The "gay Gene"

[Ronda]

Thanks, SirRiff. So 'gayness' is not genetic in the way that skin colour, eye colour or hair colour is. I'm pretty sure that was the original point but good job anyway.

It's not something that should be put forth to the general public, specifically to children as being no different than heterosexuality. I personally do not feel that it needs to be discussed at all unless it comes up besides teaching your kids that you do not pick on someone or ostracise them for being different, that you do not need to avoid them or their friendship. To me, that is tolerance.

Gay sex ed and blind societal endorsement is not in the name of tolerance. It takes people who are confused and attempts to pigeonhole them into behaviours that are not healthy and in some cases, ultimately unfulfilling.

Is this description applicable to all gays? Of course not. Every experience is different. However, I've seen that situation with my own eyes numerous times and I do not agree with it. You don't need to teach people that gay is just the same as hetero and gay sex is wonderful and just a normal, natural facet of human sexuality in order to teach them tolerance. Based on studies that have already been discussed and based on personal experiences with gay people, I think gay sexuality (not just the acts themselves) is very different from heterosexuality.

[Hugo]

Quite. SirRiff has "cleared up" my "misinformation" by reiterating my original point.

Which was that the evidence thus far shows that homosexuality is caused by environment, as the top geneticists in the US have already opined. You may not respect Science magazine, Riff, but you would think that you would have some respect for the superiors in your field. Genetics may play a factor (and as you said, it's not certain), but it is a factor like cervical cancer rather than eye colour: an influence rather than a determinant.

As I also said, what you need to understand is that "inherent" is not always "good" - it's perfectly possible for a condition to be pre-determined by either genetics or environment over which the sufferer has no control, but that does not make that condition great, wonderful, beautiful and worthy of celebration. Homosexuality is one such condition: a self-destructive symptom of psychological trauma, caused by negative environmental influence which may or may not have interacted with a vulnerable genetic predisposition.

To celebrate this is like celebrating alcoholism: to paraphrase George Orwell, you must be an intellectual to be so stupid.

[SirRiff]

If I have processed the information you provided correctly, we are at a point where we lack conclusive evidence and while there are indicators that genetics is a factor, there is nothing yet discovered which would allow anyone to assert this is anything but an open question. Is that a fair and accurate recap?

absolutely Fastned, I would never claim to have conclusive evidence either way.

learned behavior is a major component of human culture and sexuality is definitely no different. however from an evolutionary point of view, it is far too important to be left to be learned from scratch. so every human is definitely primed in sexual identity and sexual preference to some degree.

(1) Somewhere from three to ten percent of our population engage in a practice/lifestyle different from that of the majority. Defining this activity as deviant is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

i just want to agree and add that the quickest way to find the person most ignorant of genetics is to find the person who labels anything biological as unnatural or immoral or deviant. by definition there is nothing more natural then genetics, especially the endless range of possibilities explored.

well we deal with this stuff all the time in genetics. there is nothing unnatural or deviant at all about populations tolerating fringe phenotypes in large complex populations. in fact, just a basic read over population genetics shows this is to some degree pushed by the basic principles of natural selection which often favor maintaining small proportions of alternate genes in any population.

it could be that the genetic influence for homosexuality (whatever the degree, lets say 50% for convenience) is maintained in our population over time for any number of reasons. for example

the gay alleles (version of genes) may also influence some unrelated behavioral characteristic that provided a survival benefit in the past- such as greater social relationships, or

gay behavior in the past may have aided in disease immunity because it exposed the individuals to agents not normally protected against. there are numerous more reasons both behavioral and biochemical why a heritable gay phenotype is not selected against.

Public Laws against private adult homosexual activities no longer have a place in our civilized society

thats really the truth to it all. no matter WHAT I do in my life, unless it has a direct negative effect on you or society greater then the freedoms granted to all citizens, nobody else, even through government has any authority to interfere. there are so many everyday behaviors that are so much more destructive then homosexual behavior that go unnoticed, its the proof that any argument that its harmful or destructive is bigoted and biased. look at the pain and suffering everday that heterosexual citizens participate in and there is no doubt gay is a red herring in most arguments.

(2) This practice/lifestyle if exercised in an unsafe manner has fatal results. (3) If there is to be accommodation of these practices/lifestyle by the majority of the population, the burden can not be greater than they can reasonably be expected to shoulder.

well these are not really restrained to homosexuals at all i think. guns are dangerous and causes society suffering, alcohol is dangerous and causes society suffering, tobacco is dangerous and causes society suffering, cars and dangerous and causes society suffering.

to really label a behavior as deviant or evil or whatever, it would have to be very very destructive to individuals or society at large, AND have no redeeming social value. pedophilia comes to mind, not homsexuality.

RONDA

SirRiff. So 'gayness' is not genetic in the way that skin colour, eye colour or hair colour is. I'm pretty sure that was the original point but good job anyway.

no ronda, thats not what i said, and thats not what the original post said. the original post incorrectly stated teh most basic principles of determining heritability and the conclusions drawn by it. I put forth the proper concept of environmental vs genetic contribution and talked a bit about what it would take to link them.

you cannot compare sexual behavior to a simple eye color characteristic. why? because eye color and other simple characteristics are often simple dominate binary choices, A=brown, a=blue, or simple additive co-dominate choices, AB=1, Ab=2, aB=3, ab=4.

behavior is nothing like eye color or other simple characteristics because there very well could be hundreds of genes involved instead of a few which raises the complexity exponentially. additionally, there is never a simple dominant binany hierarchy, which is why we will never find a 'gay' gene that is either on or off. so really there are most likely hundreds of seperate imputes, each of which contributes to different degrees, either in small binany choices or small additive effects. This is all then primed and expanded apon by learned behavior to some degree. Then we have the problem we cannot measure sexual behavior like eye color, because there are alot of people that might not act, or think, or screw like a typical 'gay' person.

so just because there is no gay gene, doesnt mean its not genetic to a large degree. its just the genetics of complex behaviors are so complex and hard to identify on a genetic level, that they can never be reduced to a either or master switch.

