Chicago study seeks genetic links to gayness

[BeaStKid]

Chicago study seeks genetic links to gayness

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hH8mtUo...FMkKwgD8S9RJM83

 

Julio and Mauricio Cabrera are gay brothers who are convinced their sexual orientation is as deeply rooted as their Mexican ancestry.

 

They are among 1,000 pairs of gay brothers taking part in the largest study to date seeking genes that may influence whether people are gay. The Cabreras hope the findings will help silence critics who say homosexuality is an immoral choice.

 

[...]

 

BeaStKid

[writeincode]

I always find these kind of studies interesting. I'm don't have an extreme opinion about it but I do think that all genetic research should be allowed and encouraged.

 

What annoys me is the guy criticizing the study for being 'pro-gay' and therefore 'biased' when clearly his study was funded by the most extreme of all extreme anti-gay organisations- Exodus. Hypocrisy to the max. Grrrr

Edited November 4, 2007 by writeincode

[rknapp]

A nice follow-up to the worm gene article, BSK, thank you. My only complaint is that this is a study, and not an experiment. I'm not condoning experimenting on human sexual orientation, I just think that this sort of passive experimentation will not give any concrete evidence to the effect of genes on sexual orientation.

 

I agree with writeincodes assessment of the Exodus study. All of the participants involved were seeking help and wanted to change. What he should have done is find participants who were comfortable in their skin. The ones he chose were already halfway to this supposed "salvation" by wanting to alter their orientation and align it with the path of righteousness. This suggests that they have spent their lives fighting with themselves internally, hating themselves, not allowing themselves any sort of pleasure, etc. This puts them in a very vulnerable place and makes them easily susceptible to something that anyone says that may be what they want to hear. Someone who is comfortable in their own skin would provide much more concrete evidence. Additionally, the guy said that this new study has a pro-gay agenda, meanwhile his own study quite clearly has an anti-gay agenda that is searching for a means to his own ends. This new study seeks only answers to long-burning questions, rather than a means to an end. f**king whackjob dumbass.

[Demetz]

As for a pro-gay bias... science does not answer the question of what we should do. It can tell us how things work, how to attain such goals as are attainable, but does not tell us whether the goals are worthwhile. No legitimate study is pro-gay or anti-gay, or pro or anti anything for that matter. A legitimate study seeks to find an answer to a question; although a hypothesis may be made as to what the answer to that question is, the data will prove the hypothesis right or wrong or can simply be inconclusive. What is done with the answer is what freaks people out.

 

To question the idea that being gay is a matter of choice is to question the authority of numerous religious teachings, and as the way with a comprehensive metaphysical doctrine is - if you prove part of it wrong then it loses all authority. Hence pissing off those who relied on that authority to con people out of their cash. To do a study on it at all means acknowledging that the comprehensive metaphysical doctrine could be wrong and thus it is against the religious agenda for their to be a legitimate study. What is substituted instead is a "study" of their own that amounts to fabricated data and bad science... further proving the CMD to be a fraud.

 

However, there is a downside to proving sexual orientation is genetically linked. Once that is firmly established, the churches will turn away from the old arguments of whether it is just of God to damn people to hell and pretend that doesn't exist. What happens when you establish a biological cause is you also establish that there is a biological "solution" to be found. The same people who argued so fervently that gay people were just immoral sinners who chose to spit in the face of the all loving, nearly all-damning god will begin arguing in favor of genetic engineering to purge the species of homosexuality. Isolate the gene which "causes" homosexuality, and you may win the argument about god being malevolent, but they'll drop that and take up where you left off and having isolated the gene they'll do what research is necessary to figure out how to replace it through gene splicing.

 

We will always be a disease in their eyes. This way, instead of a mental disease to be rid of by aversion "therapy" we become a genetic disease to be rid of by gene therapy once the science is advanced enough.

 

The mistake is to ever get mired down in their assbackwards ideas about moral philosophy. Approach moral philosophy from a standard other than trying to justify things in light of some ancient, poorly written, poorly translated, and invariably poorly interpreted pile of incoherent text and they will not be able to win. Acknowledge the legitimacy of the bible, qur'an, torah etc as laws from on high and you cede all human reason to an early stage conception of right and wrong where every moral why is answered with "this... because god said so" ... but only if you cede the initial premise of the legitimacy of their CMD.

 

Challenge the legitimacy of their comprehensive metaphysical doctrine and they are reduced to babbling about how they made a leap of faith... leaps of faith are not logical and thus fail any standard of logical assessment. Establish a line of reasoning that does not ground itself in a leap of faith, by providing empirical evidence to support premises set forth in a moral question and you win by default when in a logical discussion.

 

What must be kept in mind though, is that engaging in logical discussion with a group of people who define themselves by irrational belief can come to be as fruitful as banging one's head into a concrete wall. Irrationality can only be defeated by the irrational person deciding to be rational. Sadly, most religious people never care to do that and will continue their crusade against us unholies indefinitely.

