Scientists Claim There Is No "Gay Gene"; Homosexuality Is Caused By Factors In Gestation

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 6:45 AM GMT
    The fascinating thing about science is that it gives solutions to questions. However, over time we get more solutions. It is not that the previous solution was wrong, it was that there is a better solution we don't yet know about. As far as ethics, this issue is a very fearful one of mine. Genetically engineered humans means we decide what traits are valuable on a large scale level. We chose traits individually when we mate for future generations. Theoretically we pass on behaviors through actions as well. Cool thought right? Tangent I know...

    Anyways back to genetic engineering... I think it is safe to say that everyone can agree that Alzheimer's is a terrible disease and that we should rid it from the human race. The ethical question is should we do it by our own means? In my opinion yes, but some might think to let evolution and life take its more natural course. I say, save peoples lives. Its still ethically confusing but a wiser choice than just writing off sexual orientation of a baby as wrong and therefor needing to be changed. That is where it could get scary

    Genetically all of our traits may be predestined in the code of our DNA. It's a little sad to think so cause it makes you feel less unique as a person or feel like you have less control over who you are.

    Instinctively because I am a part of my own body, I'm still going to bet that behavioral traits are still overall 50/50 nature vs nurture. You may exhibit the trait to more likely be a homosexual, but your environment moves you in the other direction. I feel like sexuality is more fluid than rigid and more a spectrum black and white. I feel like yes maybe it can be affected in stages within the womb. I also feel that it can occur during child development, sexual development, adolescent and adult stages as well as middle adult mature adult stages. My theory on the sexual stage, which Is when I noticed my traits, is that closeness to opposite sex development may result in homosexual tendencies. Okay because females tend to sexually mature faster. I sexually matured young so I believe maybe pheromones played a role. It could also have been behavioral mimicking. The opposite for lesbians. Late maturity may increase the tendency to behaviorally take on male roles and like women. My theory for lesbians is that chemically changes after being fertile as well and may then just want companionship with another woman. The body is weird, who knows

    The point is sexuality may very be genetic, environmental, psychological, chemical, physical, spiritual, etc. Whatever! I think it's a good thing. No where does it say in any text, through any reverse engineering language translating, through understanding of context or reference does it say homosexuality is wrong. I mean that is really the truth. For it to be so focused on in religion and government is truly out of fear. Fear is programmed in our minds. Our brains instantly pic up on differences and categorize similarities. Fear leads to hate. However to combat fear, we must always introduce and seek knowledge. Knowledge removes fear and therefor hate of course with an open mind. People often come across dissonance when they meet another human being of different sexual orientation and they are a decent human being. The continue to hate all the people of the group simultaneously while liking their new acquaintance. The opposing side has no grounds to say it prohibits my religious freedom and destroys the meaning of marriage. It would be different if it were a law to marry only that of your own sex. That I would totally fight against as well. Its just resistance to change and ignorance. Rest assured, it is the next human rights movement (marriage equality), it will succeed, and sorry you had to wait so long! There will most likely be more to come. So make sure you protect all human rights!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 7:08 AM GMT
    theantijock said

    lol talk about driving a lesson home lol

    Thanx for the explanation. I think you're getting me there (and I'm not even into anal).

    So then the genes don't carry with them their own instructions of what to turn on and off. But rather the gene knows what to make with each successive incarnation (see how I took that away from the grotesque to the subtle?) based upon information carried by proteins which make up the histones?

    So when you say "epigenetic making is done on the histones" then isn't that even more fundamental to the make up of life than genes? Am I thinking about that wrongly?

    In other words, our sexuality is formed at an even more basic level than the gene? Wow. I wonder what the Vatican has to say about that. And look what it looks like. Well, no wonder we love to party.


    I most science, you can reduce complexity by finding underlying rules and laws.
    In biology, new fundamental findings usually INCREASE the complexity.

    But I can still to explain the why about epigenetic.

    Nearly every cells in your body share the exact same genes.

    Bone and muscle cells use the same genes, yet they are very different.

