Hugo Posted October 20, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2003 you could have a male body, that feels female, who is drawn to men or a female body,that feels female, that is drawn to women. Given that we know that the biological purpose of sexuality is reproduction, that would mean that the above information shows that homosexuality and other deviancies are basically genetic disorders like hemophilia, Huntington's disease or cystic fibrosis - errors in the genetic composition that cause the malfunction of the organism they manifest in, if that extrapolation were true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debo Posted October 21, 2003 Report Share Posted October 21, 2003 I cant buy into the gay gene. Really it doesnt work when put to the basic tests. If a gay gene were a legit thing how could it be passed?If you have non gay parents the gene manifesting would be doubtful. And why now, why has it grown to such alarming proportions in fairly recent times? Men and women are bio different, how could the gene rep itself the same in both. And , if it was a gene, could we not identify and gut it out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 21, 2003 Report Share Posted October 21, 2003 Debo, you are right, there is no gay gene, there is no fat gene, no tall gene, no ugly gene, no missing teeth gene, no humped back genes nor is there one gene for fat noses. As Hugo said, DNA make up is layered - interacting genomes produce physical, mental, behavioural traits and there is not one master gene that controls your sexuality. Homosexuality from the time of Ancient Thebes has been a social-environmentally induced phenomenon and deviancy. It has more to do with a combination of innate and socio-familial-environmental factors than some genetic hard wiring. The main purpose of those advocating genetics as the cause of homosexuality is to rewrite laws, impose a view of the world that is based upon a hedonistic, bacchanalian philosophy where all is equal, pleasure and self love to be elevated and the institutions which have allowed western wealth to accumulate, to be ignored. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the creation of a new society. The irony is that those who support gay marriage are so intolerant that if you object, you are named as intolerant and inflexible. As with most left liberal tirades, facts, evidence and rationality never enter into their thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debo Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 Debo, you are right, there is no gay gene, there is no fat gene, no tall gene, no ugly gene, no missing teeth gene, no humped back genes nor is there one gene for fat noses. As Hugo said, DNA make up is layered - interacting genomes produce physical, mental, behavioural traits and there is not one master gene that controls your sexuality. Homosexuality from the time of Ancient Thebes has been a social-environmentally induced phenomenon and deviancy. It has more to do with a combination of innate and socio-familial-environmental factors than some genetic hard wiring. The main purpose of those advocating genetics as the cause of homosexuality is to rewrite laws, impose a view of the world that is based upon a hedonistic, bacchanalian philosophy where all is equal, pleasure and self love to be elevated and the institutions which have allowed western wealth to accumulate, to be ignored. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the creation of a new society. The irony is that those who support gay marriage are so intolerant that if you object, you are named as intolerant and inflexible. As with most left liberal tirades, facts, evidence and rationality never enter into their thinking. Hell, I thought it was just to make it a little less than totally unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Well it is part of the grand socialist plan of societal engineering. Ottawa loves money and power. Co-opt prpgrams are fig leafs for taking money and then keeping it not returning it to the Cities or Prov.'s. Judicial activism and telling us what is marriage is a logical extension of this fiscal control. CBC propaganda is a logical outcome of such ideals. Finance, morality, non state institutions - all of these are under attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted October 25, 2003 Report Share Posted October 25, 2003 I cant buy into the gay gene. Really it doesnt work when put to the basic tests.If a gay gene were a legit thing how could it be passed?If you have non gay parents the gene manifesting would be doubtful. And why now, why has it grown to such alarming proportions in fairly recent times? Men and women are bio different, how could the gene rep itself the same in both. And , if it was a gene, could we not identify and gut it out? we have covered this in detail on the thread specifically, a few pages back i wrote a detailed and very reasonable explanation for the basis and origins of the genetic influence of homosexual behavior. its based on real genetic truth. geneticly hardwired homosexual behavior is very possible, SirRiff Quote SirRiff, A Canadian Patriot "The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted November 23, 2003 Report Share Posted November 23, 2003 Your article contained no facts or scientific evidence. It is clear if you read the thread [do you read any posts?], that there is no genetic rationale for homosexuality. No researchers can confirm it. Through peer review the genetic theory is dead - it failed. Read about ancient greece - thebes and sparta - tell me that the 'mens clubs' that were spawned there and the anti-femininst culture of