You don't need to teach people that gay is just the same as hetero

well really that completely ignores alot of genetics, because from a genetic view, there is really nothing of substance separating gay and hereto. so biologically its tolerated, and maybe even promoted to some degree in the complexities of survial. thus you can never say its not natural or deviant, by definition its natural and just as deviant as green eyes.

now from a societies view, yah, every society must decide what they decide is acceptable and what value they give to innate behaviors of mankind.

HUGO

SirRiff has "cleared up" my "misinformation" by reiterating my original point.

oh come now HUGO, just give it up trying to support your first post, its dead man. your first post was wrong in all genetic/scientific/biological aspects and you can do much better. it was based on nothing of scientific value and misinterpreted by everyone at first. i cleared up some of the basic flaws in heritability, the way that researchers investigative the degree of genetic influence on phenotypes.

You may not respect Science magazine, Riff, but you would think that you would have some respect for the superiors in your field.

I never said i dont respect anything HUGO, so dont try to imply that. Science is not a primary genetics research publication, and its just one publication. it puts forth the newest theories for public interest. and i don’t think you need to inform me about scientific journals, since i spent years researching hundreds.

what i was correcting you about was your misstating the basic principles of heritability and the conclusions that can be drawn from on mans opinion. just because any one researchers experiment doesnt find anything doesnt mean they dont exist. the field as a whole is very undecided about the total genetic contribution, but i doubt you would find many that would say there is none, and few that would say none will be found. and as for superiors in my field, i trust the field of genetics far more then one mans opinion. There are many educated people who are wrong because of personal bias. I have studied many. And its not like after your first post you should be citing any ability to identify sound scientific concepts.

one research scientist regardless of who he is, is not an authority after a few experimental results. the field as a whole is far more accepting of a strong genetic influence. many great scientists have been proven wrong, its what science is about, reducing uncertainty.

Genetics may play a factor (and as you said, it's not certain), but it is a factor like cervical cancer rather than eye colour: an influence rather than a determinant.

HUGO, this is really going to get discomforting soon if you dont stop trying to lecture about genetics when you keep getting it wrong.

cancer and eye color are two genetically encoded phenotypes. there is nothing more influencing about a strong of DNA in a cancer gene then there is in a pigment gene.

maybe you are trying to compare binary choices with complex multigene influences?

well you must be, because nothing else makes sense.

here is a little secret HUGO.....

ALL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS INFLUENCED BY A COMBINATION OF PROBABLY HUNDREDS OF GENES.

so your heterosexual behavior is encoded, influenced, determined, and predetermined to the exact same extent and capacity as homosexual behavior. there is no reason to try to separate an 'influence' and a 'determinate'. the only difference you seem to be citing is the number of genes and the complexity of the interaction.

so really what you are saying with your cancer-eye color statement is that since no specific few genes are known to account for gay behavior, that the genetic contribution must be very small.

well that is fundamentally and absolutely wrong in every way. the number of genes has NOTHING to do with the heritability of a characteristic. nothing at all.

As I also said, what you need to understand is that "inherent" is not always "good" - it's perfectly possible for a condition to be pre-determined by either genetics or environment over which the sufferer has no control, but that does not make that condition great, wonderful, beautiful and worthy of celebration.

OK this has officially become graceless.

because i understand genetics i know that i never implied that inherited characteristics are ever good or bad simply because they are inherited. good or bad is completely arbitrary and only applied by societies opinions. in biology, traits are only labeled by thier effect on survival, either beneficial, benign, or harmful. and even that label is biased at the gene, organism, or population level.

it might be bad for you to inherit the sickle cell anemia gene because it makes you sick (it’s a mutation that causes your red blood cells to be misshaped and clump up). but it may be good for your local population to have a minority of individuals carrying the gene in case a widespread epidemic of malaria occurs. WHY? because the gene for sickle cell anemia provides resistance against malaria. that is why its much more common in black african descendants where maralia is prevalent. its harmful on one scale (organism) yet helpful on another (population). there is no good or evil about it.

let me try to put something credible up now that we have waded through the misstatements again.

the precise fact that some proportion of any sexual behavior is heritable means that there is NO biological (genetic) basis to claim it as intrinsically inferior just because it less frequent in occurrence.

now, there is plenty of philosophical, or legal, or humanitarian, or medical reasons that society can invoke to choose and value some behaviors over another. but do not make the incorrect asumption that these value judgements have foundantion in nature. in fact they do not.

SirRiff

[Hugo]

There's no need to get angry, Riff. I'm not defensive about my original point because I have yet to see anything that disproves it. I didn't draw my conclusions from any one, biased scientist as you'll see.

I drew them from Dr. Dean Hamer, the gay geneticist who set out to prove the existence of a gay gene and had to conclude that "From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited." When asked by Science if homosexuality was genetic in origin, he answered "absoutely not."

I also drew from Dr. Joel Gelernter, who said "it's hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. ...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

I drew them from J. Beckwith and P. Billings, arguably the two leading men in American genetic research, who say "we think that the data [in this case] in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment."

I drew on C. Mann, author of a leading article in Science on genetics and homosexuality, who said "The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors."

I drew on Simon LeVay, author of "Gay Brain", who states that "[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."

I drew on Dennis McFadden, neuroscientist at Texas University, who said "any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."

I drew on sociologist Steven Goldberg, who said "I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."

My interpretations of "heritability" and so forth come from "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996.