    Genetic code allow the creation of man out of a single cell, because that cell contains all the instructions needed for every possible type of cell.

    Epigenetic mechanism allow your muscle cell to act as muscle cells, and not like bone cells, because it shut off anything not necessary to be a muscle cell.

    So if you wanted to reproduce transmitting that epigenetic information, you should transmit the tagging of all the type of cells in your body.

    Instead, you just have one egg, with all the genetic material, and that cell divide.
    Divided cells share information, and given that information, they shut off part or their gene, gradually becoming bone, neurons, muscles etc... where it's needed.

    Without epigenetic gene silencing, it's impossible to obtain an organism composed of cells with different function but identical genetic code.

    Now, in biology, nothing is perfect, everything needed to be alive and healthy can also work out of context and provide strange result.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 7:13 AM GMT
    I think it is counter intuitive to think that people will abort children because they could be gay. Especially considering the same people argue against abortion 9 out of 10 times. I like the idea of having a scientific reason for being gay though. Makes the whole God hates gay argument less valid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 5:56 PM GMT
    minox saidIn most science, you can reduce complexity by finding underlying rules and laws.
    In biology, new fundamental findings usually INCREASE the complexity.

    But I can still to explain the why about epigenetic.

    Nearly every cells in your body share the exact same genes.

    Bone and muscle cells use the same genes, yet they are very different.

    Genetic code allow the creation of man out of a single cell, because that cell contains all the instructions needed for every possible type of cell.

    Epigenetic mechanism allow your muscle cell to act as muscle cells, and not like bone cells, because it shut off anything not necessary to be a muscle cell.

    So if you wanted to reproduce transmitting that epigenetic information, you should transmit the tagging of all the type of cells in your body.

    Instead, you just have one egg, with all the genetic material, and that cell divide.
    Divided cells share information, and given that information, they shut off part or their gene, gradually becoming bone, neurons, muscles etc... where it's needed.

    Without epigenetic gene silencing, it's impossible to obtain an organism composed of cells with different function but identical genetic code.

    Now, in biology, nothing is perfect, everything needed to be alive and healthy can also work out of context and provide strange result.


    I very much relate to the how fundamentals can increase complexity as I could practically feel my brain grappling with these concepts.

    Initially I believe my thinking was that the genes must carry with them their own instructions, that the epigenetics was a product of their own doing which I think I assumed by thinking, as you say "genetic code allow the creation" and as I echoed on an earlier post when I said "doesn't the DNA have to know what to do, whether to make a limb or a kidney and isn't that the role of the switches?" And in that I was thinking that they must make their own switches too.

    Looking at the biology at such a micro level where you'd think you have to squint to see is instead eye opening and the science here ought to be spiritually enlightening. If proved, it would bode very well for us in our arguments against the religious view of our sexuality, that we are, in fact and in the eyes of God, not an abomination but that it is an abomination for religion to mischaracterize us that way to their God. They are not serving their God, rather they are doing their God a disservice.

    I have suspected as much since I was a child, conscious in my dreaming and since meditating there to reach areas of consciousness religions are hardly able to even reference and nowhere in all my years of exploration have I found one iota of evidence indicating we are of any other sexuality than being naturally gay. So I have always found religion to have a lot of fucking nerve to tell me that my sexuality is some sort of corruption. My attitude towards that has always been fuck them and now we may have the science to help them go fuck themselves. This is wonderful news. How validating for us. How embarrassing for them. They owe us big time.

    It would have been enough for us to know we are psychologically sound were that the only place of origin from where sexuality arises.

    It would have been enough for us had science merely shown large structures naturally differing within us, say, for example, our brains more similar to hetero females than to hetero males, that would have been validating enough.

    It would have been enough for us were it the chemistry in the womb, the woman's natural defenses altering the fetus within to give birth to us this way.

    It would have been enough for us to show some genetic component of sexuality that we were born this way.

    But to theorize that our sexuality arises from fundamentals that support the genetic structures? Oh my fucking God. If true, it is everything we could have wished for and more. And it coincides entirely with consciousness. And religion can't fight that to win. Those assholes lose on their very own spiritual front that at the very fundamentals of life, we were born this way. How validating. How empowering.

