Wasn't there a movie about that.
Posted on 02/05/2010 5:28:20 AM PST by Loyalist
It's a question which has troubled science since Darwin: if homosexuality is, at least in part, inherited, how are those genes being passed down to new generations?
Canadian researchers say they have found the first evidence to back up the theory that gay men have the evolutionary advantage of being "super uncles", a way of enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives and -- indirectly, at least -- making it more likely their genes are passed on.
Paul Vasey, associate professor in the University of Lethbridge's department of psychology, said his research found evidence that gay men may be more willing to support their nieces and nephews financially and emotionally.
The idea is that homosexuals are helping their close relatives reproduce more successfully and at a higher rate by being helpful: babysitting more, tutoring their nieces and nephews in art and music, and helping out financially with things like medical care and education.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
This isn’t the first time they’ve come out with this crap.
That is one of the most fascinating and well-written articles I have read in a long time.
Thanks for posting the link.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.pdf
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm
Those researchers who know most about genes and SSA say “Your genes did not make you do it”.
Let’s review the evidence bearing in mind that many of the following arguments apply to all human
behaviours.
Genetics:
Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically
dictated behaviors of the “one-gene-one-trait” variety have been found only in very simple
organisms. (Ch 1)
From an understanding of gene structure and function
there are no plausible means by which
genes could inescapably force SSA or other behaviors on a person (Ch 1)
No genetically determined human behavior has yet been found. The most closely geneticallyrelated
behavior yet discovered (mono-amine oxidase deficiency leading to aggression) has
shown itself remarkably responsive
to counselling. (Ch 1)
If (exclusive) SSA were genetically inherited, it would have bred itself out of the population in
only several generations, and wouldn’t be around today. (ie. gays with no children would not be
able to reproduce their genes.) (Ch 1)
Generally, geneticists settle for some genetic influence
of rather undefined degree, most
agreeing that many genes (from at least five or six to many hundreds) contribute to any
particular human behavior. (Ch 1)
This means:
If SSA were caused by many genes it could not suddenly appear and disappear
in families the way it does. It would stay around for many (eg. at least 30)
generations because it would take that long for that many genes to be bred out.
Therefore SSA cannot be caused by many genes. (Ch 1)
The occurrence of SSA (2.6%) in the population is too frequent to be caused by a chance
mutation in a single gene. Therefore SSA cannot be caused by a single gene. (Ch 1)
Researchers trying to find “homosexual” sequences of genes on the recently mapped
human genome have not found any such sequences although they have found them for
schizophrenia, alcoholism etc. (Ch 9)
The occurrence of SSA is about five time too high to be caused by a faulty (non-genetic)
pre-natal developmental process, so it is not innate in that sense either. (Ch 1)
First same-sex attraction occurs over a very long time span, unlike pre-programmed genetic
events eg puberty, menopause. This argues that first same-sex attraction is not a genetically
programmed event. (Ch 1)
The human race shares most of its genes - something between 99.7 percent and 99.9 percent.
That means all ethnic groups will have most of them. This has the following three implications.
If homosexuality is genetically dictated, homosexual practices will be identical or
extremely similar in all cultures. But there is an enormous range and diversity of
homosexual practice and customs among different cultures (and within cultures)
(Ch 6)
There would be a similar incidence of homosexuality in all cultures. But
homosexuality has been unknown in some cultures and mandatory in others.
(Ch 6)
Changes in homosexual practice and behavior in different cultures would take
place very slowly, over many centuries. But this is not what history shows. The
decline of whole models of homosexuality (the Greek, over a couple of centuries,
and the Melanesian, within a century); the relatively sudden [in genetic terms]
emergence of the present Western model over a couple of centuries; and abrupt
changes of practice within an ethnic group, even over a single generation, are not
consistent with anything genetic. Even less so the swiftly changing sexual practices
within the current Western model. (Ch 6)
The drop in SSA attraction and practice over the lifespan is too great to attribute to genetic
change – or for that matter, deaths from AIDS. It could indicate some change in sexual
orientation. (Ch 2)
Recent increases in the percentage of those experimenting with same-sex behaviour suggest
social influence rather than genetic change. (Ch 2)
Dean Hamer, one of the strongest advocates of a genetically-based homosexuality, has
remarked that he doesn’t think a gene exists for sexual orientation. (Ch 9)
Twin studies: These very complex comparisons of identical twins and non-identical twins
definitively rule out genetic determinism. If homosexuality were genetic, identical co-twins of
homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time, but they aren’t.
