Is There a 'Gay' Gene?

[amicus]

First time attempting to post a poll....tolerate me if it does not work.

amicus

 

[Xelebes]

Prolly not. But whatever.

 

[Guest]

What Xelebes said.

No option for that in the poll, so I didn't vote.

Lou

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Levi's, worn really tight. Mmmm.

-Colly

 

[matriarch]

Levi's, worn really tight. Mmmm.

-Colly

Who the hell cares anyway, but goooood answer Colly.

 

[Xelebes]

Levi's, worn really tight. Mmmm.

-Colly

My blue jeans is tight
Climb into my love rocket
Tha Fuel is not fuel but love.

 

[Guest]

No, but I think you can order one through Amazon or eBay.

Perdita

 

[matriarch]

No, but I think you can order one through Amazon or eBay.

Perdita

Do they do a buy-one-get-one-free, offer ??
If they do, would you like my spare ???

Mat

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Is There a 'Gay' Gene?

If they do, would you like my spare ???

I'd love to try it out, Mat., but I'd want to be near you (first, anyway). P.

 

[matriarch]

Re: Re: Re: Is There a 'Gay' Gene?

I'd love to try it out, Mat., but I'd want to be near you (first, anyway). P.

Perdy, it would be my absolute pleasure.
We need to synchronise diaries.
Soon.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Levi's, worn really tight. Mmmm.

-Colly

How 'bout Lucky Brand Dungarees worn really tight?



That I can do.

~lucky

 

[Liar]

Google.com says yes: And here he is.

#L

 

[pop_54]

First time attempting to post a poll....tolerate me if it does not work.

amicus

Probably mate... Gene's always been a bit of a poncy name for a bloke.


Mate of mine once said his mother made him a homo-sexual... I said if I get her the wool would she make me one.

 

[Guest]

Pops! I keep missing you on these threads. The AV is funny but I want the real you back soon.

loves and loves, Perdita

 

[pop_54]

Pops! I keep missing you on these threads. The AV is funny but I want the real you back soon.

loves and loves, Perdita

My darling *P* & *P* The real me is cumming for you soon

 

[Guest]

Google.com says yes: And here he is.

#L

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif

 

[smutpen]

I'm a little surprised at the indifference to this issue here.

This country's pervasive homophobia has provided an attack route for the religious fanatics who'd like to destroy the U.S. Constitution.

It's truly disgusting that there is a real chance of an amendment being passed for the sole purpose of denying rights to a portion of the population purely on the basis of sexual orientation.

The answer to the question is, probably not. There is almost certainly no "gay gene," none that we've seen any evidence of.

On the other hand, there definitely is some genetic component to sexual orientation.

Studies of identical twins raised separately show about a 50% chance that if one twin is gay, the other will be, too. This is far higher than the odds for a random person.

If homosexuality were purely genetic, the correlation would be 100%, and if it were purely environmental, there would be no correlation.

Both sides overstate their cases, but any genetic component means that the biblical condemnation of homosexual relations as an abomination in the sight of God is monstrously unjust.

The religious right insists that sexual orientation is a choice. I have never believed that to be universally true, because I know I never made a choice.

Long before I had any clue about sex, I knew that some girls made me feel all funny inside, in a way that boys never did.

If I lived in a society in which the rules were reversed, I know perfectly well there would be nothing I could do to change my orientation.

 

[amicus]

smutpen...thanks...just testing the waters before I dropped the bomb....thus far only 5 votes 1 yes...4 no... and you are right it is an important issue...and those who have made light of it are aware...they are just hoping not to have to face it.

I think I will give it a day or so...just to heighten anticipation (Carol King? or Carley Simon?)

amicus

 

[lucky-E-leven]

smutpen...thanks...just testing the waters before I dropped the bomb....thus far only 5 votes 1 yes...4 no... and you are right it is an important issue...and those who have made light of it are aware...they are just hoping not to have to face it.