    Yay. We win.

    istockphoto_3837798-australian-immigrati

    Rights right now.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Dec 12, 2012 6:18 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    minox said

    The are separate, physically.

    The DNA is tighly packed over small 'perls', called histones.
    To make proteins out of the gene, the dna need to be unrolled from histones.
    Epigenetic making is done on histones, changing the ability to unroll .

    If you are the DNA, histone is like your belt of your pant.
    I need to open your belt to get at your ass.
    If I put a lock on your belt, I can no longer get at your ass, but I didn't change anything in your body, just my ability to acess it ;-)


    lol talk about driving a lesson home lol

    Thanx for the explanation. I think you're getting me there (and I'm not even into anal).

    So then the genes don't carry with them their own instructions of what to turn on and off. But rather the gene knows what to make with each successive incarnation (see how I took that away from the grotesque to the subtle?) based upon information carried by proteins which make up the histones?

    So when you say "epigenetic making is done on the histones" then isn't that even more fundamental to the make up of life than genes? Am I thinking about that wrongly?

    In other words, our sexuality is formed at an even more basic level than the gene? Wow. I wonder what the Vatican has to say about that. And look what it looks like. Well, no wonder we love to party.


    It's funny that you are suggesting that his tones are more important than genes. Back before Watson and Krick, it was actually the going theory that the protein in histones was the information carrier, and DNA was just a structural molecule.

    We have now shown that it is both. Nuclear DNA doesn't contain all the information to make an organism. It's been shown that mDNA, histones, and various other molecules are also required, containing information to fill in the gaps left by DNA.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 6:32 PM GMT
    not_superman saidI don't want to know





    yessss
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 6:34 PM GMT
    Timbales saidwhy don't scientists focus on real problems, like cancer and the Kardashians?


    Exactly!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 6:38 PM GMT
    I hear you theantijock , yet I disagree.

    Even if it was a pure choice, just like deciding to keep the light on or off while having sex, I don't recognize anyone right to tell me how to run my sexual life.

    Your liberty stop where the liberty of others start. Two consenting adult having sex in private have no impact at all on the liberty of anyone else.

    For me, accepting the debate about having a choice or not is giving ammunition to religious zealot, because it's like admitting that, if we had the choice, we would consider morally better to be straight. I don't, never did, never will.

    We need to fight on the real subject : nobody can claim "higher moral value" and decide to impose his personal belief and choices on others.

    As long as you fight in a field actually chosen by your opponent, you make his life easier.

    As for what makes us gay, it's clear that, biologically, arousal is not the result of conscious decision, it's engraved in our brain structure at a very low and fundamental level, just like the need to breath and the need to eat.

    Nobody knows exactly when it happen to be wired toward women, men, or a mix.

    it's likely between conception and very early childhood, like 3 to 5 yo.

    Once wired, it's forever, you can somehow extend your taste, but never lose one you had.

    Remind me of one of my nephew, was 6yo and told his father "Dad, that woman up there is so pretty, it make my zizi (penis) all hard when I look at her".

    Apart the bragging of my proud brother in law, it mean you can react sexually very early, far before the age to chose a sexual partner or question your sexual identity.

    If it's already engraved (definitely) in your system before you are old enough to be accountable of your choice, then nobody can hold you accountable for it.

    Unless they think every straight man can become gay if they try. But we are well placed to know it's just a sweet dream ;-)






  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 12, 2012 6:46 PM GMT
    Zizi! That's a cute story. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 7:12 PM GMT
    minox saidI hear you theantijock , yet I disagree.

    Even if it was a pure choice, just like deciding to keep the light on or off while having sex, I don't recognize anyone right to tell me how to run my sexual life.

    Your liberty stop where the liberty of others start. Two consenting adult having sex in private have no impact at all on the liberty of anyone else.

    For me, accepting the debate about having a choice or not is giving ammunition to religious zealot, because it's like admitting that, if we had the choice, we would consider morally better to be straight. I don't, never did, never will.