Now, against all this, you are posting your opinion as though it were fact. You claim to be a geneticist and yet you fly in the face of all your colleagues, who unanimously conclude that the environment has to be a very significant and possibly the actual determining factor in homosexuality, that environment usually being psychological damage from a variety of sources. But you cite no sources. You cite no research. You cite no studies. You have no corroboration.

Why would I believe that my original point was "dead", Riff, simply because of your clumsy and misguided assertions?

Perhaps you'll clarify your position and cite some evidence for it. I'm a little tired of the chest-beating "listen to me, I'm an expert" nonsense.

[FastNed]

OK, let me get back to the three points I wish to discuss:

My focus on this matter may be askew but is rather pragmatic. (1) Somewhere from three to ten percent of our population engage in a practice/lifestyle different from that of the majority. Defining this activity as deviant is part of the problem, not part of the solution. (2) This practice/lifestyle if exercised in an unsafe manner has fatal results. (3) If there is to be accommodation of these practices/lifestyle by the majority of the population, the burden can not be greater than they can reasonably be expected to shoulder.

I have pretty well covered (1), let's go on to (2) "This practice/lifestyle if exercised in an unsafe manner has fatal results."

There is no question but that the primary vector for AIDS is unprotected sexual activity by male homosexuals and male bisexuals. Peer reviewed research has shown that while it can be spread via heterosexual sexual activity, multiple exposure (great than 20) is normally required or anal sex is involved. (These were CDC sponsored studies so the evidence is there should someone question these statements.) This connection of AIDS and homosexuality is the true cause for abhorrence of homosexual practices. And a large segment of this group brags about "barebacking!". How can you expect anyone to accommodate those who insist it is their "Right" to spread disease and kill others as part of their "sexual freedom"?

Let's go to my last point:

(3) If there is to be accommodation of these practices/lifestyle by the majority of the population, the burden can not be greater than they can reasonably be expected to shoulder.

First, the Gay community must get its act together and address the practice of unprotected sex. As for the "bareback" idiots, well, I have never been crazy enough to play Russian Roulette but if I did and bragged about it, I would expect that someone should do something about it. If necessary, mandatory commitment for mental treatment. The message the Gay community should be receiving is that we are quite tired of the public financial burden of treatments for avoidable AIDS. Perhaps if the funds spent for research on AIDS over these last twenty-five years had been spent on Cancer research, there would be a cure and my wife would still be living. Yes, that's a bitter personal thought but I'm part of the population and I have it.

Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, the Gay community has opposed and fought the applicability of all public health measures to contain and control infectious venereal diseases. By insisting upon a right of privacy which is not excused with any other venereal infection, they have avoided mandatory reporting, contact tracing and treatment.

This must end if they are to accepted as full participants in our society. Another law which must be changed concerns the blood test required in most jurisdictions before a marriage license can be issued. Do you know what that blood test is for? It is a test for Syphilis and when it was mandated, Syphilis was a fatal disease. To receive a license for a marriage, union or partnership, that test must be changed to one for AIDS! Claims for special privilege to avoid public health laws must end.

Last but most certainly not least, no matter if you believe it makes no sense, the Gay community can not demand that the majority of the population with religious beliefs must surrender them to a claim of Gay Rights. Those who are religious believe that marriage is a religious term, a religious ceremony which is sacred to them. Those of the Judeo-Christian faiths (with minor exceptions) have dogma which states that homosexual marriage is an impossibility, a sin and a violation of their religious belief. Agree or disagree, they have this right and they have scripture up to six thousand years old which states this. No solution to this social problem is possible unless and until it is clear that no religion will be forced to perform a gay marriage against their dogma and tradition. In addition, no holy scripture or quotation therefrom can be defined as "Hate Speech" as such a definition would be contrary to our traditions of Free Speech as well as Freedom of Religion. There may be exceptional circumstances such as that prohibiting yelling "fire" in a theater which could be found to limit these freedoms, but it would have to be a special case to do so.

Our democratic society and civilization has the strength to accommodate this minority among us as we have done with others so often in our past, this is the source of our strength and vitality. We must just decide to do so.

[Hugo]

Ned,

Very sorry to hear about your wife - as you say, it is tragic that people have died of cancer and other diseases while efforts were undertaken to find a cure for AIDS - a disease for which the prevention is already known.

Now, on to everything else. Homosexuality is, sadly, a deviancy. The primary purpose of sex is actually procreation, not pleasure. As I have said before, eating can be pleasurable, but the primary purpose of eating is not pleasure. Sexual relationships in which procreation is not apparently possible are deviant.

Notice the wording there. There is usually nothing to indicate sterility, for instance, in one partner of a heterosexual couple. I would think the number of instances where sterility was known before the relationship began to be very small. There are, of course, exceptions, but in the case of heterosexual couples they are still going through the motions even though blanks may be fired.

A quick analogy: if one's car has a flat battery, it's not terribly incorrect or inexcusable to try the ignition key anyway. However, putting live fish into the gas tank is never going to help, flat battery or no, for no matter what the circumstances it's simply the wrong thing to do.

On that note, when one is discussing sexual relationships with same-sex partners, or children, or animals, or even inanimate objects (if such a thing is possible) it's obvious to anyone that no offspring can be borne. Therefore it defeats the purpose of sexual intercourse. Certainly it's possible for science to overcome the deficiencies of these relationships, but to say that this somehow disproves the deviancy is akin to saying that, by having a mechanic recharge your battery while you put live fish in the gas tank, proves that putting live fish in the gas tank is an equally good way to start a car.

Having established that, I believe that the deviancy of homosexuality comes from environmental influence on a vulnerable genetic background - as virtually all complex human behaviour is. We do not know what genetic sequence makes an individual vulnerable to environmental influence towards homosexuality and we probably never will for a very long time, but we do know what environmental influences will produce a homosexual: abuse as a child, low self-esteem, rejection by or lack of a father figure, reinforcement of the wrong gender identity by parents, rejection by same-sex peers at an early age, and so forth.

