I do however have to pontificate on a personal world view that most of you have already called me out on and metaphorically tarred and feathered me and severed long standing ties with. Yes, I'm talking about homosexuals. I have, and will, never believe the main argument that the homosexual propaganda machine tries to enforce and uphold for its own political agenda that homosexuals are born the way they are and that there is an inherent gay gene which causes said homosexuality. No one is born that way. There is no gay gene. Any "research paper" that you have read doesn't know the first thing about genetics and the slightest hope that homosexuals can see as a self justifying mechanism in regards to these "researches" are pounced upon by the liberal homosexual propaganda machine.
And just before you start you attacks and blog/flame wars and "oh ju-lian you're so blinded and biased and write such hurtful things" comments because you think I'm just blowing smoke up your ass and propagating homosexual hate crimes(which I'm not you fucking overly sensitive prick/bitch) here's my proof.
Is there a gay gene?
Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.
The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
How The Public Was Misled
In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.
Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."
Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."
In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some little known facts about behavioral genetics.
Gene Linkage Studies
Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:
a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and
b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.
To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.
In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.
Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research
But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:
Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}
Homosexual Twin Studies
Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."
But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:
While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}
The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:
... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of non genetic factors.{3}
More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community
Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.
"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:
"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}
But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:
...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a non Mendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}
Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:
It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eye color is.
Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.
Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"
There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.
Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so little and will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improve so long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.
Understanding the Theory
There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:
1. Heritable does not mean inherited.
2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.
Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.
How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way
Suppose you are motivated to demonstrate for political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.
The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.
So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.
Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.
Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)
Soon after, the article appears. It says:
"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and well performed..."
But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.
What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use
Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.
Next, they do the same with a group of dead non basketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."
A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."
You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.
Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.
Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"
Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of non players. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.
You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.
After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.
With a Little Help from the Media
Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."
Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"
Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traits-muscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.
In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.
What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.
As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.
Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
Taken from the NARTH(National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuals)Now I KNOW you must be thinking, oh ju-lian, that taken from such an obviously biased NGO. You've taken it out of context and you're just being spiteful because Michelle hates you now. While you are entitled to whatever notions and opinions you may have, let it be known that I never ever hate for the sake of hating nor do I blindly follow what is being fed to me like the rest of you sheep.
Here's another study, from a NON NGO
The trumpets were left at home and the parades were canceled. The press releases and campaign signs were quietly forgotten. The news was big, but it did not contain what some had hoped for. On April 14, 2003, the International Human Genome Consortium announced the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule. The press report read: “The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” (see “Human Genome Report...,” 2003, emp. added). Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used. The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.”
Homosexuality has been practiced for thousands of years. Simply put, homosexuality is defined as sexual relations between like genders (i.e., two males or two females). It was Sigmund Freud who first postulated that parental relationships with a child ultimately determine the youngster’s sexual orientation. But this “nurturing” aspect has effectively given way to the “nature” side of the equation. Can some behaviors (e.g., alcoholism, homosexuality, schizophrenia) be explained by genetics? Are these and other behaviors influenced by nature or by nurture? Are they inborn or learned? Some individuals believed that the answer would be found hiding amidst the chromosomes analyzed in the Human Genome Project.
The human X and Y chromosomes (the two “sex” chromosomes) have been completely sequenced. Thanks to work carried out by labs all across the globe, we know that the X chromosome contains 153 million base pairs, and harbors a total of 1168 genes (see NCBI, 2004). The National Center for Biotechnology Information reports that the Y chromosome—which is much smaller—contains “only” 50 million base pairs, and is estimated to contain a mere 251 genes. Educational institutions such as Baylor University, the Max Planck Institute, the Sanger Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, and others have spent countless hours and millions of research dollars analyzing these unique chromosomes. As the data began to pour in, they allowed scientists to construct gene maps—using actual sequences from the Human Genome Project. And yet, neither the map for the X nor the Y chromosome contains any “gay gene.”
you can read the rest of the legnthy discussion here http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.aspNow for the kicker. I did not say that you CAN'T be a homosexual. Its a CHOICE and hey, who am I to tell you any differently. I don't agree with your lifestlye choice and thats just my own PERSONAL OPINION and I will defend my right to it. But please do not come and pontificate to me that you're born the way you are. The articles above have proven that that is utter bullshit and written by experts in the field. And im pretty sure they dont have their own homophobic agenda. Dosent bode well for their PhD you see. If im wrong, please feel free to correct me. So yeah, take that liberal media and GLAAD and PLU and Katagender and associated homosexual propoganda machines.
Hope that tides you over for a few months
Congratulations on reaching the end of this article. You've just wasted about 10 minutes of your time which you could have used for more productive things like watching porn or feeding the hungry children of the world or saving the whales. But thank you all the same.
Mom, this is just a status update. Im fine, working, joining the gym, everyone here is fine, there arent any racial riots here, yet. Still smoking but cutting down in an effort to be fit for the gym and not look like a tired fat fool in the workout classes and yes, for my own personal health and well being. Plus please try and get me a LA Dodgers replica baseball (home) jersey with Ethier on the back if they win the World Series in October. No, I can't get it over here. L size should be fine. Hope you're fine too. Love you.
Ju