[JamesSavik]

There have been a number of studies similar to this with brothers, twins, etc. While the statistics suggest that there is some relationship, no causative mechanism has been suggested.

 

Last year there was a very promising study which looked at the relationship between the incidence of homosexuality and birth order. The implication of the birth order study was that homosexuality was caused by a complex interaction between the mothers endocrine system, immune system and the fetus. In the case of the male fetus (XY compared to his mother's XX chromosome pairs) is foreign to the mother's body.

 

The fist male child triggers the immunity response. Subsequent male children trigger an interaction between the immune system and endocrine system which causes a variation in enzymes and hormonal balance in the womb. It is this delicate balance of chemicals which is responsible for physical development of the fetus en utereo.

 

Thus- the genetic factor in homosexuality appears to be how the endocrine system of the mother works.

[Menzoberranzen]

As for a pro-gay bias... science does not answer the question of what we should do. It can tell us how things work, how to attain such goals as are attainable, but does not tell us whether the goals are worthwhile. No legitimate study is pro-gay or anti-gay, or pro or anti anything for that matter. A legitimate study seeks to find an answer to a question; although a hypothesis may be made as to what the answer to that question is, the data will prove the hypothesis right or wrong or can simply be inconclusive. What is done with the answer is what freaks people out.

 

To question the idea that being gay is a matter of choice is to question the authority of numerous religious teachings, and as the way with a comprehensive metaphysical doctrine is - if you prove part of it wrong then it loses all authority. Hence pissing off those who relied on that authority to con people out of their cash. To do a study on it at all means acknowledging that the comprehensive metaphysical doctrine could be wrong and thus it is against the religious agenda for their to be a legitimate study. What is substituted instead is a "study" of their own that amounts to fabricated data and bad science... further proving the CMD to be a fraud.

 

However, there is a downside to proving sexual orientation is genetically linked. Once that is firmly established, the churches will turn away from the old arguments of whether it is just of God to damn people to hell and pretend that doesn't exist. What happens when you establish a biological cause is you also establish that there is a biological "solution" to be found. The same people who argued so fervently that gay people were just immoral sinners who chose to spit in the face of the all loving, nearly all-damning god will begin arguing in favor of genetic engineering to purge the species of homosexuality. Isolate the gene which "causes" homosexuality, and you may win the argument about god being malevolent, but they'll drop that and take up where you left off and having isolated the gene they'll do what research is necessary to figure out how to replace it through gene splicing.

 

We will always be a disease in their eyes. This way, instead of a mental disease to be rid of by aversion "therapy" we become a genetic disease to be rid of by gene therapy once the science is advanced enough.

 

The mistake is to ever get mired down in their assbackwards ideas about moral philosophy. Approach moral philosophy from a standard other than trying to justify things in light of some ancient, poorly written, poorly translated, and invariably poorly interpreted pile of incoherent text and they will not be able to win. Acknowledge the legitimacy of the bible, qur'an, torah etc as laws from on high and you cede all human reason to an early stage conception of right and wrong where every moral why is answered with "this... because god said so" ... but only if you cede the initial premise of the legitimacy of their CMD.

 

Challenge the legitimacy of their comprehensive metaphysical doctrine and they are reduced to babbling about how they made a leap of faith... leaps of faith are not logical and thus fail any standard of logical assessment. Establish a line of reasoning that does not ground itself in a leap of faith, by providing empirical evidence to support premises set forth in a moral question and you win by default when in a logical discussion.

 

What must be kept in mind though, is that engaging in logical discussion with a group of people who define themselves by irrational belief can come to be as fruitful as banging one's head into a concrete wall. Irrationality can only be defeated by the irrational person deciding to be rational. Sadly, most religious people never care to do that and will continue their crusade against us unholies indefinitely.

 

Fideism is a very interesting topic. William James gives an interesting justification of fideism, but that is off topic. Proving/disproving that homosexuality is genetically linked really makes no difference, because whether or not you logically win an argument is irrelevant to the intellectual canaille who either cannot comprehend why their beliefs fail logically or simply don't care.

 

I doubt very much that any proof of genetically caused homosexuality will sway many people towards acceptance, and in that respect it is rather futile; I'm not particularly concerned with with whether I'm a genetic anomaly or a morally reprehensible anti-Christ. Still, I think the research is worthwhile simply because it would be interesting to know with certainty. I've long since come to the conclusion that it is much easier to just ignore religious bigots and go on with my day, confident in my moral and intellectual superiority.

 

Menzo

[rknapp]

Fideism is a very interesting topic. William James gives an interesting justification of fideism, but that is off topic. Proving/disproving that homosexuality is genetically linked really makes no difference, because whether or not you logically win an argument is irrelevant to the intellectual canaille who either cannot comprehend why their beliefs fail logically or simply don't care.

