:-P
Posted on 11/03/2005 11:52:10 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
Scientists say they have shown how male homosexuality could be passed from generation to generation. Nature encourages mothers to pass on a "gay trait" to their male offspring by boosting their fertility, the Italian University of Padova team believes.
This would keep the pattern of gay inheritance alive, they told the Royal Society's Biological Sciences journal.
Critics of the theory argue a gay gene would eventually be wiped out because gay couples do not procreate.
Inheritance theory
There is controversy about whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice, the authors of the study admitted to the journal.
Campaigners say equality for homosexual people is the more important issue.
Back in 1993, US researchers suggested male homosexuality was passed from mother to son after they found strong patterns of inheritance in family trees.
There might be...reproductive advantages associated with male homosexuality. The study authors
It has also been noted that homosexual males are more often the younger siblings of a number of older brothers. Scientists have said it might be that the mother develops some kind of resistance to the male Y chromosome in her offspring that makes subsequent baby boys more likely to be born gay.
Scientists doing DNA studies on homosexual brothers pinpointed 'culprit' genetic material to a region of the X chromosome that mothers pass on to their offspring.
But other researchers in the US have not been able to replicate these findings.
Highly fertile
Andrea Camperio-Ciani and colleagues argue genetic factors favouring homosexual male offspring could make women more fertile.
"Our data resolve this paradox by showing that there might be, hitherto unsuspected, reproductive advantages associated with male homosexuality," they said.
They looked at 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Must be Darwinian scientists. They always find the answers. Sometimes they even pull them out of their....
:-P
LOL!
THIS is a crock of BS.
But then nature, after the incredible 'genious' of above, has a monster size brain fart, in forgetting that two males can't reproduce. :)
BIRTH DEFECT?
Great, another government disability classification to rip tax payers off for a check every month...
I'm sure if they look hard enough they'll find a gene for armed robbery, ice hockey and ballet dancing.
Don't they actually have to have some evidence before they call something a theory.
It's like the development of a picture. A lot of things can louse it up after it was taken but before it ever becomes visible to the eye.
But when you were 12 were you sexually molested by a homosexual then manipulated that since it felt good you must be a homosexual? Labeling children who have any curiousity that they must be gay is a powerful mind tool. Sexuality is much more complex and is more mental than genetic. The pleasure derived from sex is a very powerful positive reinforcement tool that can change what you find sexually attractive.
I did read that, statistically, a male has a greater chance of having homosexual offspring the older he is when the child is born. There was no genetic reason given, it's just a statistical anomoly.
Another would be the fact that, for the most part, males are born in the AM, and females in PM (obviously c-sections and artificially inducing labor are not part of that).
Now if I could make money with crap like this floating around in my head, I'd be much better off.
Let's carry that a bit further. Is "age 10" the time when similar paraphilic disorders develop too? "Sexual preference" for animals, children or relatives? Your logic doesn't hold.
and
In 2002, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced a report into the possible link between genes and behaviour, which included sexual orientation.
It concluded: "There are numerous problems with genetic and other biological research into sexual orientation which mean that any reported findings must be viewed with caution."
In effect they're saying it ain't biological. But homosexuals will keep on insisting it is, while GLSEN continues recruiting schoolchildren.
Most boys between the ages of 10 and 14 go through a period when they have a "crush" on an older boy. It's normal. It's transitory, and it is not 'different' and obviously they are not gay.
Pure nonsense.
Gays will become prolife as soon as a genetic link is found.
It cuts down on overpopulation in an environment where resources are scarce. Obviously, homosexuals reproduce at a lower rate than heterosexuals, but the relevant selective pressure is on the population that contains the gene, not the individuals in whom the gene is expressed.
By way of an analogy, it would seem, on the most basic level, absurd that female humans live so long after menopause. Longer than males, who (absent some malady) remain fertile for life. But humans are social animals, and a population that includes grandmothers and great-grandmothers is at a competitive advantage compared to one that does not. Having a second tier of people who can care for children allows the fertile females to have more of them.
I'm not saying that this study is or isn't valid; I haven't read it, and might not be able to process it if I did. But the arguments aren't all that simple.
If you torture the data long enough, it is bound to confess. (The migration in psychiatric thinking from homosexuality as a mental disorder to the opposition to homosexuality becoming a mental disorder says all that needs saying about the impartiality of "science," although I admit that some disciplines have more scientific integrity than others.)
Yes, Rush Limbaugh has been saying this for years.
In my view looking for a cure for AIDS is a waste of money and time. People who get it do so voluntarily and it may be useful in tempering promiscuous behavior in humans.
In that vein, where are all the "lung cancer quilts" and "cancer awareness walks" to promote "safe smoking".
To borrow Brit lingo, both smokers and homosexuals like to suck on fags.
Cheers!
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.