Posted on 05/26/2006 12:40:46 PM PDT by DBeers
Take your pick.
Researchers and people like you need to make up their minds so these people can get the psychiatric and medical treatment they need.
I see it as a social psychosis generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture that caters to the lowest common denominator.
It is filthy, disease generating behavior, no matter how you see it and is not a part of human anatomical function.
There is no defending the junk science primarily referenced on topic -I assume you intelligient enough to realize as much... My butting in postings to you simply seek to butt you out sooner than later to perhaps prevent ego saving clutter from contaminating the discussion...
AGH! I thought the nightmares of the immigration scene from South Park were finally over!
Is that Beaker?!?
Exactly. Anyone who's ever seen the classic effeminate, lisping, mincing, man-obsessed neurotic homosexual knows that what they're actually seeing is the reflection of the guy's mother (assuming, of course, that child wasn't adopted in San Francisco, NY, Boston, etc. by two classic effeminate, lisping, mincing, man-obsessed neurotic homosexuals). If that mother's behavior could produce one gay son, it could just as easily produce two (or a Lesbian, for that matter).
As do learned behaviors
Genes that adversely affect reproduction are the most powerful force impacting programmed behavior. This is a universal fact, yet is ignored when expedience and politics offer to distort science for their own gain.
When scientists look for signs of life, such as on Mars, they look for life forms that reproduce. Since gay sex cannot possibly reproduce another life, it is clear that gay sex is contrary to nature.
It is also a worldwide health problem, since it is the root cause of AIDS. Homosexuals and lesbians are not engaged in a "life style", they are undermining human existence.
/end sarcasm
Twin studies have been done on this topic, as well as other familial studies. I can send a journal article from 2000 that analyzed an Australian twin sample. (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2000, Vol. 78, No. 3, 524-536) It's not for the entirely light of heart though, it's rather heavy duty epidemiology. It also contains many references to other studies, though I am limited to what I can access here. FReepmail me if you're interested.
This new study is different because they're specifically looking for genetic similarities. Asking for identical twins is rather invaluable because, well, they already know their DNA is identical, thus they're not interested in analyzing their DNA.
which exposes the fraud of the study.
If identical twins have the alleged gene but exhibit different behavior then they have a conclusion problem
This blatent flaw is just a way for these hacks to push their political agenda by requiring "further study". This reminds me of my university days of dealing with Phds who would divide their studies into three in order to have three "publish or perish" papers.
When done properly again and again the homosexual behavior gene is exposed as a myth of sxual behavior politics.
I think the years of believing a pure genetic component to homosexuality have got to be long over at this point except for the most deluded activists. Even the original concordance studies (circa 1990) showed an identical twin concordance proportion of about 50% - far below the 100% needed for a simple, immutable genetic link.
That being said, there is almost a universe of knowledge to be learned from the human genome about heritable characteristics, so I don't think this is such a waste of time. Given, it probably is from a political point of view though - if there is a genetic component X which increases prevalence of homosexual behavior by a factor of Y, will that really change anything? There will be those that say "It's still a choice, end of story!" and those who say "We can't help it," both of them being somewhat right and somewhat wrong. But the knowledge is good, at least in my eyes.
The problem is that this study seems to be pre-determined; that is, they're starting the study with the intent of finding something purely biological as the cause of homosexuality. But the American Psychological Association has stated that many scientists view sexual orientation as due to a complex interaction of biological, psychological and social factors going back to early childhood. Why, then, are there no studies focusing on how environment can shape people sexually? Because gay activists have acknowledged that if people see sexuality as purely biological, they're more likely to be sympathetic and to see homosexuality as a civil rights issue.
In recent years, virtually all the studies on homosexuality have attempted to find a biological antecendent. These studies tend to be flawed in their methodology and usually fail replication.
Clearly, people don't choose how they feel, but that doesn't mean that those feelings are purely innate.
For over seventy years, the mental health establishment believed that there was a strong psychological component to homosexuality. I agree. It amazes me that all this data is ignored now.
what you are citing is the "fall back" position of the homoactivists.
NOOOOOW they say it is only partially responsible.
again UTTER HOG WASH in order to excuse their sexual fetish.
There is no wife swaping gene.
There is no pedophile gene.
There is no leather fetish gene.
There is no bondage gene.
Sorry but there is NOTHING to be gained by taxpayers paying for a bunch of homsoexuals to pretend to do science on the taxpayer's dime.
If homoadvocates were serious, they would be funding treatments because the genetic component means you can now abort"homosexual tendency" fetuses.
You could even have a deviant sex behavior vaccine.
But homosexual advocates are not set for those.
So please save the "genetic component" for the homosexual talking point parades.
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.