Skip to comments."Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project
Posted on 03/16/2007 7:15:39 AM PDT by scripter
click here to read article
He's more likely to anger straights.
" sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA"
If sexual orientation is only twenty percent hardwired, then a straight exposed to homosexuality has a one in five chance of going gay! Gay for a day? Well, maybe just once a week...
if there had been a "gay gene" it would have faded out, since it would not have left any descendents. Then it would have appeared again, and died out, and appeared again, and died out. In fact, it would have appeared and died out one time for each new gay person. So that's a stupid idea.
I'm going to email him about it from his 24/7 mail.
If it is not a behaviour, what is it?
In nine years of working in the mental health field, I have met many homosexuals and had an opportunity to ask questions that would not be appropriate in causal conversation. The most significant is "Have you ever been abused in any way?" Granted, I am not dealing with the mentally healthiest segment of the gay population, but in my practice, I have never come across a gay man who was not sexually abused by another gay man at some point during his boyhood or adolescence. If homosexuality were a genetic trait, you would think I would have come across at least one gay man who could honestly say "No, I have never been abused", but I haven't. I gave up believing that homosexuality was genetic a long time ago.
Probably much more complicated than any one single cause.
A certain gene might increase the probability 4 fold, while a certain level of hormone A at just the right time or lobe of the brain may increase probability several fold.
You would need a map of all the different factors and still you will likely only come up with a certain set of probabilities. Not to mention that I suspect the causes are not all physical. As much as the GLBT groups don't want to admit it. There is a virtual statistical certainty that some live a GLBT life by choice.
With regard to "twin studies" ...
There are, I believe, a couple hundred identical twin who were separated at birth. These people have been studied to the point of exhaustion. But, given the low incidence of homosexuality, these twins don't constitute a large enough sample to say anything definitively about genetics versus environment.
Looking at fraternal twins separated at birth is the same thing as looking at siblings separated at birth. You can get a larger, and statistically meaningful sample, using fraternal twins or siblings separated at birth, at the cost, obviously, of inexact genetic matching.
Leaving aside the problems with "separated at birth" studies, studies of fraternal twins/siblings who are separated at birth tell us that genetics influence sexual orientation, but are far from controlling, which means that the results of these studies are rejected out of hand by those insisting, alternately, that homosexuality is either 100% or 0% genetic-based.
The argument that homosexuality is 100% genetic-based is about a lot more than the sinfulness of homosexuality. If homosexuality is less than 100% genetic-based, then gay-adoption is problematic.
To the extent that we influence the adoption decision, we would want children to be raised by both a male and a female role model, preferably (1) their birth-parents, or (2) close relatives such as an aunt or uncle in a traditional marriage (as traditionally was provided by naming such people as the god-parents of your children), or (3) by a non-related couple in a traditional marriage or a single close relative such as an aunt or an uncle.
Only after exhausting the above possibilities, should you consider adoption by a single non-relative to raising the child in a group home with male and female role models provided "by committee."
In terms of the culture war, this is what elections are all about (which is not to diminish the importance of free-market economics and a government with the strength and resolve needed to defend us against criminals and foreign enemies).
I think the current and next generation of children are our most important resource. I think they are worth the time it takes to get involved, make a difference and tell the world that nobody is born a homosexual. You want to know the importance of getting the truth out on homosexuality? Think of the current and next generation of children.
The radicals pushing the homosexual agenda have been saying for years homosexuals were born that way. They've been saying for years a gay gene exists. Yet not a single credible scientist supports the gay gene theory nor that anybody is born a homosexual.
No scientific evidence exists to support homosexuality (behavior) is genetic. None. Nada. Goose egg. Zilch.
Yet GLSEN is in government schools pushing the radical homosexual agenda, telling impressionable children that homosexuals are born that way. Sometimes GLSEN will ask children "how do you know you wouldn't like homosexuality if you've never tried it?"
