Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

Since my post doing so was ignored by everyone (including holmes) I will post the most recent study demonstrating four loci associated with sexual orientation in humans. I will point out that ALL behavioral traits are quantitative traits (like height) and are influenced by both genes and environment. Even phenotypes caused by a single gene (think of cystic fibrosis) are influenced by environment and by the products of other genes (which are also part of your environment). So the entire concept of a "gay gene" is inherently ridiculous. But that does not mean it is a behavior governed by a concious choice any more than being tall would be.

quote:

---

There have been studies in humans particularly a linkage study from 1993 to Xp28 which was not reproducible (no pun intended). However, there has been a more recent study with higher density linkage maps and a larger cohort analyzed.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hum Genet. 2005 Mar;116(4):272-8. Epub 2005 Jan 12. Related Articles, Links
A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation.

​

Mustanski BS, Dupree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH.

​

Laboratory of Biochemistry, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. bmustanski@psych.uic.edu

​

This is the first report of a full genome scan of sexual orientation in men. A sample of 456 individuals from 146 families with two or more gay brothers was genotyped with 403 microsatellite markers at 10-cM intervals. Given that previously reported evidence of maternal loading of transmission of sexual orientation could indicate epigenetic factors acting on autosomal genes, maximum likelihood estimations (mlod) scores were calculated separated for maternal, paternal, and combined transmission. The highest mlod score was 3.45 at a position near D7S798 in 7q36 with approximately equivalent maternal and paternal contributions. The second highest mlod score of 1.96 was located near D8S505 in 8p12, again with equal maternal and paternal contributions. A maternal origin effect was found near marker D10S217 in 10q26, with a mlod score of 1.81 for maternal meioses and no paternal contribution. We did not find linkage to Xq28 in the full sample, but given the previously reported evidence of linkage in this region, we conducted supplemental analyses to clarify these findings. First, we re-analyzed our previously reported data and found a mlod of 6.47. We then re-analyzed our current data, after limiting the sample to those families previously reported, and found a mlod of 1.99. These Xq28 findings are discussed in detail. The results of this first genome screen for normal variation in the behavioral trait of sexual orientation in males should encourage efforts to replicate these findings in new samples with denser linkage maps in the suggested regions.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

I think the reason your post drew no response was because it was very technical without any comment from you. It would have been very helpful if you had explained it a bit more. Your comment in your followup is a marked improvement. But is the notion of a genetic factor in homosexuality also ridiculous, in your opinion? (I mean this as a sincere question to someone who is obviously knowledgeable in these matters.)

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I am pressed for time these days so have reduced my posting. Like you, I found Tal's assertions that there is no data in support of a genetic basis for homosexuality to be based on his abundant reserves of ignorance and unwillingness to research before posting.To elaborate a bit, my point was exactly that there is a genetic component to homosexuality just as there is to skin color, height, weight etc. (since weight was also brought up as a choice by Tal, I guess he also never bothered to look up Leptin or the Leptin receptor). Behavioral traits are particularly hard to quantify for example, the genetics underlying bisexual orientation may differ from those of "pure" homosexuality....the consequence when doing such a study is to increase the noise and lose the signal when trying to map the traits. However, environment will also have an impact on behavioral and non-behavioral traits. Just because you have the genetic background to be 2 meters tall does not mean you will achieve this height. Malnutrition, hormones, etc. could conspire to prevent you from acheiving this potential. This applies to single gene traits for example the phenomenon of penetrance. Mutations in the neurofibromatosis gene lead to the disease neurfibromatosis...but only in about 50% of the cases and thus the penetrance is 0.5. Environmental (and other genetic factors) prevent it from having a penetrance of 1.What Dean Hamer's study attempts to do is to minimize the environmental portion of sexual orientation and isolate the genetic component. As a result, they find 4 loci that link i.e. statistically correlate with the trait of male homosexuality. Note, this is how many single genes underlying disease have been mapped and how almost all genets underlying non-disease quantitative traits are found. By targetting the regions they have found with denser markers i.e. 1 CM (centimorgan) or less and testing way more individuals than they did in this study, they hope to eventually narrow down their search to the actual genes within these intervals that are involved in homosexuality. Even without having identified the genes yet, the data are compelling for a genetic component to homosexuality.The idea that people can be "turned" heterosexual or homosexual is also suspect. Under extreme social pressure or the threat of physical violence people will do many things against their own desires or better judgement. It is more akin to witholding food from children through adolescence and then claiming that they were going to be short anyway.