Should homosexuality be outlawed or made criminal? No, of course not - it's a sickness, not a crime, and it should not be a crime to be sick. Homosexuals deserve pity and compassion, not punishment. The key is to understand the nature of homosexuality, to educate people as to its nature, and to help homosexuals to return to normalcy. Such a return is possible in the vast majority of cases and, where the subject is willing (as, say, alcoholics or junkies have to be), great successes can be made. Such programmes always focus on building self-esteem and self-worth in the sufferer, who finds as the programme goes on that his sexual orientation begins to change, seemingly of its own accord.

This is my stance: if homosexuals wish to continue what they are doing, fine! I couldn't care less, as I could not care if an alcoholic wants to drink himself to fatal cirrhosis, or if a junkie wishes to overdose himself into oblivion. It's a free country (so far). However, I object when deviant behaviour is promoted by government, by some churches (against the teachings of their own scripture, moreover), by schools, by the media and so on. This is just lies. I want the truth to be told about homosexuality, I want help to be made available to homosexuals who need it and who are willing to get it, and I want the cultural endorsement to lessen at least to the point where more homosexuals will feel able to seek help. If, after all that, homosexuals are still dying of AIDS after having sex with 12 men in a single evening at the bathhouse, well, nobody can say they were not fairly warned.

[SirRiff]

There's no need to get angry, Riff. I'm not defensive about my original point because I have yet to see anything that disproves it. I didn't draw my conclusions from any one, biased scientist as you'll see.

nobody is angry here, its just odd to watch you continue to believe you somehow could recognize this magical proof you are looking for. you completely misstated the very elementary concepts of heredity and inheritance in your first post. you failed to even recognize the concept of heritability even when specifically citing people talking about it.

instead of just admitting you got off to a bad start and regrouping to state your position, you start tying to say that its somehow me that’s not up to par?. well considering i spent two posts just cleaning up confused drivel, i am just trying to put some truthful concepts out in the open at this point. I figured if you were truly interested in the genetic basis of sexual behavior you would appreciate learning a bit about the basics first.

I drew them from Dr. Dean Hamer, the gay geneticist who set out to prove the existence of a gay gene and had to conclude that "From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited." When asked by Science if homosexuality was genetic in origin, he answered "absoutely not."

OK, i will try saying this again...this is one man who says that the basis of sexual orientation isnt inherited. fine. but you know what? WE CANNOT FIND STRONG LINKAGES BECAUSE WE HARDLY KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR. its very hard to link a gene to a behavior when thousands of genes are involved, most of them are multifunctional, and are of previously unknown function. Ever analyze linkage data? I have, its very very complex, especially when there are huge numbers of genes and nobody knows why any of them do.

so yeah, we obviously have no proof its strongly genetic, but this guy could easily take this lack of evidence and come up with his own theory. and that is exactly what he has done. but the field taken as a whole does not agree that genetics plays a secondary role. they know its a strong component but they don’t know to what degree. simple as that.

you cited his opinion which is fine, he is one man with a theory based on inconclusive evidence. but what is with these other quotes? they are so vague they absolutely confirm nobody really knows the exact proportion.

"it's hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. ...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

do you even read this stuff before you post it? this is very similar to what i said in my first corrective post. that sexual behavior is presumed to be controlled by a large number of multifunctional genes with complex additive effects. there is no way we can find a specific 'gay' gene because it doesn’t exist. This is the very reason that saying there is no significant genetic component is the height of arrogance. the search is so complex no one gene will ever correspond strongly. it will take a detailed mapping of all genes and years of investigation to even begin to link genetics to human behavior.

"we think that the data [in this case] in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment."

influence? of course there is influence from the environment, that is just common sense. nobody ever disputed that.

"The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors."

enormous influence?? like 50%? like 60%? duh, that is obvious too man.

basically all your quotes which you mistake for support really just say environment is highly significant, which could be 40%, or maybe 50%, or maybe 60%. Nobody knows, which is exactly what I said in an earlier post.

all your quotes agree with what i have been trying to tell you all along, genetics and environment both play major roles but it is unknown the relative quantities. but its presumed not to be a 99:01 split. they will both come out to be relatively large contributors since either one alone is absently known not to be able to provide the answer.

"any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."

well thats just genius...wait....that pretty much sounds like what i said a few posts ago...gee...imagine that, I knew what I was talking about…

My interpretations of "heritability" and so forth come from "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996.

well no offence but your interpretations were dead wrong. that’s all i am saying.

Now, against all this, you are posting your opinion as though it were fact. You claim to be a geneticist and yet you fly in the face of all your colleagues, who unanimously conclude that the environment has to be a very significant and possibly the actual determining factor in homosexuality, that environment usually being psychological damage from a variety of sources. But you cite no sources. You cite no research. You cite no studies. You have no corroboration.

no i am posting my informed opinion as an informed opinon. I understand the key concepts unlike anybody else so far, I have actually researched primary publications unlike anybody else, I have actually screened DNA libraries and amplified DNA, actually analyzed sequences and tracked expression patterns. that is why i know what heredity, inheritance, and heritability mean off the top of my head, because i have some experienc with the subject. this is not like visiting Euro Disney and claiming to know European culture. I actually know the basic principles of genetics.

and flying in my face of my colleagues?? you mean that one guys opinion and 7 wishy-washy quotes??? that is the entire genetics community??? Sorry, but you have seen 0.000001% of the science of genetics from what I have read.

my 'colleagues' are tens of thousands of professionals publishing in hundreds of scientific journals. I can assure you that Dr. Dean Hamers opinion and 7 wishy washy quotes ARE NOT the genetics community. another example of how unfamiliar people underestimate the broad range of opinions in a discipline.

who unanimously conclude that the environment has to be a very significant and possibly the actual determining factor in homosexuality, that environment usually being psychological damage from a variety of sources

HUGO you finally lost it man....

so you are saying that all my geneticist colleagues have unanimously concluded that childhood mental trauma is a significant and maybe determining factor in homosexual behavior??