The genetic influence is indirect, certainly lower than 30% for men and 50% for women
and may be as low as 10%. This is illustrated further by the fact that identical twins with
identical genes are at most 11 and 14% concordant for SSA (ie. if one twin is SSA the cotwin
will be gay only 11 % of the time (males), 14% (females.) (Other studies have even lower
concordances).
And remember this: everyone has at least a 10% genetic influence in his or
her behaviour - simply because without genes there can be no bodily activity of any kind, or
human behaviour. (Ch 10)
•
•
Social, sociological
Much sexology literature shows huge amounts of change from a homosexual orientation
toward a heterosexual orientation
and vice versa. This could not happen at all if homosexuality
were genetically dictated – it would be fixed and unalterable. Contrary to popular impressions
SSA is much less stable than OSA and changes more frequently. (Ch 12)
About 90 percent of Western “intersex” children (those born with ambiguous genitalia) choose
to remain in their gender of upbringing when puberty reveals their true genetic gender and
surgical interventions are offered. Often, this choice is made in the face of very contrary
physical and hormonal characteristics. It argues that environmental influences predominate in
the formation of gender orientation and behavior. This percentage has remained approximately
constant over the last 40 years. (Ch 5)
The stages of psycho-social development toward adult heterosexuality are clearly defined and
understood by developmental psychologists, and so obviously learned that heterosexuality is
clearly not genetically mandated. Surveys of adult homosexuals show conspicuous deficits
in several of these developmental stages - strongly suggesting homosexuality is cultural and
environmental rather than genetic. (Ch 3)
There is a much higher incidence of homosexuality among those who have been raised in
large cities, rather than in rural areas, arguing that the environment is much more powerful
than genes in the development of homosexuality. (Ch 2)
A scientific/sociological tool, Path Analysis, has been argued to show that there is no social
or familial basis to homosexuality, but rather a biological one. However, the researchers did
discover social and family paths leading to homosexuality, but chose, for some reason, to say
they were not significant, even though, in terms of the methodology, they were. (Ch 11 )
Hormones and brain structure
There have been many studies, none of which has shown any convincing relationship between
homosexuality and exposure to pre-natal hormones in dictating adult behaviour. Studies
examining effects of very high doses of female hormones to pregnant mothers show no effect
on males and a dubious effect on women. Therapy changing levels of adult male and female
sex hormones has been shown to affect sex drive but never orientation. (Ch 7)
The idea that homosexuality results from immune attack on male brain characteristics by
the mother during pregnancy is poorly supported. If so male testes and genitalia would be
attacked, because they also contain predominant clusters of male proteins. But they are not.
(Ch 7)
Lesbian finger length ratio studies are said to show an effect of prenatal hormones. However
any effect on sexual orientation is weak. (Ch 7)
Scientists have barely been able to distinguish between male and female adult brain
microstructure let alone male homosexual and female brains. Attempts to prove such a
similarity have been unconvincing, because they may arise from brain changes caused by
behaviour rather than being innate. Male and female brains appear identical at birth, and
from about age two or three the only main consistently replicable difference, is their size:
male brains are larger. Most of the development of the human brain takes place after birth
in response to stimuli, learning, and experience. The brain changes so much in response to
learning and repeated human behaviours that this could probably account for any differences
between homosexual and heterosexual brains which might be ultimately discovered. (Ch 8)
Our instincts, such as self-preservation, hunger, and reproduction, are among the most deeply
embedded and strongest impulses we have, but these are able to be controlled. If we want to argue homosexuality is also a deeply ingrained instinct, we must also
argue it should be malleable and responsive to training. (Ch 4)
Genetic content of homosexuality is minimal
Geneticists, anthropologists, developmental psychologists, sociologists, endocrinologists, neuroanatomists,
medical researchers into gender, and twin study researchers are in broad agreement about the role of
genetics in homosexuality. Genes don’t make you do it. There is no genetic determinism, and genetic
influence at most is minor.