the greeks [who feared if not hated women], were 'genetically' induced. Prove that these mens clubs where older men taught younger men about history, the arts, and war, in return for sexual favors, which helped create a bond between these men in a society constantly at war, was a genetically induced and naturally enforced set of behaviours. Prove that this society which accepted homosexuality as an integral part of making their society function better and as a bulwark against feminine wiles was genetically induced. Of course it wasn't. Get serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted November 23, 2003 Report Share Posted November 23, 2003 Your article contained no facts or scientific evidence.It is clear if you read the thread [do you read any posts?], that there is no genetic rationale for homosexuality. No researchers can confirm it. Through peer review the genetic theory is dead - it failed. are you actually responding to me? i can only assume...yet what you say is so, how should i say.. ignorant...its hard to be sure... but alas tis true, this thread was dead a while ago... if you dont find any 'facts' or 'evidence' in that article you must be illiterate. not understanding something is not the same as finding nothing compelling. i am also forced to wonder what qualifies you to judge seveal PhD career researchers publishing in the respected journal Molecular Brain Research. as one of the few who actually went through the slow process of learning the complexities of genetics over years and who can recognize and discuss the most basic concepts of genetics on this thread, i can give you an informed and accredited opinion that you have yet to write anything that shows any understanding of the most basic concepts of genetics. just thought you should know. some people know so little about science its painfull to even read things like the above. its funny that you cite your years living in europe in another thread, yet someone magically consider yourself informed about genetics without reason. which is it? does experience confer insight or not? some people have jobs in genetics, some people are laywers, or nurses, or teachers, or engineers, or business owners or whatever. thats fine. but the sad part is when people cant seperate a normal opinion from an informed insight. if you study and work in genetics, you have an insight into it. if you are a lawyer you know law. if you are a nurse you know clinical medicine. if you are a civil engineer, you know design and construction. i have opinions in all of them, but not any real insight. there is plenty of research to indicate hardwired genetics will influence many human behaviors, including sexual preference. sirriff Quote SirRiff, A Canadian Patriot "The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted November 23, 2003 Report Share Posted November 23, 2003 Sir Riff, Craig points out a significant and valid problem about Dr. Vilain's research paper ie. its hyped "hardwired homosexuality "findings were not considered/accepted by his peers. UCLA consciously mislead the press about the findings of Dr. Vilain's research in a press release issued on October 15, which was 5 days before the research was actually published. The misleading findings/conclusions/hypothesis in the press release were not be stated in the actual scientific paper because if Vilain had tried to do that, the scientific peer review committee would not have allowed his paper to be published. There was no scientific basis to make that leap in judgement. In other words, what Dr. Vilain actually found/concluded is a far cry from what UCLA's press release stated and which Reuters published. This was pointed out in an intersex organization's newsletter as follows. FTMA's observations on UCLA's brain study. In the article titled "Sexual Identity Hard-Wired by Genetics," Reuters reported on October 20 that one's sexual or gender identity is "wired into the genes," citing the new research by UCLA geneticist Eric Vilain and colleagues...However, none of this is actually established or discussed in the actual research paper this news report is based on...How did a reputable news agency such as Reuters make such horrible reporting errors? We found a press release issued by UCLA on October 15 which apparently provided the basis for the Reuters story. Titled "Is sexuality hard-wired by the brain?", the UCLA release states, among other things: "Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our actual anatomy... These discoveries lend credence to the idea that being transgender --- feeling that one has been born into the body of the wrong sex -- is a state of mind... Their gender identity likely will be explained by some of the genes we discovered." Vilain's findings on the brain's sex genes may also ease the plight of parents of intersex infants, and help their physicians to assign gender with greater accuracy... "If physicians could predict the gender of newborns with ambiguous genitalia at birth, we would make less mistakes in gender assignment," said Vilain. Lastly, Vilain proposes that the UCLA findings may help to explain the origin of homosexuality. "It's quite possible that sexual identity and physical attraction is 'hard-wired' by the brain," he noted. "If we accept this concept, we must dismiss the myth that homosexuality is a 'choice' and examine our civil legal system accordingly." These are wild claims, and none of them is warranted from the actual study. And Vilain knows it: which is why he and his colleagues didn't mention any of this in the actual paper, which must be peer-reviewed by other scientists, but chose to wildly speculate in the press release, which is only read by science novices. I suspect that Reuters reporter did not even read the actual paper, relying solely on the press release to write the article.Reuters is irresponsible for uncritically relaying the message, but we find UCLA's press release much more unethical, because it appears that the release is intentionally written to be misleading and sensationalistic. Perhaps the UCLA researchers thought that the press release would help make the society more accepting of gays and transsexuals, but they overstepped the ethical line when they made these wild predictions and suppositions about the biological roots of transsexuality or homosexuality when their study actually had nothing to do with gender identity or sexual orientation (or even human sexuality). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted November 23, 2003 Report Share Posted November 23, 2003 ok, hold on a minute, you are referencing several different things which i am not sure if i follow. this site: http://www.ftmaustralia.org/ is self described as; FTM Australia is an information, support and advocacy association for men who experience transsexualism (sometimes called female-to-male transsexuals), others affirming masculinity, their partners and families in Australia. We provide contact, advocacy, education and information.Parents/family members, professionals and service providers are welcome to contact us for information on issues affecting men with transsexualism or female-to-male transgender people. ok, so this organization supports F- M transexuals. its based in australia. ok fine. the quote you cited is FTMA's critique of that study i posted from molecular brain research? i dont remember the scientists name but i assume thats 'UCLA geneticist Eric Vilain'. so FTMA has the original UCLA press release on thier site, then thier own added response to what they feel was Reuters bad reporting of a bad press release. did they at first accept the release then add their response or was it all supposed to be part of a package? i cant tell myself. anyways, i actually read the entire article because its very similar (although more complex obviously) to the stuff we did in the lab. ok, now here is why i have no clue why you are citing these guys. the criticism of the press release and rueters reporting is originally coming from a group called Intersex Initiative Portland. this is how they describe themselves; Intersex Initiative Portland (ipdx) is a network of intersex activists and allies working to stop the medical abuse of intersex children, and to challenge medical and social erasure of intersex existence through raising the awareness of issues faced by intersex people. We work both locally (Portland, Oregon) and nationally.Intersex Initiative Portland is affiliated with Survivor Project, which addresses the needs of intersex and trans survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Emi Koyama has been a board member for Survivor Project and an intern-turned-staffer at Intersex Society of North America before founding Intersex Initiative. Since January 2003, she has been working full-time as the director of ipdx. so are you resting your criticism of a complicated molecular biology experiment on the opinion of the intersex initiative???? who the hell are these guys? compared to UCLA and reuters?? thats insane, they just a small organization with no medical or scientific or journalistic expertise or recognition around the work, unlike reuters or UCLA. now maybe reuters or UCLA screwed up, we would have to do some serious reading and debate to explore that, but to call into question an experiment done by career researchers because some wahoos in portland say so in nonsense. if you want to question the methods of the experiment i would discuss that and that is one issue. if you want to discuss whether the results of the experiment were overstated that is another issue. if you want to discuess whether UCLA was inaccurately represented the study in its press release, or if reuters inaccurately reflected the study in its piece, that is another issue to. so the point is, the only criticism of the evidence linking genes to sexual development should go towards the study. not what some waa hoos say about this or even what UCLA says about it. the real evidence is what this study, along with the field of genetics concerned with sexual identity, have to say about it. so you seem to be concerned about a press release, which is a debate about accuracy and journalism maybe. but that has NOTHING to do with the results of this experiment which i posted and what we can learn from it. so are you concerned with how some reuters guy did a piece extrapolating UCLAs claimed implications, or are you concerned with the hard core results? i would suggest the primary research itself is the most important. because no matter how much a journlaist screws something up, if it was right in the first place, that is what is meaningfull. bad reporting does not lessen the evidency of any study. so please clarify a bit how you think any of this matters seeing as i did not post the press release, and i did not post the story, i posted the primary paper, so all the genetic experts here could discuss it. i posted the real stuff, not third person right? so i dont see the problem. sirriff Quote SirRiff, A Canadian Patriot "The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted November 23, 2003 Report Share Posted November 23, 2003 There are no "genetics experts here" unless I missed reading citations of scientific articles written by people on this forum, including yourself. In cyber space we can all represent ourselves as Nobel Prize winners in