That is so stupid its beyond words. as if you, someone who isn’t even familiar with the basic concepts of genetics, now knows what the entire genetics community has concluded? from one guys opinion and 6 moderate quotes? That’s like me saying I know what the American financial community thinks after watching 2 economists on CNN and reading a few quote. There is no such consensus, most of the genetics community from what I have experience take a very middle of the road approach.

first of all, geneticists don’t deal with mental trauma

secondly, genetics are not agreed on anything about homosexuality

thirdly, you concluded this all from on mans opinion and 6 quotes that all said genetics and environment both play significant roles in sexual behavior, which is obvious in 2003.

fourthly, i have repeatedly said that learned behavior plays a crucial role in addition to genetics to determining sexual identify, so i already pointed out its not nearly 100% genetics.

You cite no research. You cite no studies. You have no corroboration

maybe i should type slower or something...

HUGO, your entire first post was wrong and obviously scientifically lacking. if you dont even know the basics of human genetics, there is no point for you to ask for primary research articles, because there is no way you would understand them at this point.

when you know the most basic principles of genetics, the basic concepts of heritability, a small idea about mulitigene familes and how they are identified by linkage studies, the simplest evolutionary background on why diverse genetic alleles are maintained, THEN maybe you should restart this topic.

copying and pasting one researchers opinion, and 7 ambiguous quotes that only state the obvious, that the environment is 'significant' in sexuality, does not mean you cited evidence. first you have understand what you posting, and it needs to be peer reviewed repeatable scientific data, not a few opinions out of thousands.

Why would I believe that my original point was "dead", Riff, simply because of your clumsy and misguided assertions?

Perhaps you'll clarify your position and cite some evidence for it. I'm a little tired of the chest-beating "listen to me, I'm an expert" nonsense.

listen HUGO, i am not saying your opinion is wrong. if you dont like gays then fine. dont think its natural? fine. on some levels i would agree that society can judge what it accepts.

but if you post a few cut and pasted opinions, then go on a spiel about what heredity and inheritance is that would get you laughed out of a 1st year genetics class, expect someone who knows better to say something about it. i dont know any more about aliens or economics or 1940s soviet technology then you, but in this case I know enough to say that your assertion so far, that genetics has little influence compared to environment, is not only wrong, but is not supported by any majority of modern researchers as far as I know and have read.

want the truth?

well the truth is nobody really knows exactly what proportion of sexual behavior is hardwired into our genes. however the majority of researchers believe that all of our complex behaviors are very significantly genetically influenced by numerous genes. does that mean 60%? 75%? i dont know, but its a large part. of course that means that environment factors probably play a equally significant role too. how much? 60%? 75%? i dont know. nobody does. but one thing is certain, inherited sexual behavior predated the modern homosexuality argument by billions of years. so its assumed there is a strong genetic component to all complex behaviors, including sexuality.

so I have stated the obvious, just like your quotes, that environmental factors definitely have a major role to play.

I have pointed out that one mans opinion and several non-decisive quotes are in fact not evidence (as we learn in first year genetics...)

I restate that I have alot of experience researching primary research publications and doing genetic experiments, and doubt that non-geneticists could learn enough quickly to discuss hard core genetics. just like i cant match your experience in your job, or rondas experience in her field, or FastNeds (who seems like a bright fellow) in his field. genetics is my field, and i know that your first post was way way off in every aspect, and have tried to correct misinformation where possible, i dont see why you need to be hostile to me when i obviously have good insight, it only brings most hostility back and is pointless.

I also restate my support of whatever opinion you have about gays. I promise never to vote for anything that makes you watch men have gay sex. you dont have to like them or love them and you dont have to think they are 'natural'.

but i will point out nonsense if you try to post something that says sexual behavior isnt hardwired to some degree and misstate basic scientific principles under the guise of knowing something about genetics. Call me whacky.

You really want to read some great primary genetics? I did a great thesis two years back studying the historical rates of different mutational classes of the human X chromosome in the last 150 years and their impact on future disease trends. Its great reading for up and coming geneticists.

Now is there anything left to say to wrap up this entire mess? Do you actually want to wade through primary research articles of linkage studies? Do you still not admit that so far you really have gotten all the basic principles wrong and just need to restate your position and read up a bit before claiming insight into complex scientific disiples? That one mans opinion and 6 quotes are in no part of the scientific community considered proof any anything? That your opinion is perfectly sound as long as you don’t try to misstate actual genetics concepts? And there is NO data on earth that the majority of the genetics field thinks shows genes having only a small role in behavior- its significant at least, but we don’t know more then that.

I got tons of great research articles left over around here….i‘m sure the proof is buried in the statistical appendices as always.

Better yet, just post your ideas on heritability and how any recent study would still be limited by identifying candidate genes considering the additive multifunctional nature of all known complex behaviors. And the way that considering most candidate genes would should a statistical linkage, how to test them all in isolation considering the developmental constraints of simultaneous expression need to induce the homosexual phenotypic behavior.

Because this is really where we differ, I say that we cant have proof because of the above limitations. Whereas you seem to think the data so far is valid because your quotes supporting strong environmental influences (which is not in dispute) could only rely on complex linkages studies to support.

SirRiff

[Hugo]

Here's where you are misreading me:

The topic title, my arguments and my proofs point to the nonexistence of a simple gay gene or even a clear gene sequence. I'm not asserting that there is no genetic involvement in homosexuality and neither are my sources. You should have been able to gather that.

