[AntiGuv]

I'm posting this primarily to make two relevant observations (aside from the fact that it just hit at least Yahoo's frontpage news):

1) Without going into boring detail, Qazi Rahman has come under some question for misrepresenting other researchers work. While I do not mean to cast doubt on this study of its own accord and on its own merits, Rahman's characterization of the results is open to valid objection, IMHO. Rahman is clearly an adherent to the biased agenda of proving that sexual orientation is an inborn trait in both men & women.

2) It must be emphasized - as Rahman does not and as the 3 media reports I've seen on the matter do not - that the difference between straight men and gay men was not statistically significant. These results actually point toward one of the conclusions which are the subject of a much broader work that I've been engaged in for some while now (to be published some day or other):

That sexual orientation is largely predetermined amongst females but not so amongst males - or, more accurately, that biological factors exert a much stronger influence on the sexual preferences of women than of men (where the influence is marginal, at best). In short, that the mechanisms of sexual orientation are not directly comparable mirror processes between men and women (as most researchers have tended to assume - incorrectly, IMHO) or necessarily uniform within either.

[Support Free Republic]

Strong Conservative Forums Help Prevent Candidates Like This From Winning Elections
	Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Saundra Duffy]

Oh, I see - a generational curse.

[Temple Drake]

The testing was done on adults. Nature vs. nurture is not addressed. Basically he is saying what can be seen without any tests at all: "Look, queer men are girly! queer women are mannish!" What he has not shown is how they got that way .. and when.

[liberallarry]

Robert Kagan has been doing a lot of work on the biological basis of basic personality traits. While not directly bearing on the question of inborn sexual orientation it is interesting.

[Mark]

IF a gene can be discovered showing a future gay person, the liberals wouldn't complain if a couple chose aborting the "tissue" would they?

[Rodney King]

So, if they are born that way, does that make them genetic defects?

[CodeMonkey]

Have any of the people who think that it's not biological in many, if not most, cases ever stopped to ask why a man would prefer a man instead of a woman? I'm attracted to women and when I look at another man I feel nothing along the lines of what a heterosexual man feels when looking at an attractive woman. The only nature versus nurture here is involved in those too indoctrinated to see the simple, rational explanation for most cases of homosexuality.

[weegee]

People are born poor (an inherited condition that often is associated with the father). We do not ebrace "poor culture" and strive to see that the poor are proud of who they are and that they remain true to their poor roots.

We seek to bring them into the norm of society so that they can better themselves.

[dennisw]

Some gays are born that way and nothing is going to change them. Some gays could have gone either way but life experiences turned them gay.

SUMMARY: Some are gay by nature and turned gay by nurture. Some by a combination of the two. Duh.... That was hard to fugure out.

[xzins]

ping

[nightdriver]

Another study that completely ignores the effects of early-age imprinting.

[Salvation]

**Startling Study Says People May Be Born Gay**

Nonsense!

[muawiyah]

The "eye" does not respond directly to noise!

The ear, a highly complex mechanism, responds in different ways. The stapedius muscle working with the stapedium (a small bone in the inner ear), will show different sorts of response to loud noises that can be interpreted in different ways.

The eyelid muscles must be signaled by the brain to "blink" in the face of a loud noise perceived by the ears.

This is like determining if someone is a homosexual by checking the average angle of his or her wrist.

[xzins]

These results are not statistically significant. The article says so itself.

The article says there were ONLY 59 subjects in the entire study. Those subjects came under 4 groupings: Heterosexual male, heterosexual female, homosexual male, and homosexual female. I'm assuming that means there were ONLY 15 individuals in each group. (Woodster, I need your math here.)

First, unless we are dealing with a powerful trait, a small number of respondents is not good research design. Just on that basis, this study can be discarded.

Second, the fact that the numbers were not statistically significant is probably because they were all over the board for the homosexual males and females. With only 15 subjects per category and only 59 for the entire study, I'm guessing the range must have been from one end to the other for all categories to result in the cited averages for the homosexuals not being statistically significant. There was no grouping in any category against which a deviation could be compared.

Basically, this says as at point number 1: seriously flawed study to have so few subjects with a trait that is not strongly evidenced. If you're studying a "nuance," then you'd better have a huge group to make any kind of observations that are statistically valid.

59 divided into 4 groups.....sheeesh

[Quix]

The most that can be said from all the research put together is that

there is some indication that there is some predisposition.

Experts have calculated it at no more than 20%.

Having genetics and gestation biochemical predisposition factors toward alcoholism

will not make someone an alcoholic

who never drinks.

[Cubs Fan]

The only credible research I have ever seen on the subject said that in twin studies there is a 50% likelihood of having a gay sibling--therefore it is most likely that being gay is 50% hereditary and 50% environmental.

[Muleteam1]

One has to view studies of homosexuality based on genetics with skepticism. If human evolution is true, the researchers need to explain how a genetic trait which results in a behavior which does not produce progeny is carried forward in the genetic pool of a population? Also, an explanation should be given to explain the obvious ever-increasing rates of occurrence of this abnormal behavioral expression? Although I can imagine viable explanations for the second question, I cannot imagine how genes can be passed between generations when there are no generations.

Muleteam1

[Redcoat LI]

I'm confused,how do your eyes respond to noise?

[The_Reader_David]

The Fathers teach that Man is a unity, that the separation of body and soul at death is unnatural. Should it come as a surprise that the marring of God's image in us extends even to our genetics?

If, as is doubtless the case, there are genes which cause their bearers to suffer strong temptations to wrath, does this set aside Our Lord's dictum that he who is angry with his brother is liable to judgement as a murderer? If there are genetic predispositions to sloth (again very likely) does this make sloth a less deadly sin?

The difficulty with this research lies not with the possiblity that it is right, or that future researchers may find a bona fide "gay gene", but with the falacious assumption that that which is natural is good. In the beginning it was, Ancestral Sin has rendered that assumption false.

[smith288]

Junk study.

Environment and mortal sin is the cause.

My son is drawn to trucks and my daughter is drawn to strollers. Its been that was since the beginning of time.