I believe that the gender communication styles are an important portal that allows the unique wiring of each gender to be viewed.Like nuts and bolts. The bolts are the weight bearing entity and their tensile strength is critical. If the bolt is weak, then the point that the bolt is fastened will be weak.The nut is the retaining device. It does not have to be as strong, but it's presision must be greater than the bolt's, for the nut must be able to mirror the bolt's thread pattern to be of any use. The nut rely's on the external torque placed on it to perform it's job as the anchor. Bolts bear the stress but the torque is excerted on the nut. Both are nessessary for a stable fastening point.By doubling the number of bolts but with no nuts, you have fastening points that are suseptable to failure from any type of vibration or displacement. By doubling the number of nuts but with no bolts, you don't have a fastening point that can bear any type of load what so ever.

Thanks Mammuthus, that's a very useful addition to this thread. I hope Tal is going to read it.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I suppose that wasn't written as clearly as it could have been. I said he wouldn't get my support on that (genetics = more reason to protect) as a legal argument. Thus I do not feel that they should be. I was then moving on to make a more objective statement, which is that "traditionally" they had not been. I probably should have placed that word in there.Thus, to my mind, the idea of whether traits or behaviors are protected as rights has nothing to do with whether you were born with them, or chose them two minutes ago. Discussions of rights, particularly those discussions that shaped the philosophy behind as well as the Constitution itself, almost universely assumed choice and so approached rights from the basis of what effects they had, rather than how they came about. That is an interesting argument and partially correct. From a practical perspective we have allowed some amount of inherent = protected, chosen = unprotected into our conception and practice of law.I don't see how that negates my ability to challenge it and point out that we have moved beyond our traditional concepts of rights (and that is not a good thing) to create this new system. Questioning the underlying bias within law appears useful to me, even if it may not have immediate practical effect.Also, the Supreme Court is not necessarily supportive of the "new" system, and can change things back (in a practical sense) through future rulings. I think that is really mixing apples and oranges, on more than one level. The handicapped do not need any extra help to get married, they need aid in physically reaching areas they are limited in motility. The absolute reverse is true for gays (who are not handicapped). One is physical for equal physical access, the other is social for social access. I don't think individuals nor companies owned by individuals should have to accomodate anyone, no matter what. And I do believe that physically there is a certain range that any person or group can make allowances for, and outside of that it is just bad luck for those outside of that range, whether they chose to be what they are or not.People in iron lungs may not have chosen the ailment which has placed them there, nor people forced to live in plastic bubbles, but I'm sure we all would agree it would be burdensome for planes and many other settings to be designed just in case one of these people show up.Extremely obese people fit in that category... genetic or choice.Personally I believe any choice, no matter how formed, needs to be protected. Protection just does not mean that everyone else has to cater to your special needs. This type of thinking is a result of the Progressive movement in the US, and one I am thoroughly opposed to. All causes are "legitimate". A person who chooses to go snowboarding off mountains and ends up paralyzed is just as worthy as those who fought in wars and got paralyzed or those who were born paralyzed.I might point out that whether or not homosexuality is genetic or not, this kind of "legitimacy" was used to demonize HIV victims, and continues to do so today. If you got it through sex or needle sharing you were less legitimate than those who got it during a blood transfusion or some accident.People are free to have that view, it is not without logic, but it is repellent to me. I think it is an unhealthy way to view the world, and indeed smacks of primitive ideas that if something "bad" happens to you, it must be your fault. I agree to a degree. It is about our perception of choice and what a person is, but I cannot say it hinges on personhood and free will. Free will could be a complete nonissue, as I hope I have at least suggested with this post. Weak post? I'm going to be having some problems with you in the future. From where I was sitting that looked like a pretty good response. Are you Ben/Admin Ben that was also in Japan? Just don't want to get confused on who I am addressing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Though off topic, I don't know how useful it will be to this thread and it certainly won't help Tal any. He won't read the paper or do any background research. My impression from lurking, the current crop of creo's like Tal, Faith and randman studiously avoid obtaining any information that might threaten their views whether it be scientific information, political theory or history. If they can't avoid it they just dismiss it without investigation or deny its existence. I feel genuinely sorry for them as they seem to be locked in a state of fear, anger and hatred. I am actually curious as to what at all is "christian" about their worldviews. Tal in particular thinks that war is a great endeavor to be cherished as opposed to the demonstration that society has failed that all war represents. It is often said that we scientists live in an ivory tower but I am starting to think that at least in America, many people willingly live in intellectual underground bunkers and that the lack of understanding is not soley a problem of scientists failing to communicate their results to the public.Anyway, I posted the information because I saw both sides had missed the research into human sexuality. Those with an interest can dig through it (there is not all that much in terms of large scale genetic studies)...the rest can ignore it, deny it, or attribute it to the evil atheist scientist conspiracy to force conservative Americans to become gay.