The reason I did this is because many people (including some on this very forum) have asserted that being gay is like being black or a woman. It isn't. Being black or female has purely genetic origins and is immune to the influence of environment. Homosexuality is a behaviour, nothing more, and as such is not purely genetic. It is highly susceptible to environment.

Therefore, it's invalid to defend homosexuality on the grounds that it is as innate as womanhood or as being black, and therefore, equating "oppressed" homosexuals with the oppression of blacks or women is just as invalid.

That's what I'm driving at. Hopefully we can understand each other and you can stop with the petty insults.

[Scotchneat]

First, being "black" is not a genetic matter, but a cultural matter. As I'm sure Sir Riff can better explain to you, there is no "black gene". Race is purely a social construct. Once again, you fail Genetics 101.

But any case, the matter of the "gay gene" is not the real issue. Even the matter of choice is not the issue. The question is one of equality.

Let's take religion, the Charter has religion as one of the enumerated grounds for protection of Section 15. Now, religion is primarily a choice, no one has to go on being Catholic, Anglican, Mormon etc. and even if you do, you don't have to follow the teaching. According Hugo, it should not be protected because it isn't inherent.

Homosexuals deserve equal rights, because their love is no different from the love of heterosexuals. The fact they have no control over their sexual orientation only makes the discrimination worse.

Hugo, quoting experts does not make an argument. Linus Pauling is a two time Nobel Laureate, but on the subject of vitamin C he's a flake. I've also seen essays citing numerous sources contracting evolution that were a complete crock.

[Hugo]

Scotch,

I'm sure I don't need to reply to this: everyone can see what an idiot you are making of yourself. Black is cultural, indeed. What rubbish.

[Scotchneat]

I guess you agree with everything else then.

The idea of "black" is a social construct. What people think of as "black" doesn't constitute any kind of proper of genetic group, because it puts people from west Africa, pygmies from central Africa, bushmen from South Africa, etc all in one group simply on the basis of dark skin.

I guess you missed the study that many people in America who think they are "white" are actually "black" meaning genetically they are closer to certain groups from Africa than Europeans.

[Hugo]

What you have said doesn't matter at all in this thread. Environment will never make a white person black, or a man into a woman. Those things are fixed. You can counsel a homosexual out of that condition, but no amount of counseling will make a black man white, nor a woman into a man.

That's why equating homosexuals with blacks and women is incorrect. Homosexuality is in large part environmental, blackness and womanhood are not at all environmental. Homosexuality is a behaviour, and that's why you can persuade somebody out of it. Have you tried to persuade a woman into full manhood?

I'm not discussing equality and rights at this time. My objective in this thread is to illustrate that homosexuality is a behaviour, and that comparisons with blacks and women are invalid. More accurate comparisons would be made with alcoholics or kleptomaniacs: compulsive and self-destructive behaviour that may have roots in genes but certainly cannot be generated without environmental influence.

[Scotchneat]

[Environment will never make a white person black]

Dead wrong. Never heard of a sun tan? Basically, that's all that's separating some "white" people from being "black" people.

"Blackness" ? Could you define that?

[More accurate comparisons would be made with alcoholics or kleptomaniacs]

Being attracted to people of the same sex is not comparable to alcoholism or kleptomania. Alcoholism is extremely destructive both mentally and physically. There are no happy and well-adjusted alcoholics (I mean true alcoholics and not heavy drinkers) . Kleptomania is also an inherently anti-social behaviour.

Gay is not destructive and anti-social. If someone gets a thrill from seeing and touching someone of the same sex, how does it harm anyone? Will his or her life span be shortened?

Actually this thread is basically pointless, because even if homosexuality is not primarily genetically based, it is most probably not the result of free will and even if it is not inherent, it is still deserving of protection against discrimination under law.

I only stay on this thread because it is interesting to see the twist and turns a person will take in results driven logic ie you don't have open mind because you've already decided that gay is bad and now you are scrambling to find "proof".

[Hugo]

You are being highly obfuscatory. You are having to make leaps to a variety of wild exceptions to somehow prove the unprovable: that being a woman or black is the same as being gay. Everybody knows that there is far more separating negroids from caucasians than a tanning bed, except you, apparently.

Homosexuality is a behaviour. Being black or a woman is not a behaviour.

Gay is not destructive and anti-social. If someone gets a thrill from seeing and touching someone of the same sex, how does it harm anyone? Will his or her life span be shortened?

Oh, very much so. I get really tired of quoting these facts when apparently nobody's listening, but a gay man's life expectancy in the 21st Century is the same as that of a peasant in the 13th. A lesbian's is not much better. Go ask the Center for Disease Control, it's their material. The act itself is dangerous, the lifestyle and behaviour even more so. I'm not dredging all this up again. Read my previous posts or do your own research and learn the truth.

[KrustyKidd]

I don't believe in a gay gene or anything. I look at it as sexual preference. Like some guys like fat chicks and are turned off by sknny ones. Vice versa, I couldn't perform with an ugly girl so think I'd ever think of getting married to one?

Trying to figure out why and at what point is like trying to ask the old "did you hate your mother/father" question to a guy just trying to get some oral sex because he just doesn't get off on manual. Does it really matter? They're gueer and they're here! Ooops, sounds like it's time to throw a few hundred mill into it on a government study.

[Scotchneat]

[You are having to make leaps to a variety of wild exceptions to somehow prove the unprovable: that being a woman or black is the same as being gay. ]

Read my posts, I never equate being gay with being a woman or being "black". I simply suggested that there could be a genetic basis for being gay and I'm pretty certain that it is inherent, but any case it is bigotry to discriminate on the basis of it.

[Everybody knows that there is far more separating negroids from caucasians than a tanning bed, except you, apparently.]

