Study seeks DNA clues on homosexuality
- 10-17-2007, 02:49 AM
Study seeks DNA clues on homosexuality
Study seeks DNA clues on homosexuality - Yahoo! News
Does anyone believe that genetics plays a role on sexuality of straight,bi,lez,gey?
- 10-17-2007, 06:00 AM
10-17-2007, 01:49 PM
10-17-2007, 02:33 PM
I think it is BS, but what do I know?
If it is true then it is a flawed gene, maybe a gene saying you should no pro-create???? Kind of goes hand in hand with Survival of the Fittest.
There is nothing wrong with someone being gay, but it goes against Natural Law.
10-18-2007, 05:51 PM
From an evolutionary point of view, homosexuality is very useful when the size of the population becomes large. It basically limits how fast the population grows.
In any case, homosexuality is great because:
1) Girl on girl
2) Girl on girl
3) Girl on girl
10-18-2007, 06:07 PM
10-18-2007, 06:15 PM
10-18-2007, 07:14 PM
10-18-2007, 08:21 PM
I do agree however that two hot chicks on each other is reasonable natural We all come from breast feeding, boys and girls alike start at momma breast, so it stands to reason. Women are entitled to have a healthy lesbian curiosity.
I tell you what is really doing it these days, all the estrogens in the environment and a latent social agenda to encourage it. Homosexuality has always been at the bottom of the curve to some self-limited degree, but genes will not explain the recent surge of this behavior.
10-18-2007, 08:38 PM
Homosexuality, despite what a conservative imperative may wish you to perceive, has been around since humans stopped engaging in sexual activity strictly on a procreation precedent. "Natural Law", as it were, has little to do with the contemporary interplay of the complex set of social relations we have so deemed 'society'. Viewing a set of relations so nuanced and intricate as developed society in terms of 'natural laws' is, aptly put, I suppose, primitive and archaic.
10-18-2007, 08:58 PM
Whether those of you out there like it or not, both males and females of every species (yes including humans) have some degree of "homosexual" tendancies. This does not mean that everyone is homosexual, or would kiss another of the opposite sex etc... but this does mean that to some degree every one of us has the ability to rank another of the same sex on attractivenes.
If we did not have any of this homosexual gene or whatnot, we would be unable to determine whether another of the same sex is attractive or not. I.e you couldnt tell whether G. Bush was more or less attractive than some CK model ...
Finally I would like to say that I do belive that homosexuality is linked to genes, or has a basic genetic starting point (as menioned above). I mean look at how we develop, we all start off as females, then depending on certain factors (i wont go into here as this isnt biology class) we either remain female or develop into male characteristics. Now would it, or would it not be possible that at some point, some gene is not properly converted into the correct "sex" and so still functions as if one was female (i.e male attracted to female).
The same can be said for females, whereby the clitoris is infact....a small penis.
There are many articles and studies on this, and yes Dr.D is correct enviroment certainly plays a role, but it CANNOT make you turn "homosexual" or homosexual to "straight" as has been proved....obviously.
10-18-2007, 09:02 PM
"Homosexuality has always been at the bottom of the curve to some self-limited degree, but genes will not explain the recent surge of this behavior."
By most estimates, homosexuals have always comprised about 10-13% of the population..the Greeks wrote of it, the Romans, the Shogunate, ancient India et cetera.
I highly doubt there is a surge in "this behavior", rather it's no longer an automatic death sentence for those who engage in it so you're more prone to see it.
10-18-2007, 09:07 PM
Homosexual lover to the Roman emperor
Hadrian Archeologists have discovered ruins of a temple near Rome that is dedicated to the youthful slave historians believe was a homosexual lover to the Roman emperor Hadrian.
The temple to Antinous, noted for his beauty, athleticism and hunting ability, dates to 134 A.D., four years after he died at the age of 21.
The temple was discovered during excavations on Hadrian's villa, about 20 miles east of Rome. Archeologists reportedly found planters and fountains for interior gardens and marble fragments with hieroglyphics.
Scholars are uncertain whether Antinous committed suicide by jumping into the Nile river or was pushed by the emperor's jealous aides. The discovery of this temple may provide the answer, according to lead archeologist Zaccaria Mari.
According to historians, Hadrian was so distraught over Antinous' death that he declared the former slave a god and named a city in Egypt -- Antinopolis -- after him.
Hadrian (76-138 A.D.) is considered one of the greatest Roman emperors.
10-18-2007, 09:18 PM
10-18-2007, 09:25 PM
Exactly. As I said, from the very onset of our transition from strictly nomadic and fragmented tribes to agrarian and simple commodity producing 'societies' [in quotations, as the earliest civilizations lacked infrastructural necessities to be deemed a society], we have progressively divorced our conduct from 'Natural Law'.