    We need to fight on the real subject : nobody can claim "higher moral value" and decide to impose his personal belief and choices on others.

    As long as you fight in a field actually chosen by your opponent, you make his life easier.

    As for what makes us gay, it's clear that, biologically, arousal is not the result of conscious decision, it's engraved in our brain structure at a very low and fundamental level, just like the need to breath and the need to eat.

    Nobody knows exactly when it happen to be wired toward women, men, or a mix.

    it's likely between conception and very early childhood, like 3 to 5 yo.

    Once wired, it's forever, you can somehow extend your taste, but never lose one you had.

    Remind me of one of my nephew, was 6yo and told his father "Dad, that woman up there is so pretty, it make my zizi (penis) all hard when I look at her".

    Apart the bragging of my proud brother in law, it mean you can react sexually very early, far before the age to chose a sexual partner or question your sexual identity.

    If it's already engraved (definitely) in your system before you are old enough to be accountable of your choice, then nobody can hold you accountable for it.

    Unless they think every straight man can become gay if they try. But we are well placed to know it's just a sweet dream ;-)




    "Your liberty stop where the liberty of others start. Two consenting adult having sex in private have no impact at all on the liberty of anyone else"

    agree
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4999

    Dec 12, 2012 7:23 PM GMT
    Even if it could be proven with no possibility of error that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, some fundamentalists would strongly assert that if one is attracted only to one's own sex, one must abstain from any form of sexual expression, including even masturbation.

    On world hunger day, some people abstain from eating as a show of concern for the world's hungry. Those who insist that all gay persons should, for their entire lives, abstain from sex, should be willing to give up sex for lent which is only 40 days. The few times I've made that suggestion, it's been ridiculed. Thus, these people are laying burdens upon us that they will not even share for a short period.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 12, 2012 7:41 PM GMT
    FRE0 saidEven if it could be proven with no possibility of error that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, some fundamentalists would strongly assert that if one is attracted only to one's own sex, one must abstain from any form of sexual expression, including even masturbation.

    On world hunger day, some people abstain from eating as a show of concern for the world's hungry. Those who insist that all gay persons should, for their entire lives, abstain from sex, should be willing to give up sex for lent which is only 40 days. The few times I've made that suggestion, it's been ridiculed. Thus, these people are laying burdens upon us that they will not even share for a short period.


    I always hated lent. It's more morbid than Halloween, if you think about it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 9:36 PM GMT
    Medjai saidIt's funny that you are suggesting that his tones are more important than genes. Back before Watson and Krick, it was actually the going theory that the protein in histones was the information carrier, and DNA was just a structural molecule.

    We have now shown that it is both. Nuclear DNA doesn't contain all the information to make an organism. It's been shown that mDNA, histones, and various other molecules are also required, containing information to fill in the gaps left by DNA.


    Yes, all good info. Only I did not say one is more important than another. Obviously, even to my mind untrained in the sciences, one thing is not more important than another thing when a thing requires both things--which of course is one of my criticisms of the artificially imposed hierarchy of society--the constructs by which we are organized--but that's another thread.

    I just found it interesting to learn that the switches for the genes didn't ride in with the genes but with the histones the genes rode in on and in that sense I would view it not as more important but more fundamental because the switch making, as minox notes, is occurring not outside by the genes, but in the histones, around which the dna curl.

    Your noting how information transmits confirms what I gathered from understanding the role of histones.

    Perhaps I am not expressing properly my thoughts of what is more fundamental if biological systems aren't seen compartmentalized as I seem to view it. But looking at it in terms of levels, from this layman's point of view, from big to little structures, it just seems to me that the smaller stuff is more fundamental. I would have no need to assign a value of importance to that.

