Queer eye for the straight guy

[SirKenin]

Having followed this kind of "homosexuality is genetic" argument for years, I knew that discussions of genetics and left-handedness would come up - as well as attempts to equate homosexuality with alcoholism, based upon a genetic predilection.

No, it's just that I've been following this material for so long that I anticipated where the discusion would eventually go, and figured I might as well post all the relevant links up front.

What a bunch of nonsense, IMHO. The discussion wasn't going there at all. You're trying to lead it there.

 

[kdet]

2) Directing posts towards individuals, instead of the topics and issues being discussed

3) Taunting any member

4) Sarcasm or hostile posts

These are the rules..your posts to me have broken each of these.
I am asking you to stop.

 

[Omnedon]

ROFL This is too good to pass up. You're pounding on poor kitty for nothing.

Not really. She doesn't seem to understand that the discussion is valuable to the educational process - especially since the discussion covers all the same material.

I'm not going to go back and discuss my arguments for you, they pretty much speak for themselves.

I don't blame you for abandoning a sinking boat.

Hence why I didn't bother with you before.

No, you didn't "bother with me before" because I signed off last night and went to bed.

In the meantime, you were busy grasping at straws for 10 full pages of the discussion - in other words, you had your hands full and couldn't handle any more.

In any event, you asked for sources - I provided a bucketful. Go for it.

However, this can't go unnoticed. You are trying to compare lefthandedness with homosexuality. That is the only links I saw in that thread, some off-topic study of handedness to try and make an already flailing case. You're trying to make a rudder out of a cardboard box.

Nope. I already explained this to Durango:

The lefthandedness argument comes up all the time as a proper corollary to sexual orientation. And if you check the comment here the original poster first provided the link, you'll see exactly what I mean. Because that's exactly how that person brought it up.

In addition, there are other links in the thread that deal with phenotypical expression of traits being sourced in multiple genes. Do they deal with homosexuality? No, but genetic expression of traits is also a part of this same "homosexuality is genetic" discussion.

Sorry, but there's no connection between the two, really.

Actually, there is. For more than one reason. Left-handedness:

1. is not "normal" or average, in the sense that it is expressed by the majority of the population;
2. affects a similar proportion of the population;
3. was once thought to be evil or wicked, but now in the modern age, no sensible person thinks so;
4. has no ill effects on the person in question;
5. has been used as a proper corollary to the orientation question.

In fact, one of the links I provided has a side-by-side chart of some interesting similarities.

A couple of years ago the press (BBC, it's linked in this thread) issued a release that although they are hunting for a homosexual gene, they will probably never find one.

Sources, please.

Let's also remember that the issue isn't whether or not you are attracted to other men through genetics. Nobody cares. The issue is the conscious choice to act on it. Stay focused.

Actually, the topic of the thread had diverged down several paths. So complaints that my comments are off the topic don't really work. A discussion is an organic thing, that changes, flows and grows. And, of course, if you would stop raising non-relevant issues, that would certainly go a long way to keeping everyone "focused", as you say.

 

[Omnedon]

What a bunch of nonsense, IMHO. The discussion wasn't going there at all. You're trying to lead it there.

Wrong. The discussion has already gone to the question of genetics, etc.

 

[SirKenin]

Incidentally, Omnedon, I'm skimming through those articles again. A complete bunch of rubbish that doesn't address the issue.

It looks good to post a bunch of links, but links to peoples homepages? Come on. Even we did better than that.

Now that I'm starting to read them, I realize they aren't relevant. They talk about converting homosexuals to heterosexuals, or they talk about homosexuality being normal, or being declassified as a psychiatric disorder. We heard all that pages and pages ago.

The deal still stands. My arguments still stand, and the nonsense you contributed, forgive me for my rough stance on it, does absolutely nothing to debunk my position, or that of the BBC, the CDC, AEGIS or anyone else.

 

[SirKenin]

Wrong. The discussion has already gone to the question of genetics, etc.

Nothing to do with lefthandedness whatsoever. You are trying to lead it there, and that's what I'm saying.

You're trying to make a rudder out of a cardboard box.

 

[lunachick]

For heaven's sake everyone! Stop behaving like a bunch of naughty kids at camp. (pun only partially intended. )

Forget all the he said, she said, you said, I said rubbish and address the topic, please!

The way I see it, is that many people are opposed to the concept of their possibly being a "gay gene" because it implies that the gene has been passed down by one or both parents, and many parents can't handle that thought and become defensive about suggests of genetic input. But that's just my opinion.

As has been said, the human genome is no where near being decoded, and given the vast complexities inherent in our species, is unlikely to be fully understood in our lifetimes.

I remember seeing a documentary, however, that showed differences in the brain. My memory is hazy on the specifics, but I shall endeavour to find some solid info on the topic. I'll return with what I find, presently.