Do you have to keep making it obvious that you don't know the first thing about genetics? Yes, there are genetic markers that indicate that person is part of a certain population, however, no genetists use the terms "negroid" or "caucasian" in any scientific sense. There are some "white" people whose genetic markers make them part of populations from Africa, put them on a tanning bed and they can pass for "black" just as many "blacks" pass for "white". The indicators for "race" ie skin, hair and eye color, shape of nose and eyes, soft or hard ear wax, height, body type, etc. are highly superficial and vary greatly within populations. The genetic markers used by genetists to determine whether you are related to some else don't have much do with the typical notions of race.

[Oh, very much so. I get really tired of quoting these facts when apparently nobody's listening, but a gay man's life expectancy in the 21st Century is the same as that of a peasant in the 13th. ]

There are more gays practicing unsafe sex than straights. However, it is not inherent to being gay. Just as blacks have higher rates of sexually transmitted disease than whites. There is no cause and effect.

KrustyKidd:

[ I don't believe in a gay gene or anything. I look at it as sexual preference. ]

I think that "gay gene" is misleading. Think of it as hardware. Sexual orientation is an important function like language, so we need to learn it quickly to survive. Enviroment is the "software" that interacts with the hardware and genes are the blue print for the hardware.

[Ronda]

Between Scotch and Riff, I'm kind of nauseated by this topic. You're both utterly ridiculous. "Black? What is this black you speak of?" Etc. How blindingly dumb must one be to not realise the difference between RACE and SEXUAL PREFERENCE????!! And you both keep arrogantly asserting that Hugo has no idea about genetics, while you two clowns keep bantering on about idiotic concepts like environmentally induced race. If I have a white child and raise him in a black household, his skin colour will not change. Get it? If I beat him and sexually torment him, might he have some kind of sexual dysfunction or screwed up sexual identity? Likely.

And by the way, SirRiff, don't feign a sort of Clintonian memory lapse when it comes to whether homosexuality is totally hardwired and equatable to gender or skin colour. You and I had a good long chat about that in another thread, if you care to look back and see what your opinion was a couple short weeks ago.

Hugo's original point was that there is no gay gene. Environment ALWAYS plays a role in homosexuality. Environment NEVER plays a role in one's hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, ability to roll one's tongue, etc.

Again, KUDOS to Riff for coming along on his high horse to rant on for a few posts saying the exact same thing while simultaneously insisting on Hugo's idiocy and lack of understanding. Well put. Let me say this, SirRiff. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU! So does Hugo. Maybe you "don't like gays" either!!

[Scotchneat]

[about idiotic concepts like environmentally induced race. If I have a white child and raise him in a black household, his skin colour will not change. ]

There is only one race: the human race. The concept of "race" ie that concept that people can be classified on the basis of appearance is a social construct. Whether a person is perceived as "black" or "white" is the eye of the beholder ie subjective. Is Tiger Woods black? I guess he has dark skin and curly hair so he can pass for black, if he went to South East Asia he might be thought to be Thai, Malayasian etc.

All I have said is that if you are a very dark "white" person or very light "black" person, staying in or out of the sun could change people's perception of whether you are black or white. I guess in that sense there is the possibility of "environmentally induced race".

In any case, if you are so confident that there is a "black", "white" , and an "asian" race. Please give a definition of what "black", "white" and "asian" are.

The connection between race and homosexuality is that Hugo and Ronda are trying to make the world fit their view of it . "Black people are X" "Gays are Y" then you go to find data to back up your perception (prejudice). When data comes up that doesn't fit your view, you try to make light of it ("environmentally induced race" what a moron!) rather comprehend it.

[SirRiff]

HUGO,

really what you seem to be saying is that because sexual behavior isnt a perfectly binary choice, black or white, that an argument against it is somehow more justified. that argument just doest make any sense to me at least.

any argument against homosexual behavior that you have, certainly has enough justification by the rules that society chooses to accept. there is nothing that genetics can do to make any human behavior less natural, because by definition anything developed in nature, i.e. our basic design, is the definition of natural.

homosexuality is to some degree absolutely genetics, because our sexual gender, sexual identity, and sexual preference all seem to be modular independent parts of our sexuality.

so lets assume for simplicity its 50-50, that seems the most reasonable guess right now.

the only conclusion can be that you think that simply because a behavior cannot be excused by %100 instinct, that its somehow more open for persecution.

The reason I did this is because many people (including some on this very forum) have asserted that being gay is like being black or a woman. It isn't. Being black or female has purely genetic origins and is immune to the influence of environment. Homosexuality is a behaviour, nothing more, and as such is not purely genetic. It is highly susceptible to environment.

well i suppose i would agree generally with that statement, namely that complex sexual behavior cannot be compared to simple binary choices. and yes it is not 100% genetic from all we know.

Therefore, it's invalid to defend homosexuality on the grounds that it is as innate as womanhood or as being black, and therefore, equating "oppressed" homosexuals with the oppression of blacks or women is just as invalid.

this is where many people with genetics backgrounds would take issue with your conclusions, because there is nothing in the primary science that would allow anybody to make any conclusions about who deserves to be oppressed and who doesnt.

if you are trying to use genetics as the basic for logical argument that gays do not deserve protection against oppression I would conclude two things,

I. you have misstated the basic principles of genetics

II. there is no human that genetic science could justify being more subject to oppression then any other

Lets look up the word oppression;

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

Cambridge Dictionary of American English

when people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom:

so really what your argument is saying when you take away all the debate about how genetic homosexuality is, is that;

human characteristics that were savagely oppressed in the past such as female gender and dark skin would be unethical to oppress in modern day because we know they are completely hereditary in nature, while homosexual characteristics, don’t fall under the same category of protection, because we know they are not 100% hereditary behaviors

SO i have a few questions for you

1. do you believe in the above statement, if not, please restate it.