    Why I would mentioned it as being more fundamental is because I imagined myself as not being the only person who would have considered genetics pretty basic to life. And then to say "there is no gay gene"? Well, oh no, how horrible. But then to learn, well, no gay gene maybe, but the switching mechanism of genes. That just strikes me as being something marvelous. We don't need our own gene, we have the fucking switches to the genes. That's so cool.
  • groundcombat

    Posts: 945

    Dec 12, 2012 9:52 PM GMT
    Whipmagic said The article refers to epigenetic markers, which in essence are proteins clinging to the DNA, and certain modifications thereof. For the child, they act very much like a real gene, that is, you got them from your parents, and there is nothing you can do about it, and it's no one's "fault". They are, however, much less likely to be passed on the the next generation. So if that's what makes us gay (discounting any true genetic causes), then children of gays shouldn't be any more likely to be gay than children of straights. Identical twins, however, have a high likelyhood of inheriting the same epigenetic modifications. And that's consistent with the data, I believe.


    This.

    I was pretty lost through most of the article but I got the impression that the practical implications were unchanged from when we thought it was a mix of genetics and gestation. The exception being that they are less likely to be passed on to the generation but I don't think anyone every thought it was the case that gay people are birhting more gay people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 9:59 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    minox said

    The are separate, physically.

    The DNA is tighly packed over small 'perls', called histones.
    To make proteins out of the gene, the dna need to be unrolled from histones.
    Epigenetic making is done on histones, changing the ability to unroll .

    If you are the DNA, histone is like your belt of your pant.
    I need to open your belt to get at your ass.
    If I put a lock on your belt, I can no longer get at your ass, but I didn't change anything in your body, just my ability to acess it ;-)


    lol talk about driving a lesson home lol

    Thanx for the explanation. I think you're getting me there (and I'm not even into anal).

    So then the genes don't carry with them their own instructions of what to turn on and off. But rather the gene knows what to make with each successive incarnation (see how I took that away from the grotesque to the subtle?) based upon information carried by proteins which make up the histones?

    So when you say "epigenetic making is done on the histones" then isn't that even more fundamental to the make up of life than genes? Am I thinking about that wrongly?

    In other words, our sexuality is formed at an even more basic level than the gene? Wow. I wonder what the Vatican has to say about that. And look what it looks like. Well, no wonder we love to party.


    DNA methylation (one epigenetic mechanism, there are more than one) literally, physically attaches a molecule to the DNA.

    histone methylation physically attaches a molecule to the histone. This has an effect on the DNA, but it isn't physically connected to the DNA.

    Additionally, many genes exist solely for the purpose of turning other genes on and off. They do this by creating proteins that can detect changes in the environment (biochemistry of the cell), which trigger the expression of other genes. Sometimes the level of cascading signalling gets pretty nuts so it's really hard to tell sometimes why genes are expressed sometimes and not others. I'm saying this because sometimes the genes DO carry with them instructions for when to turn on/off (the 3rd case I listed), and sometimes parents' genes tag particular bits of DNA to activate/deactivate in future generations (the 1st and 2nd cases).

    ----

    I hate to call research "a big fucking waste of time".... but I think this is a pretty big waste of time and resources. Particularly if this is aimed at some kind of "acceptance" goal. That ain't happening. Finding biological differences between us isn't going to bring us together. That level of difference needs to be bridged socially, not with science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 9:59 PM GMT
    minox saidI hear you theantijock , yet I disagree.

    Even if it was a pure choice, just like deciding to keep the light on or off while having sex, I don't recognize anyone right to tell me how to run my sexual life.

    Your liberty stop where the liberty of others start. Two consenting adult having sex in private have no impact at all on the liberty of anyone else.

    For me, accepting the debate about having a choice or not is giving ammunition to religious zealot, because it's like admitting that, if we had the choice, we would consider morally better to be straight. I don't, never did, never will.

    We need to fight on the real subject : nobody can claim "higher moral value" and decide to impose his personal belief and choices on others.

    As long as you fight in a field actually chosen by your opponent, you make his life easier.

    As for what makes us gay, it's clear that, biologically, arousal is not the result of conscious decision, it's engraved in our brain structure at a very low and fundamental level, just like the need to breath and the need to eat.

    Nobody knows exactly when it happen to be wired toward women, men, or a mix.

    it's likely between conception and very early childhood, like 3 to 5 yo.

    Once wired, it's forever, you can somehow extend your taste, but never lose one you had.