So people are like nuts and bolts? Are you serious?I don't think I've ever heard such a stupid simile. And here I was thinking that no one could be dumber than Tal. You sure as hell proved that assumption wrong, LB!

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

These are the types of studies that would really begin to point a finger, however we are still stuck with nongene similarities between twins, even if they are separated directly at birth.Hormonal/gestational environments will be closer than with fraternals and non twin siblings.To my mind, that is where we will find much of our inclinations being formed... the hormonal/growth environment. Whether 50% is greater than tossing a coin statistically (though my understanding is any two sided coin is 50% for any two tosses), it still does not impress me if genes are a driving factor, rather than some other shared factor in their growth. I don't think that is necessarily true. Twins have greater shared social environments as they were born around the exact same time, and likely to be treated differently then regular siblings. Oh, I didn't mean the marker thing. I didn't understand why 75% of X existing in gays and 75% of Y existing in straights suggested a 99% confidence regarding any conclusion on noncoincidence.Let me address your other question (in other posts) regarding evidence for upbringing. I think the first thing we have to define (for everyone) is what we are calling homosexuality. Do we just mean people that engage in homosexual acts and enjoy those acts, or do we mean preference for males as long term partners/emotional intimacy rather then females?If the former then there is plenty of evidence for people that "choose" to be "gay", in that social environmental factors limit sexual partners to same sex, or trauma drives people away from opposite sex partners, and enjoyment of same sex acts keeps them coming back for more. I don't want to bring up just the stereotype of prisons, but that is a fact of life, and a good place to look.There are also cultures which proscribe male/female relations and so same sex sexuality is allowed as the main recreational outlet. One tribal culture allows for male/male sex from extremely young ages (pedophilia is not a crime there) and it is understood that as long as one cums with another man there is no loss of fertility, but men only have so much "seed" and when they have sex with women a quantity of "seed" is used up permanently, eventually leading to infertility.You might want to look into anthropological issues regarding homosexuality to find the evidence you are looking for, if the question is homosexuality as desirable sexual activity.If it is mate preference, I am unsure if there is any evidence that upbringing alone can be the cause, though when "upbringing" includes general environment, there could be evidence. As mentioned earlier, trauma regarding the opposite sex may make one "switch" to prefering same sex partners.By the way I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to back an idea that anyone ever feels they have a "choice" in preference for males or females. That one day a person is faced with that decision and chooses who will turn them on. However, that does not make ones sexual identity some ironclad, noninfluenceable mandate from birth.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sorry about that. Pars was slightly correct. It was sort of introduced in a barebones fashion so I wasn't sure where it was actually going, and it did not have a link to the actual study (which I did not have the time to try and find it), and it didn't seem conclusive but rather suggestive of more work, thus I did not address it.Even looking at it now, I do not see how I can adequately make a comment on the study's efficacy, though I can see a number of potential issues, not the least of which is that it seems to admit it is not conclusive. I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. I think this is not true, or at least not accurate. But it may depend on what is meant by behavioral traits and influenced. In the end analysis everything humans are or do could be said to be "influenced" by genes because those are the scripts for chemicals building up our bodies, and the environment because that gives us the chemicals which must pass through those scripts.However the brain has a capacity for assessing and developing behavior patterns according to nonchemical environment. This is not necessarily conscious or willful, but certainly runs outside of genes/chemical environment. Pavlov's experiment is a good example and has been reproduced to some degree in human sexual behavior to create "fetishes" in experiments. Clearly S&M or some modern primitive activities which involve coping and turning on to pain (which is generally an avoidance mechanism) is another example.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I guess you could be correct here, but then, of course, they were never gay to start with so what's your point? Or are you suggesting that nobody is really gay...that instead they are just experimenting with their sexuality and can stop at any time?In response to me pointing out that the ToE does not claim that a dog came from a rock, Tal responded ever so brilliantly with a link and then this from that link:I read quite a bit of your supplied link Tal, and cannot find the rock/dog information. I realize that this is way off topic so I would like to suggest to you, Tal, that you actually open a new thread in a science forum dedicated to your utterly brilliant idea that the ToE claims that dogs came from rocks. I can't wait. Are you ever going to support this (and not by simply supplying yet another link that you have either not read or that you cannot understand)? Rather, supply us with information that states that homosexuality is a choice made by individuals, and that genetics or their environment have no bearing.
Because you see Tal, even if it's solely based on upbringing and environment, it's still NOT a choice.Let me ask you this. Why are you so opposed to gay marriage? What is it about gay marriage that upsets you so much that you want to change our Constitution to specifically prohibit homosexuals from marrying (and please, so more BS about how they can marry anytime they want. You know what I am asking, so stop playing stupid).

