Posted on 01/30/2005 4:43:13 PM PST by paudio
The genes a man gets from his mother and father may play an important role in determining whether he is gay or not, according to a new study likely to reignite the “gay gene” debate.
Researchers say it’s the first time the entire human genetic makeup (search) has been scanned in search of possible genetic determinants of male sexual orientation. The results suggest that several genetic regions may influence homosexuality.
“It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located,” says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Those previous studies looked only at the genes located on the X chromosome (search). Genes on this chromosome are only passed to a son from his mother. But this study examined genetic information on all chromosomes, including genes from the father.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What a bunch of BS. If it is a genetic disorder that leads to NON-PROCREATION then our liberal friends, who like to hijack science in order to justify all their nutty ideas, should know that this genetic disorder will disappear because of natural selection.
In fact, they've every incentive to create a strictly bio link given the politics involved. (Also, the public never sees studies about the family histories of gay people ... especially focusing on relationships w/ the father; I wonder why that is ...)
No, it won't.
Just heard Neal Boortz for a little bit today and I know why I don't listen to him on a regular basis. He had a person named Paul briefly make a few comments about this study before he cut Paul off and launched into this whiny tirade (supposedly speaking for "Paul" now), about "Don't read anything that doesn't allow me to hate! Them gays chose to be that way...," blah, blah, blah, with a southern accent and all.
He apparently read off that so-called "study" and I guess he buys it, lock, stock and barrel. There are times when Neal sounds like a libertarian but on this issue, he sounds like a straight-up LIBERAL (libertine!)! You know, anyone who doesn't tow the homo-promo line is full of hate and you must be an unenlightened country bumpkin to believe homosexuals choose their sexual "orientation".
The only valid test for this would be separated at birth twins living in separate environments.
And Lesbians?? Where are they in this report?
Or was the data there even less conclusive?
This study is pure "big lie" theory in action. As Hitler pushed (see "the pink swastika" book) repeat a big lie often and loud and you will get some to believe it. (see also the french book which says the jooze and americans did 9/11 to themselves intentionally)
They don't need the detail, the homos just need the article to appear so they can "bootstrap" it by reference. Now the homo-advocates will be able to say the recent study published in 2005 says....
Truth is irrelevent to them. This is just a tool to be used.
There is a twin study of some sort, which like all the studies, is interpreted according to desired results. "Science" is often just another politcal tool that can be manipulated.
On just the logic side of things, it seems to me that unless you get 100% results, then what you have really proven is that it is not entirely genetic, if genetic at all. I have read that scientists say some people are more prone to, say, alcoholism than others. But that doesn't mean they are destined to be alcoholics, or that the behavior is no longer a moral issue. Same goes for most behavioral issues. And of those behaviors scientists say are partially predetermined, we still weigh the actions on a moral scale. What about violence, anger, greed, sexual obsession, dishonesty (you'd get 100% results on that behavior, so is it moral since we all seem predetermined to do it?), etc.?
Unfortuantely this gets us back into the eugenics debates, which is increasingly what genetics and abortion are combining to mean. You're seeing more and more abortions because of genetic defects, and this is being hailed by Planned Parenthood, one of the prime movers in the eugenics movement in the first half of the 20th century. And all too many intellectuals are afraid to stand up and condemn this horror for fear of being percieved as "anti-abortion."
Now we have a possible genetic predisposition towards being homosexual. Will those babies be aborted to prevent making them go through that "pain?" The slippery slope that the pro-abortion crowd did so much to foster is about to drop them over a precipice of their own making.
There are corrallaries to this that are truly frightening. Allowing abortions to avoid unwanted genetic traits that are horrific (spinabifade, for example - an argument I disagree with but can admit that I am not wise enough to make that call for someone else) has been widely cited as the "moral and compassionate thing to do." Now that has progressed in much of the world to abortions to select out "wrong sex" children (usually women - take that NOW) and even things like "wrong hair color" are being considered.
This is all only one step away from requiring abortions to avoid the 'costs to society' of certain defects, such as diabetes, obesity, bad eyesight, etc. The other part of this that is already drifting around the edges is that folks with these "defects" will not be insured. I have had to fight my insurance company every time I've needed a corneal transplant (3, so far) because they don't treat "bad eyesight," refusing to cover things like glasses or contacts. Why is that OK? Isn't that discrimination under the ADA?
Back on topic, eugenics is one of the greatest evils ever contemplated by the mind of modern, scientific man. It is no coincidence that Hitler greatly revered the founder of Planned Parenthood, who argued strongly for using abortions to eliminate the "undesireables," such as "mental defectives, coloreds, etc." Wasn't Margaret Sanger a treasure? (note for DUmmies, that's sarcasm)
Gays may win their argument for "rights" by using this "news" to say that homosexuality is not behavior but is a real physical classification for humans. Unfortunately that may lead to that class of human beings becoming viewed as defectives that must be selected out and prevented from being born.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see GLAD and NARAL throwing fire bombs at each other over this?
[Dean] Hamer is also senior author of the current study
Lets see if it's replicable first. Hamer has a poor track record concerning this tiny, tiny little significant point. Do you think the media will research Hamer's other failures before they hype this once in a row research from a self serving homosexual "researcher"?
Indeed! But you know that the MSM will ignore his past failures.
Ping
Suggest? Several? May?
Doesn't exactly sound conclusive to me.
Isn't Hamer a homosexual?
That's what tribalism will get you. Disorganization and an ass whuppin'
Yeah, true, but the Scots have in turn had the pleasure of administering plenty of a$$ whoopings round the world as well.
The name 'Highlander' does still carry a certain rep.
And I'm not talking about the movie, either, lol!
Except maybe Michael Jackson....who was a black man who turned into a white woman.
If our actions are bound only by the wants of the flesh then society will not hold. Biology is not a moral code.
Note the word "suggest".
Riiiight. So now some people are genetically programed to sodomize each other? Yeah, that sounds right...
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.