biology and who is to know the difference? Furthermore, the vested personal interests of the intersex organization I quoted are no different than that of the gay groups on the net and on this forum who are now promoting that the Vilain study is earthshatterring because it shows homosexuality is hard-wired. I made my point earlier, but I'll briefly re-state it. The findings of Vilain's study do not show that homosexuality is hardwired prior to birth. The press release from UCLA, which was not peer reviewed, suggested that Vilain's study did this and that's what Reuters ran with, even incorporating the title of UCLA's press release to its own. I used the comments of a "third party," the intersex organization, because I thought we were supposed to provide a link to opinions we post whenever possible. I think their comments made sense...there was more hype about gay hardwiredness than what the actual findings were in Vilain's research. End of story. How difficult is that for you to understand? Whether the intersex group is based in Australia or Oregon is a moot point. As to whether they are less credible than Reuters, my answer to you is no, they're not. Reuters is a privately owned company that's in the business of making money by selling news. The Reuters reporters go to journalism school which affords them no greater "credibility" than the lay people who comprise the FTMA organization. As we learned from Jayson Blair and from Jordan Easton, news agencies have no professional accountability for what they CHOOSE to print or to omit. IMHO, the transgender organization's criticism of the baseless gay related hooplah surrounding Vilain's research is as valid or more so than what is spun by the Reuters reporters who only want to sell a product - the news. Vilain's research actually may have an impact on transgender issues. Furthermore Reuters' "journalists" come with a degree in airy fairy political correctness. A baboon could get through journalism school. It takes no special genius to be a journalist and you have to look no further than the CBC for evidence of that. Similarily, the UCLA press release is written by PR folks in the university trying to drum up more grants for Dr. Vilain for future research studies. How does that make them any more believable than the FTMA organization?The fact of the matter is Dr. Vilain will get more money if the press release is spun as relating to gays rather than to babies born with ambiguous genitalia which Vilain's original research was focused on, incidently, because the latter does not have a large vocal lobby group pressing government for research grants. You obviously don't like what the transgender organization says because it detracts from the gay activists' hopes that Vilain's research proves that sexual preference is hardwired and beyond individual control. But I don't think the transgender organization's comments are invalid just because they are politically incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 I made my point earlier, but I'll briefly re-state it. The findings of Vilain's study do not show that homosexuality is hardwired prior to birth. The press release from UCLA, which was not peer reviewed, suggested that Vilain's study did this and that's what Reuters ran with, even incorporating the title of UCLA's press release to its own. I used the comments of a "third party," the intersex organization, because I thought we were supposed to provide a link to opinions we post whenever possible. I think their comments made sense...there was more hype about gay hardwiredness than what the actual findings were in Vilain's research. End of story. How difficult is that for you to understand? uh, i dont care about the intersex guys, i dont care about the UCLA press release, i dont care about reuters, i posted and discussed the primary research article. why dont you just read the article and digest it on its own strength or weakness instead of going to bizarre third party side shows? nobodies else opinin alters the experiment. if you think there is a flaw in the method or materials or conclusions please post your views. maybe you found something everyone else missed. your whole post goes on and on about intersex, and ucla and reuters and god knows what else. what are you talking about? how does any of that effect the article findings? i am just concerned with the experiment, free of what anybody else says supporting or dissenting. simple enough? nobody else matters as far as i see. so for the people who know how to read genetics papers, what is important is the proported link in brain development to hardwirded genetic pathways. dont you agree? the findings are still sound are they not? In cyber space we can all represent ourselves as Nobel Prize winners in biology and who is to know the difference? actually its easy to tell the difference by looking at peoples mastery of genetic concepts and technical terms. it becomes easier after several years and is different then copying and pasting. sirriff Quote SirRiff, A Canadian Patriot "The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elder Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 Does it really matter if homosexuality is a gene? If it is, than it's not a helpful one, from a biological or religious standpoint. If it is a gene, it's a loosing adaptation that discourages reproduction. That is not helpful to the human race, to religion, to culture, or society. To say that it is a gene is not all that different from saying that Down Syndrome is a gene, which we know is. To say that it is a gene is basicly to say that homosexuals are the product of a genetic defect. Now, we do not persecute people