quote:

---

Sorry about that. Pars was slightly correct.

---

I was not picking on you...I just saw the debate ping ponging between Tal and everyone else about the genetics of sexual orientation and Tal saying no work had been done on the subject. Wanted to show one of several papers that exist. I can not link to the full text here because it is a subscription based service so you will link to a request for payment.It is not conclusive in the sense that they have not isolated the genes, but is is conclusive in that they did find the associations. There are dozens of studies for cancer, Alzheimer's, etc. that provide this type of data and then go on to isolate the genes involved.

quote:

---

But it may depend on what is meant by behavioral traits and influenced.

---

But not all of what you listed are traits but rather behaviors as I see it. A trait would be something shared by individuals in the population that can be diseminated from generation to generation and varies...like height, weight etc. Thus, there are behavioral traits that can be mapped genetically and have a genetic basis. While some individual specific behaviors may have a genetic basis, that need not be the case. I am not trying to be ultra reductionist to say that everything we do in our life is a consequence of our genes..at least not directly. But there are behavioral traits that have a genetic component which usually is discovered when things go wrong i.e. autism, depression, predisposition to alcoholism...or even violence.

quote:

---

I believe that the gender communication styles are an important portal that allows the unique wiring of each gender to be viewed.

---

Okay.But differences in how the genders tend to communicate have nothing to do with if they are gay or not.I know gay men who communicate just like straight men and I know gay women who communicate just like straight women.

I think that was the type of distinction/definition which I needed before agreeing with what you were saying.It seems to me many (not saying you) use behaviors and behavioral traits interchangeably. And it really should be that traits are those which can be shown to have some inherent or "deep" physical component.I also think people tend to leap from genetic "base", which means that certain genes can lead to a predisposition, to saying that a behavior is or is controlled by genetics. At the predisposition level, and sometimes only moderate predisposition, that is inherently saying that other factors in how we live and develop are more important. A genetic sequence can make something harder or easier, but even at "full influence" not determining.(AbE: Just realized I forgot to mention an issue that I have noticed with much of this kind of research and not dealt with well at all. I mentioned it in part to Ned but would raise it as well with you. Perhaps letting me know how the study handles this...Until recently there was no real concept of "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality". It was a product of a specific monotheistic religion that eventually came to codify individuals and who they are based on specific acts they performed.As far as I know, there is no scientific basis or definition for measuring any individual's hetero/homo/bisexuality. If it is merely sexual proclivities then that is much different than if refering to emotional/relational proclivities. And how does one accurately measure either within cultures that are environmentally repressive?That would be necessary to define so as to understand what correlational genetic markers might represent, or what can be influenced. My guess is genetics or hormones will play a stronger role in whether a person universally finds members of the same sex more attractive and desirable for a mate, than in those who simply find it enjoyable to have sex with those of the same sex.Ironic to all of this is the number of gay men I have seen... multitudes... who are convinced straight men can learn to enjoy gay sex if they just weren't so uptight.)This message has been edited by holmes, 08-23-2005 08:59 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Where did I say that? So is the homosexuality trait more like height (the individual has no control or influence) or predisposition to alcholism/violence/obesity (the individual may be predisposed but still be able to influence)?And yes, I will look up and research topics, just like I did with the gay-gene fly and the twins.Thanks for the posts mammuthus.

---

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*