GLSEN encourages homosexual experimentation and from what science tells us, homosexual is one of the most destructive lifestyles to encourage.
"a virtual statistical certainty"
Heh. I'm thinking fake but accurate.
Don't tell Boortz that.
He loves to make fun of people that object to the sanctification of homosexuality. Just check out his new book.
So Barak Obama finds John Edwards cute because . . .
Thanks. I've never seen the show but have heard mixed reviews of it.
Don't know. Don't care. Don't care to know. Makes no difference in the end.
Can you prove without any doubt it is behaviour?
Even if you could... what difference would it make?
Don't know, don't care............
I would agree that you don't know and don't care and have not spend any intelligent energy on doing so.
Gay adoption is problematic period... Recent study from the netherlands basically proved this one, confirmed what all thinking and honest people know.
In the netherlands there is no social stigma to being homosexual, or to children raised by them, yet children raised by such couples were found to be at much higher risk for all sorts of problems.
Even if they could (they can't) but even if they could prove a 100% genetic link to homosexuality, homosexual adoption is dangerous and hazardous to children.
Thank you, but I don't engage in arguments involving a false premise.
If X (where X is true), then Y. Such a thing can be debated.
If not X (where X is true), then Y. Such a thing cannot be debated.
This is indeed a complicated and involved issue. Still, the head of the Human Genome Project apparently disagrees with you and has stated homosexuality is not hardwired. Even scientists who are homosexual disagree with you. The major factor, according to credible scientists, is the environment in which children are raised, and that aligns with the growing number of ex-gays.
I don't even know what that means.
You better go to the dictionary and look up the word "heritable". It means "inherited" which means "born with" - not "acquired". Some people are born funny, some people are born smart, some people are born mean and some people are born queer and this scientist says that "evidence from twin studies does in fact support" that. Granted - he feels that the "predisposition" is what is inherited - but that is exactly what makes people queer - the "predisposition" to be queer. You can change the meaning of his words to mean "hostile to the born gay argument" - but that is not what the man said:
"An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality.
By the way - many of these twin studies were done on twins separated at birth - so the "environmental" argument does not hold water.
Note to self:
1.check trap door
Then by all means support your statement.
I'm quite familiar with the subject. I suggest you read my profile to find numerous articles on the subject as it appears you are confused. One article in my profile will help: The Gay Gene? Pay particular attention to the summary.
In other words, look at the monster who killed that little girl in Florida. He was, no doubt, "born that way".
What difference does that make to what we do with him?.
Alcoholism runs in families. There may be a genetic component.
That does not mean we should allow DUI.
If your view of homosexual behavior is biblical, why does the origin of the behavior matter?
I think you missed the point. Receiving a squirt of testosterone in your brain during gestation is what tells you you are a male, not a gene. If you do not get this squirt of testosterone in your brain during gestation, you brain develops into a female brain.
Now, while this might clearly explain why some children want to have sex change operations, because they do not think they are of the correct gender, by itself it does not explain why individuals with incorrect brain gender assignment would be homosexuals.
Except in the case of animals that are mammals, they are. All of them. All of the time. Animals act based on their brain gender assignment. What their genitals are means nothing compared to what their brains are.
So why should humans be different? To say so, you have to extrapolate an even stranger psychology, what amounts to "male lesbians"; which would be a gender male, but with a female brain, which is itself homosexual, which is why he is attracted to females. This is crapola.
But back to genes. While a gene does not by itself determines sexual brain assignment, it *can*, most definitely, be the switch as to whether that squirt of testosterone is *correctly* given to males, and not to females.
And the resulting squirt of testosterone is all important.
Thanks for posting this scripter.
It means that people are not born wanting to sex and spend the rest of their life with someone who is the same sex as they are. They are fooled into it by someone who molests them and is doing the Devils work. I assumed you were talking about effeminate personalities in boys and men when you made your comment that I responded to. You can't just get away with saying "that's just the way it is" and not back up the lame point you were trying to make.