    Remind me of one of my nephew, was 6yo and told his father "Dad, that woman up there is so pretty, it make my zizi (penis) all hard when I look at her".

    Apart the bragging of my proud brother in law, it mean you can react sexually very early, far before the age to chose a sexual partner or question your sexual identity.

    If it's already engraved (definitely) in your system before you are old enough to be accountable of your choice, then nobody can hold you accountable for it.

    Unless they think every straight man can become gay if they try. But we are well placed to know it's just a sweet dream ;-)


    Good for you that you see yourself as running your own sex life. But many of our little brothers and sisters kill themselves before they ever figure that out. There is 1000s of years of religious ethos working against us. That you might have freed your own self from it does not deny it. Do not be uncompassionate for those still in harms way.

    My saying that such evidence removes a fang from the church in no way disagrees with anything you just wrote concerning personal liberties so I have no idea why you say that you disagree with anything I wrote.

    My non-esoteric point being that eventually, the church will have to recognize its bible in error--that it shows up in their scriptures, in their dogma, in society's ideas of what is moral, even in our civic laws--that we do not revolve around them:

    "The sun, moon, and stars were created after the firm foundation of the earth was laid." ~~Gen. 1:9-18
  • groundcombat

    Posts: 945

    Dec 12, 2012 10:03 PM GMT
    Minox (or whomever might add insight here),

    Couldn't we already dismiss the "gay gene," at least as an exclusive cause of homosexuality via identical twins with different sexual orientations? At least as far as we can tell that each twin is truly gay/straight.



  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Dec 12, 2012 10:04 PM GMT
    homastj said
    I hate to call research "a big fucking waste of time".... but I think this is a pretty big waste of time and resources. Particularly if this is aimed at some kind of "acceptance" goal. That ain't happening. Finding biological differences between us isn't going to bring us together. That level of difference needs to be bridged socially, not with science.


    Considering how little the biology of race has affected societal views, I'm inclined to agree here. The biological basis of sexuality will have little to no bearing on the views of the world at large.

    theantijock said
    Good for you that you see yourself as running your own sex life. But many of our little brothers and sisters kill themselves before they ever figure that out. There is 1000s of years of religious ethos working against us. That you might have freed your own self from it does not deny it. Do not be uncompassionate for those still in harms way.


    It's hardly a global phenomenon. There are lots of cultures that accept homosexuality to varying degrees.

    waterloonicetop saidUntil puberty almost all boys think girls are icky, and boys are good, heterosexuality should thus be considered an environmentally an drug caused mental disorder


    Uh... What?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 10:50 PM GMT
    homastj saidDNA methylation (one epigenetic mechanism, there are more than one) literally, physically attaches a molecule to the DNA.

    histone methylation physically attaches a molecule to the histone. This has an effect on the DNA, but it isn't physically connected to the DNA.

    Additionally, many genes exist solely for the purpose of turning other genes on and off. They do this by creating proteins that can detect changes in the environment (biochemistry of the cell), which trigger the expression of other genes. Sometimes the level of cascading signalling gets pretty nuts so it's really hard to tell sometimes why genes are expressed sometimes and not others. I'm saying this because sometimes the genes DO carry with them instructions for when to turn on/off (the 3rd case I listed), and sometimes parents' genes tag particular bits of DNA to activate/deactivate in future generations (the 1st and 2nd cases).

    ----

    I hate to call research "a big fucking waste of time".... but I think this is a pretty big waste of time and resources. Particularly if this is aimed at some kind of "acceptance" goal. That ain't happening. Finding biological differences between us isn't going to bring us together. That level of difference needs to be bridged socially, not with science.


    Interesting added info on the switching mechanisms.

    I would think the research is simply for knowledge. How that knowledge is applied is merely a convenience.

    Certainly we don't require their acceptance, at least as well as we are able to build up our own structures so that our youth survive. Also it would be nice for our adults to not have the myths of religion banging in their heads for the rest of their lives as much as they might put it aside, deal with it, purge themselves of it or live in denial of its effects upon us. I suppose this would be no problem for gay buddha but the rest of us are going to be at least a tad bit touched by it regardless of how strong and sure we are or claim to be.