who have down syndrome, but we still try to help them overcome their disabillities. Similarly, we shouldn't persecute homosexuals, but if this is a gene, we should try to help them overcome this defect and become contributing members to society, and that includes the contribution of having children (something that a gay couple can't do by being gay) and raising those children to be contributing members of society. If it isn't a gene, than it's a choice, which will be much easier to deal with. At any rate, homosexuality, gene or no, is not at all helpful, and while those who are homosexual should not be persecuted, they should be helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 Does it really matter if homosexuality is a gene? If it is, than it's not a helpful one, from a biological or religious standpoint. If it is a gene, it's a loosing adaptation that discourages reproduction. That is not helpful to the human race, to religion, to culture, or society. your statement that a homosexual behavior gene is not helpfull is once again a product of misunderstanding of the true fundamentals of genetics. i put a very realistic explanation of how a so called 'gay gene' could come to be and its modern day function. when you make a value judgement of what is good or bad in biology you cannot look at it in 1 dimension like you did above. the purpose or function of a gene is far above any 1 particular phenotypic example. there are numerous reasons why the same gene that may promote observed homosexual came to be, would be retained through evolution, and would continue to exist as i wrote in an earlier post. To say that it is a gene is not all that different from saying that Down Syndrome is a gene, which we know is. To say that it is a gene is basicly to say that homosexuals are the product of a genetic defect first of all down syndrome is not a gene. down syndrome is a congenital medical condition resulting from a genetic defect, almost always a partial or complete trisomy 21 (duplication of the 21st chromosome). this has nothing to do with homosexual behavior or a potential 'gay gene'. calling something defective is subjective. something harmfull to a person may be beneficial to species (which i also expanded apon in this thread in malaria/sickle cell anemia). a mutation one may may prevent cancer and another way may cause cancer. a gay gene is not just about gayness, it may be amout many other behaviors that are just part a spectrum. in truth, most likely if there is a 'gay gene' its working right now inside you, as part of your complex human social behavior. thus you cannot seperate the outcome of a particular behavior in an individual from the purpose of that behavior in society. in summery, population genetics tell us most likely; the complex sexual interaction and identity humans have developed in our complex society is essential for our success. because our behavior must be so complicated and responsive, certain unique combinations will be produced. however you cannot remove the unique results without destroying the entire system that has evolved so perfectly. this is the complex nature of genetically hardwired human behavior. sirriff Quote SirRiff, A Canadian Patriot "The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righturnonred Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 I am almost certain that if the scientific community were to actually study the medical aspects of homosexualty, they would discover that this condition is a mental disorder with biological root causes. I find it rather inconsistent that while transexuality is classified as a mental disorder, homosexuality is not, presumably for reasons of poltical correctness. The two have very similar properties yet the latter is untouchable in the field of disease research. I'm willing to bet that if given the opportunity, most homosexuals would prefer overwhelmingly to be treated for their condition and returned to normalcy. Instead, our culture has grown to encourage these individuals to embrace their malady, which is a disservice to society and to those afflicted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elder Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 My apologies for my statement on genetics. I'm really no expert in that field. My position on Homosexuality stands, but I will concede that when it comes to genetics, I don't have the knowledge to offer a valid opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elder Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Despite my lack of knowledge in Genetics, I hold my position. If Homosexuality is caused by a gene, is that any justification for it? A person can choose to overcome their genetics. You can choose to overcome habits and tendancies. Sometimes it's difficult, but that's where a test of character comes in. Whether Homosexuality is genetic or not does not affect the morality thereof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righturnonred Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 I really don't see what difference it makes whether homosexuality is genetic or not. A person's propensity for developing a myriad of diseases is influenced by genetics including heart disease, obesesty, diabetes, asthma, alchoholism, mental disorder, etc. It just brings us back to the paramount question which is: Is homosexuality beneficial in the course of human evolution? The answer, IMHO, is no. Another interesting facet of this discussion is the fact that, apart from humans, homosexuality exists nowhere else in nature, although some animals occasionally engage breifly in homosexual behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.