I honestly never understood the fixation on this issue. It's sometimes phrased as 'nature or nurture' in regards to the trait.
Some folks have a lot emotionally invested in the 'nature,' but that always seemed strange and misplaced to me. That something is 'natural' isn't really all that important, nor does it validate anything.
I once had this discussion with a very passionate liberal female lawyer I used to work with. After she went on about the importance of the natural aspect. When she was done, I raised the issue of men, women, and sexual instinct. Specifically, it's perfectly 'natural' for a male to see a female, get an instinctive sexual reaction, chase her down, tackler her to the ground, and force sex upon her.
That's how it works in much of the animal kingdom. That's how primitive humans probably did it. It's perfectly 'natural' but that's not to say it's desirable or good conduct, particularly in a civilized society. She raised the objection that my example didn't factor in the female's consent.
Of course, I reminded her that there's nothing particularly natural about consent, either. While sometimes in nature the female does exhibit a willingness to mate, that's certainly not the exclusive mandate at all. She got very upset at all of this talk, but I reminded her that it was she who raised the importance and significance of 'nature' in these discussions. My personal position is that 'nature' in itself doesn't validate anything, necessarily. She got more upset and left.
Not too bright, that one. Strong self esteem, though.
It seems as if you didn't really read my last post to you. I think it's worth my time to point out the facts to help the current and next generation. Nobody is born gay.
I used to think it wasn't as complicated as it is, but
same-sex attraction is really quite complicated. No one gene is going to cause same-sex attraction. The experts have been saying for years that environment is the major factor. Other minor factors or traits might be considered gifts, if I may.
Well said. Brief and yet speaks volumes of Truth.
You are quite welcome. Thanks for bumping it as more and more folks need to read what Dr. Collins has said.
Apparently it's a never ending job as some people refuse to recognize what science actually says on the matter.
I believe it's the radicals pushing the homosexual agenda that have given the nature part of homosexuality so much time in the spotlight. When you include this misinformation with GLSEN you get children experimenting with homosexual behavior. That's a really bad idea and needs to be exposed for what it is.
I don't need to prove a negative. You're the one who made the absurd claim.
Number one cause behind homosexual child abuse/rape from older peers/adults.
Perhaps you forgot the absurd claim you made in post 16. Here it is:
Some people are born gay. We've all met them. That's just the way it is.This is the second time I've asked you to support your statement. So go ahead and reference a credible scientist that supports your statement.
The problem is you can't. You know it and I know it, and now everybody knows it.
So what are you going to do next? Run away or post some obfuscation? Those are your only options because there's absolutely no evidence to support your claim.
That's only true for those interested in honest discussion. When someone like Psycho_Bunny makes pro-gay statements they don't expect to be asked to support their statements.
What I really love about FreeRepublic is they take a no-nonsense approach to conservative issues. It must really suck to be Psycho_Bunny and have their pro-gay arguments trashed over and over, all the while looking foolish posting lol as their only response.
The head of the Human Genome Project says "Homosexuality is not hardwired." In further reading the article one would quickly realize environment is key.
It will be interesting to hear what the radicals pushing the homosexual agenda have to say in regards to Dr. Collins' statements.
I agree with you. Attraction is chemical and theirs lots of science on that.
Indeed. I finally found what I was looking for: Queer By Choice. Some admit to choosing the gay lifestyle...
Dude...my point is this... I'd rather whom ever is studying this gay stuff spend my tax dollars on something like heart disease...diabetes or something that actually matters in the grand scheme of things. My "position" based on what I've read is that these scientists don't know enough about this stuff to form any concrete conclusions....and if they did know.... who the hell cares. If you are young kid and dumb / gullible enough to be "talked into" liking other dudes... you've apparently got some wiring messed up somewhere in the old noggin. Having said that the older person should be arrested for some sort of sexual crime.
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.