    My point being not acceptance of us--my neighbor is more than welcomed to think me a sinner, but their voting against my human rights is not appreciated-- but for religion to take ownership of its own responsibilities towards the betterment of mankind, a goal about which it readily touts.

    Religion used to put to death the heritics. It needs to take responsibility for the death of our gay youth, for the ripping apart of families because one member is gay, the divisions of society.

    Once they were shown beyond their ability to deny it that the earth revolves around the sun, they had no choice but to end their persecution of astronomy.

    So all I'm saying is that a little science couldn't hurt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 12, 2012 10:59 PM GMT
    groundcombat saidMinox (or whomever might add insight here),

    Couldn't we already dismiss the "gay gene," at least as an exclusive cause of homosexuality via identical twins with different sexual orientations? At least as far as we can tell that each twin is truly gay/straight.


    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical
    Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical

    Twins may appear to be cut from the same cloth, but their genes reveal a different pattern

  • metta

    Posts: 54503

    Dec 13, 2012 12:23 AM GMT
    Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development
    Author(s): William R. Rice, Urban Friberg, and Sergey Gavrilets
    Reviewed work(s):
    Source: The Quarterly Review of Biology, (-Not available-), p. 000
    Published by: The University of Chicago Press
    Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167 .


    http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1086/668167.pdf?acceptTC=true
  • Sportsfan1

    Posts: 479

    Dec 13, 2012 12:29 AM GMT
    Just further proof that it is not a life style "choice".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2012 12:40 AM GMT
    theantijock said

    Interesting added info on the switching mechanisms.

    I would think the research is simply for knowledge. How that knowledge is applied is merely a convenience.

    Certainly we don't require their acceptance, at least as well as we are able to build up our own structures so that our youth survive. Also it would be nice for our adults to not have the myths of religion banging in their heads for the rest of their lives as much as they might put it aside, deal with it, purge themselves of it or live in denial of its effects upon us. I suppose this would be no problem for gay buddha but the rest of us are going to be at least a tad bit touched by it regardless of how strong and sure we are or claim to be.

    My point being not acceptance of us--my neighbor is more than welcomed to think me a sinner, but their voting against my human rights is not appreciated-- but for religion to take ownership of its own responsibilities towards the betterment of mankind, a goal about which it readily touts.

    Religion used to put to death the heritics. It needs to take responsibility for the death of our gay youth, for the ripping apart of families because one member is gay, the divisions of society.

    Once they were shown beyond their ability to deny it that the earth revolves around the sun, they had no choice but to end their persecution of astronomy.

    So all I'm saying is that a little science couldn't hurt.


    scientists very frequently like to play innocent when the implications of their work are called into question, and they have been very successful at building the idea that they should research anything and everything because new knowledge is always good. I don't think that's true. I don't think science exists in a vacuum - it always exists in a societal context and while most of the time their work goes toward the greater good, that isn't always the case. this is why we have ethics. most science abides by generally agreed upon ethics, but there is still a debate to be had beyond "knowing for the sake of knowing." especially when gay identity is so heavily politicized
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2012 1:03 AM GMT
    homastj said
    theantijock said

    Interesting added info on the switching mechanisms.

    I would think the research is simply for knowledge. How that knowledge is applied is merely a convenience.
    ....


    scientists very frequently like to play innocent when the implications of their work are called into question...


    Did I forget to put a winky face next to "convenience"? I sort of thought that understood.

    I was being kind.

    But also, it happens the science here is on our side.

    And besides that, would you let the politicizing of gay identity prevent the science from exploration?

    As I indicated in an previous post on this thread that we'd have been happy enough with just the pyschological association's declaration that our sexuality is not a personality disorder. That we're comfortable with our sexuality is all that matters.

    That science happens to support our side? That's just icing on the cake. It's delicious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2012 1:12 AM GMT
    Well, my Mom said she sucked my Pop's dick too much while she was pregnant.. I'm sticking with that one.. icon_redface.gif