Property ownership, inheritance, governmental structures, education, medicine, all by this 'Natural Law' definition, deviate from the inherent instinctual behaviour of humans. The point I am trying to illustrate, is our conduct is no longer dictated in a linear-causal relationship by 'Natural Law'. It has not been since the collective capacities of humanity was great enough to rise above naturally imposed barriers on a consistence basis; thereby rendering judging conduct based on 'natural' behaviour utterly de-nuanced, so to speak. Furthermore, collective moral regulations have influenced heterogeneous mate selection to a degree where 'naturality' exists only on the most basic of biological levels. This point is perfectly illustrated by consistently changing conceptualizations of beauty, and what constitutes a good mate. If I, and every other male in this thread, chose mates based on natural factors, we would not consider 'beauty' and 'consciousness' as determinant factors; quite simply, those females deemed to present the highest possibility of reproduction would be chosen.
10-18-2007, 09:26 PM
If I remember rightly Socrates (roman philosopher) was homosexual.....
I think this thread is going to continue for many eons to come...
So who opened up this can of worms then?!!!!
10-18-2007, 09:28 PM
Homosexuality was an accepted part of Athenian culture, pedophilia, by contemporary definition, was as well.
10-18-2007, 09:29 PM
10-18-2007, 09:34 PM
10-18-2007, 11:13 PM
10-18-2007, 11:19 PM
10-18-2007, 11:24 PM
Its like some military experiment for a new bilogical stink weapon.
So i bought one with a roof on it today and a flap for the door....and...of course they have NO IDEA where to go for a crap so they keep trying to go on the roof of the box... bah! Loose loose situation.
Sorry, had to rant about that. Carry on.
Last edited by MashedPotato; 10-18-2007 at 11:24 PM. Reason: cat did a turd on the box
10-18-2007, 11:25 PM
I'll go ahead and translate this for others.
Translation: If you make a nice little bell curve showing height vs population of people at this height, the really tall and really short people will be at the ends of this bell curve. Genius.Originally Posted by DR.D
You're going to have to explain where this asymptote is, because right now what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Do you perhaps mean "within 1 standard deviation"?Originally Posted by Dr.D
I'm sure that homosexuals aren't offended by your brilliant observation that they're in the minority of the population.Originally Posted by Dr.D
Also, "Natural Law" is a philosophical stance and what you really wanted to say originally is "Natural Selection."
Natural Law is what the Vatican uses to say that homosexuality is bad, mmkay? Natural Selection is what someone with a misunderstanding of evolution uses to say that homosexuality is bad.
10-18-2007, 11:35 PM
As for the terminology as it applies to religion and philosophy, sorry to get it twisted. God forbid I misquote to the delight of the Vatican! I really don't think they have much room to point figures or cast judgment, but that's a whooooole other can of worms there.
10-18-2007, 11:35 PM
10-18-2007, 11:38 PM
and then proceed to claim your comments weren't condescending toward homosexuals. Then, in your response you explicitly express derogatory opinions toward homosexuals. Strange logic.and a latent social agenda to encourage it. Homosexuality has always been at the bottom of the curve to some self-limited degree, but genes will not explain the recent surge of this behavior.
What you stated, was a misrepresented statistical trait of dominant normative values-not fact. Dominant and less dominant normative values do not suggest moral imperatives, nor 'rightness' or 'wrongness' as you are doing. Simply a strong or weak representation within a sample population.
10-18-2007, 11:42 PM
In regards to homosexuality being something other than a "behavioral preference" there is homosexuality in all of the animal world. Recently a hormonal treatment was performed on sheep that made homosexual male sheep start mounting females. This suggest that there is definitely a biological aspect in sheep, and most likely in all other animals, exhibiting homosexual behavior.
10-18-2007, 11:50 PM
Finding the gene, at the genome level, seems to most often involve simply poking around until an interesting bit of genetic code appears, attempting to figure out what it codes for, and then testing men and women of varying sexual orientations for differences in sequencing. One such failed experiment, done by Macke et al. (1993), demonstrates this. They hypothesized that the gene coding for androgen receptors could cause some variation in sexual orientation. When samples of about 200 gay and presumed heterosexual subjects were tested for sequence variation of the gene, no significant variation was found. Although the gene that Hamer et al. (1993) were testing did show difference in homosexual and heterosexual men (only men were tested), both show the same approach, in which a gene may simply be found by chance.
And finally to summarize...
A large body of evidence is growing that points to sexual orientation being genetically determined, but not necessarily a completely conclusive one. Replication is severly lacking in many areas of research into sexual orientation, the exception being the famiality studies. Consistently returning the same result of 50% of identical twins being concordant for sexual orientation, these are some of the strongest evidence in support of a genetic theory of sexual orientation. These studies also tend to be the easiest type to carry out, as they do not involve any medical technique any more invasive than the standard questionnaire. All do have the same problem of how their sample was gathered, but with such a similarity of results and such a large total sample, that factor becomes less important.
10-18-2007, 11:51 PM
And as with anything human, let's not forget free will. More than anything, the bottom line is that it is a choice.
10-18-2007, 11:57 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By Ballesteri in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 1Last Post: 03-08-2013, 04:29 PM
- By AthleticXtreme in forum SupplementsReplies: 108Last Post: 07-24-2012, 02:52 PM
- By HadesKrull in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 0Last Post: 06-02-2008, 12:57 AM