Sociobiologists, almost the only group of academics who argue seriously that all human behavior is
preordained by genes, have great difficulty accounting for the persistence of SSA in the population.
They try to argue that genes causing male SSA would also exist in the sisters of gays, and that the homosexual
male would help ensure those genes were passed on by helping his sister and her family - for example, babysitting,
and later helping with money and resources. But these arguments are unusually weak. Those with
SSA have much weaker ties with their biological families than average.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Ch1.pdf
There’s also the phenomenon of maternal versus paternal uncles in a patriarchal society, e.g., medieval Europe (I assume to some degree true in ancient Rome): a woman brought to the marriage rights to her dowry—her husband administered it but it was hers and it was there to provide for and guarantee the future of her children if she died. Because the paternal uncles (brothers of her husband) could be tempted to try to weasel her out of her property so it could be absorbed into their family’s (hopefullly growing) assets, the maternal uncles had a moral/family obligation to look out for the interests of sister and her children (their nephews and nieces).
This is the origin of the word avuncular in English: avunculus was the Latin term for maternal uncle. A different word was used for paternal uncle—as a way of saying, “hey, the mother’s brothers are going to be avuncular, favorable, protective of their sister’s children, whereas one has to be on guard against her husband’s brothers—not that all of them always were predators but one had to at least be aware of a potential threat.”
And for those who are a bit clueless here's a useful lesson we need to start showing in our schools again:
So THAT’S where all those “rich uncles” come from who die and leave their fortune to the nieces and nephews!
I never had a rich uncle.
It’s like making special allowances for alcoholics and drug addicts so that they can continue destroying themselves with their chemical dependency.
***************
Exactly; I couldn’t agree more.
What a difference 50 years makes.Now they tell gay fairy tales in kindergarten;and if you object you get arrested!
David Parker — his arrest, court appearances, abuse by school officials, harrassment by pro-gay activists in town, and federal civil rights lawsuit!
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/
Horror stories in the schools:
VIDEOS of elementary schools normalizing homosexual lifestyle to young children!
The “Little Black Book” - Hard-core pornographic homosexual “how-to” booklet given to kids at high school!
“King and King” - story book of homosexual romance read to second graders.
Elementary school teaching cross-dressing and transgenderism in 3rd grade.
http://massresistance.org/docs/info/kbase/horror_stories.html
Glad to. Thank you.
For such a PC article, it certainly cites as fact homosexual male stereotypes.
Fiddle about...fiddle about...
Some may think
The name is heinous
Butt his friends just call
Him Uncle Anus!
Exactly.
Unlike this alleged “third gender” in Samoa, the West in general has had placed a very strict social negative on homosexuality since, well, probably the fall of Rome. Until very recently, we didn’t have homosexuals cruising bars or even hooking up in monogamous relationships, after which they could come home and be really groovy uncles.
If you had homosexual tendencies, your opportunities for gratification would have been severely limited. You’d be hard pressed to find a peer in your same boat, and dollars to doughnuts you would begin to act out on young people closest to you because a) the association wouldn’t be questioned, b) the opportunities would be numerous, and c) the age imbalance would put you in a position of power.
I think the “funny uncle” you and others have mentioned here is much more a historical/sociological reality in the West than any alleged “super uncle” fa’afafine.
Wasn't there a movie about that.
if your mother’s brother is homosexual you have a 12.5% chance of being homosexual.
If your fathers brother is homosexual the odds drop to 2.7%
Clear at least particially genetic on the mother’s side.
The best theory is the female sexaul attraction gene gets embedded in the male.
Source?
The explanation is simple. (1) There are no homo genes. (2) Darwinism is not true.
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.