. More realistic numbers are somewhere between 25 and 50 partners lifetime, vs about 16 for straight men.
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.