2a. how would a non-complete hereditary explanation for genetic influenced homosexuality make any argument for the continued oppression of homosexuality any more acceptable considering the vast advancement in human culture and acceptance came without genetic insight to any of the advancements,

2b why should a negative burden on society be differently categorized based on the inability to control the behavior?

3a. who decides what the acceptable level of hereditary contribution is that protects a group from oppression?

3b. how would the acceptable level of heredity contribution (heritability as we previously discuss) be determined without presuming to know everything about humans in the far distant future?

3c. what negative human behaviors could be similarly made tolerable because of a strong heritability link justifies them?

4. Could an unpopular benign human characteristic be unprotected from prosecution from society on the grounds it is not %100 heritable.

5. Why should the source of a characteristic overshadow its effect on society when we decide what is acceptable?

6. as homosexuality is part of the oldest animal heritable behavior system (sexual reproduction, billions of years), and assuming its not only a non-productive behavior (no offspring) but also detrimental to a population (promiscuity and heath effects), why would its genetic existence continued to be tolerated in humans over our evolution, even at %50 influence, and in nature as well?

[Scotchneat]

Sir Riff, You're wasting your time. Hugo won't discuss the equality aspect until we all admit that homosexuals are a product of the environment and can be cured.

I would like to know where the statistics about gay life expectancy come from though.

I won't continue with the genetic/race discussion other than to point out that Hugo and Ronda are completely clueless about genetics other than quotes gleened from publications put out by religious groups. There is no meaningful objective criteria for the white/black/asian race model. End of story.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Just to off-track this thread even further, if possible; if there is a gene that predisposes you for being gay, and society must accept that because it is natural, is there also a gene that predisposes you for being a bigot, AND should society not accept that as well because it is natural?

[Scotchneat]

That's not off-track. I believe that homosexuality is not harmful and could very well be helpful. Bigots are definitely harmful (especially if they get inspired by religion or ideology), so we should try to control their behaviour as best possible.

[FastNed]

Scotch, I do not know of any religion or ideology which advocates practices to spread AIDS - quite the contrary.

I do not know of any religion or ideology which claims special privilege to exempt it's members or followers from Public Health & Safety Laws intended to protect the general populace from the spread of venereal disease, including fatal ones.

That is, unless you define homosexuality as an ideology.

[Scotchneat]

It is possible that some deranged homosexual groups advocate those policy. However, such groups don't represent the views of homosexuals in general. I would not presume that the views of the People's Temple, Unification Church, Branch Davidians etc. represent the views of Christians in general. Homosexuals are not just dancers, artists, and interior decorators. There are homosexual lawyers, doctors, judges, cabinet ministers, ministers, soldiers, accountants etc.

The only thing that open homosexuals have in common is the idea that homosexuality is normal and loving someone of the same sex is okay and homosexuality should not be the basis for discrimination.

Otherwise you have people of every political stripe and mentality. Naturally, there are a few crazies.

[Hugo]

Let me make this real simple for you, Riff, because you just are not getting it.

You claimed earlier on that gay issues were the same as women's emancipation or abolitionism, because being gay was like being black or a woman. I've shown you the folly in that, and you've agreed. That's all I set out to prove, and once again, you've succeeded in contradicting yourself and shooting down your own arguments. Well done - again.

Here's some examples of you contradicting yourself:

as someone who has briefly studied the genetics of sexuality, including humans but also including all sorts of animals, its fairly certain all aspects of sexuality are in large part hard wired... in fact i would say by far [homosexuality] is biological, especially when you compare it to examples in nature and in clinical examples of gender intermediate people.

Which you so wisely follow up with:

but the field taken as a whole does not agree that genetics plays a secondary role. they know its a strong component but they don’t know to what degree. simple as that... genetics and environment both play major roles... they will both come out to be relatively large contributors since either one alone is absently known not to be able to provide the answer.

So... first it's "by far" biological, then we don't know if it's by far biological or what role biology plays at all, then it's both biological and environmental in roughly equal proportion. Make up your mind what you're arguing here.

first women were believed to be naturally inferior to men. then blacks were considered monkeys and polluting the blood lines. both gave examples of preserving society and family values to hold them down. but society forced people to stop raping and lynching. this will happen with gays.. there is no reasonable argument against gay marraige that hasnt already been shown untrue against women and blacks.

And then, again, you completely contradict yourself by saying:

there is nothing in the primary science that would allow anybody to make any conclusions about who deserves to be oppressed and who doesnt.

So first you say that "faulty science" for want of a better term has led to the oppression of blacks, women and gays, and then you claim that science has nothing to do with it and can give no answers?

Once again, Riff, you succeed in making a fool of yourself. You've blasted your own opinions out of the water, as you did about cloning and abortion. I'm sure you'll desert this thread pretty soon once your position becomes completely untenable, if it already hasn't, as you did in the many threads about Gulf II.

As for Scotch,

I already told you twice where the stats for gay life expectancy came from. They come from the Center for Disease Control (that's three times now - you need to do more reading and less ranting). If you want you can verify this with a number of independent studies. They are in my previous posts in other threads. Go find them and prove that you can actually put some effort into a post rather than shooting your ignorance from the hip.

Here's where, apart from that, you make the gaffes that expose your flawed thinking:

Science magazine and the Journal of Human Sexuality are apparently religious literature. That's a good start.

Being black or a woman is environmental, according to Scotch. I don't care how many pygmies or bushmen you can find. The point is that they will always be pygmies or bushmen, no matter what they do, or what their environment is. A black man raised in China or Norway is still black, or a pygmy or a bushman or whatever other obfuscation you care to throw in there.

There is no such thing as black/white/asian, you say, so how is it that you can identify ethnicity from a blood sample? How is it that scientists can consistently and correctly identify a characteristic that, according to you, does not even exist?