Incidentally, in regard to the OP - NZ has had the world's longest running GLBT TV programme, and I don't believe it has changed anyones inherent sexuality. I have gay and lesbian friends, I occassionally watch the show, I've read gay and lesbian literature, etc, and yet I remain a raving heterosexual despite 40 years of gay/lesbian exposure. Go figure.

Edited to add: Also, should homosexuality be proved to have it's basis in genetics and the brain - that is, it has biological origins - then it renders homosexuality amoral, rather than immoral - and the Church needs immorality with which to fuel it's hellfire. Amoral just won't do.

 

[Omnedon]

Incidentally, Omnedon, I'm skimming through those articles again. A complete bunch of rubbish that doesn't address the issue.

No, it isn't. But thanks for pretending.

It looks good to post a bunch of links, but links to peoples homepages? Come on. Even we did better than that.

Nice try- but the homepages have references to journal articles, peer-reviewed documents, etc. The fact that the information is on a home page doesn't change anything. It's the information that matters; not the container that it comes in.

Moreover, the links include:
* Official documents of professional organizations such as the APA;
* transcripts of correspondence between respected individuals who study in this field;
* abstracts from formal papers;
* proposals and summaries of research topics;

Far more than just "personal homepages". So your attempt at handwaving away the links didn't work.

Moreover, your rebuttal claim is silly. You did not do better than that - posting a NARTH link, when the original challenge is a scientific opinion, is not "doing better than that".

Now that I'm starting to read them, I realize they aren't relevant. They talk about converting homosexuals to heterosexuals, or they talk about homosexuality being normal, or being declassified as a psychiatric disorder. We heard all that pages and pages ago.

1. And as I stated earlier - this discussion has several different directions. Just because you personally might not be discussing the so-called conversion therapies, that doesn't mean someone else didn't raise the question. (In fact, Lola raised that exact question).

2. So if you've seen all this before, then let's see your peer-reviewed, scientific journal refutations.

The deal still stands. My arguments still stand,

Uh, no. Not unless moldy cheese can "stand".

and the nonsense you contributed, forgive me for my rough stance on it, does absolutely nothing to debunk my position, or that of the BBC, the CDC, AEGIS or anyone else.

Actually, it does debunk you. But some people are just not sufficiently well-informed to realize when they've been trumped.

 

[TheBear]

*** Boxing Headgear On ***

The next post that addresses another member's character, intelligence level, or anything other than the topic at hand, (found in the OP ), will result in this thread being closed and the offending member being officially warned.

*** Cowboy Hat Off ***

 

[Omnedon]

Nothing to do with lefthandedness whatsoever. You are trying to lead it there, and that's what I'm saying.

edited.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

2) Directing posts towards individuals, instead of the topics and issues being discussed

3) Taunting any member

4) Sarcasm or hostile posts

These are the rules..your posts to me have broken each of these.
I am asking you to stop.

Nope, I haven't.

 

[TheBear]

I know what you are saying.

However, you are simply wrong.

And this discussion has evolved in several different directions, so any complaints about genetics, left-handedness, etc. being off-topic are just a diversionary tactic.

Please read my previous post.

 

[Omnedon]

As with most news links, it pays to read the same story in several different sources. The author of the study in from U of Western Ontario -- the same study that Dr Feelgood says "debunks the gay gene -- has some interesting things to say:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/gaygene990422.html

Dueling Studies
Attempting to replicate those findings, Ontario neurologist George Rice examined the DNA of 52 pairs of gay brothers, and found that their Xq28 sequences were no more similar than what might be expected from sheer chance.
Rice’s results appear in today’s edition of the journal Science.
“What we have here is a scientific controversy,” says Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psychologist who has studied homosexuality in twins. The latest research effort “is a good study and it certainly raises questions about whether Hamer was right, but I don’t think it proves him wrong either.”
That’s because both studies were relatively small, and because specific genes are difficult to find. “A definitive study,” says Bailey, “would entail substantially larger numbers of people.”

Maybe the Gene Is Elsewhere
Rice himself doesn’t discount the idea of a genetic link to homosexuality. He just doesn’t think Xq28 is the spot. “The search for genetic factors in homosexuality should continue,” he says, adding that he’s currently searching for other genes that could be linked to sexuality.
But Hamer stands by his earlier findings, especially since two subsequent studies (one of which has not yet been published), found the same thing. “All this proves is that not every case of homosexuality is because of Xq28,” he asserts. “I expect we’ll find that many genes are involved. One of them will be on Xq28.”

Hmm. So the author of the study that Dr Feelgood thinks "debunks" the gay gene claim - that scientist himself:

1. doesn't think that Hamer's work was debunked; nor does he think that
2. the idea of a genetic origin has been debunked; and in fact, he
3. recommends continuing such investigation;and
4. will be busy searching himself

Given the above, it's clear that in no way has this idea been "debunked" - contrary to Dr Feelgood's claim.

 

[Omnedon]

Please read my previous post.

I read it but we posted at the same time. So I didn't see it.

I fixed my post.

But I can't edit yours.

 

[TheBear]

This thread is closed for a cooling-off period.