Posted on 10/17/2015 2:48:31 PM PDT by xzins
This is going to make the LGBT crowd very unhappy (even though they knew this was the case from the start)…
From Daily Wire:
An unpublished UCLA study challenging the societal “born this way” dogma of homosexuality has already been gaining traction in the public media since its presentation at an annual scientific conference last week.
The twin study conducted at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, finds that homosexuality may be triggered by environmental factors after birth. The research uses an algorithm covering epigenetic markers from several genomic sites of 37 sets of identical male twins to predict homosexuality in males, with 70 percent accuracy, as presented at the American Society of Human Genetics 2015 Annual Meeting in Baltimore.
“The finding is highly controversial because it suggests that some men are not born gay, but are turned homosexual by their surroundings,” Sarah Knapton of Telegraph suggested.
Wait a tick…
Does that mean that kids raised by gay parents or who have been unfortunately abused are more prone to becoming gay?
You don’t say?
I feel like conservatives have been saying this for years!
Does this prove beyond all reasonable doubt that gay people choose to be gay?
Yeah, it really does. And more likely than not, there will never be evidence of a gay gene (unless studies are highly falsified like they are with climate change analysis).
As we’ve known since the beginning of time, a baby boy or girl does not develop in the womb with a gene that tells them to be attracted to the opposite sex.
Why liberals still push the lie that people are “born this way” makes little sense, but because so many Americans are uninformed on the issues, they go along with whatever Hollywood celebrities and the mainstream media tell them to.
Sad.
Don’t even get me started on “transgender” BS.
Everything in life is a choice, people.
I wonder if it is rather then a choice, it is a reaction or a response to environmental factors, et al. Which makes it appear to some that it has to be a biological factor while others see it someone making a choice. Reactions/Responses are most often learned and are not always choice, they are responses which are reinforced by environmental factors. Unless someone is thinking rationally, which young people supposedly don’t start to think rationally until they are older then they tend to react or respond instead of thinking rationally and making a choice. Honestly I don’t know... its beyond me.
Easiest way to disprove the’gay gene’ theory:
Identical twins.
If one is gay and the other not, it is therefore not genetic, but a lifestyle choice.
Hey Max! You looking mighty cure in ‘dem jeans....Why don’ you come over here ann’...”
Eddie Murphy - Raw
Ryan Sorba has been investigating this stuff for years. He has videos of people in gay bars admitting to being raped as a child (almost everyone he talked to).
http://barbwire.com/2015/04/28/undercover-investigation-gays-admit-they-werent-born-that-way/
http://ryansorba.blogspot.com/2012/01/homosexuality-and-mental-health.html
And here’s his blog:
http://ryansorba.blogspot.com/
Do people choose their epigenetic markers?
Do you really think so?
This does not change the moral point: that no matter what their "epigenetic markers" might be, people must choose to control their own behavior, and, as much as possible, the emotions and drives that incline one to that behavior.
There may very well be epigenetic markers for --- for instance --- irascibility. That doesn't mean a congenitally irascible person is justified in losing their temper and acting out in extreme anger.
I'm pretty confident that people who suffered prenatally from excessive alcohol exposure --- called Fetal Alcohol Syndrome --- have epigenetic markers for alcohol toxicity. This does not eliminate, but rather underlines, their duty to control their behavior.
I do agree with other posters that some inherited traits can make a female appear more "mannish" or a male appear more feminine, but genes are only the potential of an individual. The environment to which the person with those genes is exposed plays a major role in determining the eventual outcome.
Then there’s the fact that the same people that believe that evolutionary science is settled, somehow want to ALSO believe that a gay gene could survive and propagate throughout the species with no means of reproduction.
Now one could say that it could exist but it is so hard to find. If that is the case, evolution tells us that being so ‘hard to find’ means nature has in fact selected it for extinction because it is unfit.
There is nothing but apology, agenda, bad science and propaganda behind the gay gene/born that way issue. It’s behavorial at it’s core. People acting on self harming behaviors are mentally ill.
Never figured out why my two nephews turned out homo. Yes my sister is a raving moonbat and BIL was a lush that hung out in bars late after work, but the kids were not abused AFAIK.
Any number of possibilities.
Look at the whole Emo thing that started back in the 80s. By 2000 it was common for kids in that subculture to be bisexual just to be ‘cool’.
Lets take rosie. She is very masculine looking but her cohorts are not.
I think it’s a mental health issue, period.
Yes, same as it can between heterosexuals. Viruses don’t care who you are having sex with.
I’m not justifying anything. This is what I have seen and learned from growing up.
Not necessarily. Some traits result from a combination of environmental and genetic factors. For example, someone might have a gene predisposing him to heart disease. But if he exercises and maintains a healthy weight, his heart might remain healthy throughout his life.
I am intrigued by the potential role of epigenetics in homosexuality. Epigenetics are modifications to the DNA which do not change genes, but do change gene expression (that is, how the body uses genes). If altered gene expression causes homosexuality, then controlling that gene expression and returning it to a normal state should cure the homosexuality.
Exactly. No one on earth has had the same experiences as me.
Could something have happened to me in my younger life that would have turned me gay? I seriously doubt it.
Could something have happened that would have turned my brother straight? I don’t think so.
What happened in your life that made you straight and not gay? At what point did you decide that you weren’t ever going to suck a penis?
It was never a decision for me.
Yes you are. Show me the incidence of a hetero couple getting aids that does not involve sex with an infected person at some point prior, a tainted blood transfusion or a dirty needle.
In the tens of thousands of years of Homo Saipen hetrosex, with uncounted trillions of oral/anal hetro sex acts, show me the number AIDS occurances/epidemic that swept the planet.
ZERO.
Dunno, never knew much about that stuff. Did not see much of sister’s kids after they were 5-6 years old. Took my wife to clue me in when they were in their twenties and she first met them.
Even if there is some sort of genetic pre-disposition towards homosexuality, that does not make it right, no more than a genetic predisposition to anger, sexual license, theft, alcoholism, or drug abuse makes those things right.
There is likely no indication of a gene causing any of a vast number of congenital problems.
“Birth defects may be the result of genetic or environmental factors. This includes errors of morphogenesis, infection, epigenetic modifications on a parental germline, or a chromosomal abnormality.
“Animal studies indicate that the mother’s (and likely the father’s) diet, vitamin intake, and glucose levels prior to ovulation and conception have long-term effects on fetal growth and adolescent and adult disease. Animal studies have shown that paternal exposures prior to conception and during pregnancy result in increased risk of certain birth defects and cancers. This research suggests that paternal food deprivation, germ line mutations, alcohol use, chemical mutagens, age, smoking habits and epigenetic alterations can affect birth outcomes.”
I am not a religious man.
> that does not involve sex with an infected person at some point prior, a tainted blood transfusion or a dirty needle.
show me an incidence of a homosexual couple getting AIDS that does not also include any of this.
The emos are basically the Beta/outcast types who were prime territory for recruitment. So they were recruited. You had bands like The Smiths and their gay frontman Morresy making it cool and one thing led to another.
Just a guess but having grown up in an alcoholic/broken family, ( I grew up in one myself) I could easily see your nephews being prime targets for such recruitment.
Which is of course, the only gays can ‘propagate.’
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.