I think I will give it a day or so...just to heighten anticipation (Carol King? or Carley Simon?)

amicus

Whether there is a gene or not is an important issue, how?

Even if sceince could prove it, what big differences would it make? Those that don't want to believe it, won't. What people believe is what gets laws made. Where is the substance for discussion here?

~lucky

p.s. Some folks might be wary of your motives, amicus. The feminine mistake wasn't very well received, if I recall correctly, and this thread is even more vague but just as volatile. What is it you're looking to discuss?

 

[amicus]

Lucky E leven...

7 come 11....the prologue and first chapter of 'The Feminine Mistake are just about complete and undergoing editing...

The 'Gay' gene, fits in quite well thank you, if as scientific investigation purports, there is no such thing as genetically inherited homomsexual tendencies...and if it is, as it was, prior to 1973, considered an aberration and a psychological illness...then my 'supposition' that male homosexuality is partially driven by the 'feminist' movement....takes on added meaning...

Having been pressed by 'Lucifer' and others, to document what I have learned...perhaps the pressure might be taken off me and transferred to the 'documentation' that supports the views I put forth.

Then again, maybe not...

amicus

 

[thenry]

Studies of identical twins raised separately show about a 50% chance that if one twin is gay, the other will be, too.

Not to burst the statistics bubble, but if given one gay twin and fifty percent odds of the other being gay it means there is exactly no chance of a gay gene. 50/50 odds signify random behavoir.

On the other hand, the low probability of the opposite being true (given one heterosexual twin, odds of the other being heterosexual) lead to a different hypothesis. That being a "gene" for heterosexuality that, when absent, allows for random determination.

Left-handedness statistically behaves the same way. A left-handed twin has a 50% chance of having a left-handed sibling. A right-handed twin has a 4% chance of having a left-handed sibling.

 

[smutpen]

...if as scientific investigation purports, there is no such thing as genetically inherited homomsexual tendencies...

amicus

Actually, scientific investigation shows conclusively that there is some genetic element to sexual orientation.

There is probably no individual gene or group of genes that determines sexual orientation like a coin flip, but the twin data shows clearly that some people, statistically speaking, are genetically predisposed toward homosexuality.


Genetics is a lot more complicated than "is there a gene for it or not..."

 

[Guest]

I'm a little surprised at the indifference to this issue here.

This country's pervasive homophobia has provided an attack route for the religious fanatics who'd like to destroy the U.S. Constitution.

It's truly disgusting that there is a real chance of an amendment being passed for the sole purpose of denying rights to a portion of the population purely on the basis of sexual orientation.

The answer to the question is, probably not. There is almost certainly no "gay gene," none that we've seen any evidence of.

On the other hand, there definitely is some genetic component to sexual orientation.

Studies of identical twins raised separately show about a 50% chance that if one twin is gay, the other will be, too. This is far higher than the odds for a random person.

If homosexuality were purely genetic, the correlation would be 100%, and if it were purely environmental, there would be no correlation.

Both sides overstate their cases, but any genetic component means that the biblical condemnation of homosexual relations as an abomination in the sight of God is monstrously unjust.

The religious right insists that sexual orientation is a choice. I have never believed that to be universally true, because I know I never made a choice.

Long before I had any clue about sex, I knew that some girls made me feel all funny inside, in a way that boys never did.

If I lived in a society in which the rules were reversed, I know perfectly well there would be nothing I could do to change my orientation.

Oh, don't get us wrong, smutpen.

We feel the issue is very important and worthwhile, and we feel homophobia is one of the worst types of prejudice our country is facing right now.

It is just amicus to whom we are indifferent.

 

[amicus]

Smut...

I only pass what I read I am not a psychologist or a behavioral scientest..however...in the next day or so, I will present documentation that refutes what you just wrote...especially about twins...a flawed experiment....

It should be an interesting discussion...

amicus

 

[amicus]

Sweetsubnormal...that was glaringly obvious to all who know the cliche that reigns here...

prepare your defenses...

amicus