 

I doubt very much that any proof of genetically caused homosexuality will sway many people towards acceptance, and in that respect it is rather futile; I'm not particularly concerned with with whether I'm a genetic anomaly or a morally reprehensible anti-Christ. Still, I think the research is worthwhile simply because it would be interesting to know with certainty. I've long since come to the conclusion that it is much easier to just ignore religious bigots and go on with my day, confident in my moral and intellectual superiority.

 

Menzo

Unfortunately you are correct -- no amount of scientific evidence relating homosexuality to biological construction will be enough to stop the hate. It was clear from the get-go that Africans, just as anyone else in the world, have no control whatsoever over their skin color. Yet, we still have people who hate them for it and consider them inferior.

 

Disturbing still is I think that what Demetz said of selectively isolating the "gay gene" to effectively kill the "disease" is not beneath the Vatican (or Westboro and any other Christian church that opposes homosexuality). Still, it would be interesting to see how that scenario would play out since the Christian faith would have a hard choice to make: Allow these infidels to continue pissing all over the Lord's words, or agree that He created homosexuals and that they must correct His (gasp!) mistakes by posing as Him and changing the biological structure of the human race? Interesting still would be if they found that there is no real way to stop it altogether, for whatever reason (I hated biology, hence why I am a Physics major with a track in pre-engineering).

 

Hopefully they stick with the former and continue to hate us, as opposed to creating a sort of en-utero holocaust.

[Benji]

Unfortunately you are correct -- no amount of scientific evidence relating homosexuality to biological construction will be enough to stop the hate. It was clear from the get-go that Africans, just as anyone else in the world, have no control whatsoever over their skin color. Yet, we still have people who hate them for it and consider them inferior.

 

Disturbing still is I think that what Demetz said of selectively isolating the "gay gene" to effectively kill the "disease" is not beneath the Vatican (or Westboro and any other Christian church that opposes homosexuality). Still, it would be interesting to see how that scenario would play out since the Christian faith would have a hard choice to make: Allow these infidels to continue pissing all over the Lord's words, or agree that He created homosexuals and that they must correct His (gasp!) mistakes by posing as Him and changing the biological structure of the human race? Interesting still would be if they found that there is no real way to stop it altogether, for whatever reason (I hated biology, hence why I am a Physics major with a track in pre-engineering).

 

Hopefully they stick with the former and continue to hate us, as opposed to creating a sort of en-utero holocaust.

 

 

......I have utter faith in the younger generation, (I believe a poll was conducted a while back in which the difference in acception of gays was showing that the younger generation was much more accepting then their parents > grandparents) The younger generation is the key if genetics bears out, isn't it true that Christ did not mention homosexuality?

[rknapp]

......I have utter faith in the younger generation, (I believe a poll was conducted a while back in which the difference in acception of gays was showing that the younger generation was much more accepting then their parents > grandparents) The younger generation is the key if genetics bears out, isn't it true that Christ did not mention homosexuality?

We all have our flaws. Even our generation is susceptible to the teachings that have given us Westboro, as evidenced by the fact that much of that church being made up of Phelps and his spawn. We already have a generation beneath us who hates fags even if they don't know what a fag is. No matter what, as history can teach us, hate has and will survive the test of time.

[adblue]

Belief (including religious belief) is a personal opinion, often based on teaching (upbringing) and interpretation (discussion) and some experience (personal interpretation). Importantly, it's often tied into emotions (feelings). So yes, it's very hard to change what people believe, even in the face of opposing evidence and arguments or discussions.

 

Some people have used science through a belief in "the natural world" or evolution, to justify homophobia. So it isn't just the fault of religions. Even if being gay is found to have a genetic, biochemical, environmental, or psychological basis, some people will claim it's a fault, like some other factors in those areas. Many, though, may decide the old arguments against being GLBT don't make sense to them.

 

In the interest of fairness, I'd like to point out that some Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe it isn't wrong/sinful to be gay, although many do. It depends on the translation and interpretation of the original languages and cultures of their sacred books and on customs built up over the centuries.

 

When I became brave/curious/desperate enough, I looked online for discussions of translation and interpretation of the Bible, because I hadn't found anything in the books (various Bible translations, concordances, etc.) my parents or I had that supported anything other than a negative view of homosexuality, or most sex. Of course, any discussions like that have to take into account early Christianity and Jewish thought.

 

What I found truly surprised me. Yes, there are sincere, faithful translations and interpretations of the Old and New Testament passages that offer either more understandable or milder or even supportive words for faithful same-sex couples. Instead, what they condemn are things most of us would consider immoral: abuse of power or age, use of violence, unsafe sexual hygiene, multiple partners (unsafe sex and ignoring their feelings), and so on.

 

There are even arguments presented in those discussions that claim a few individuals or friends/pairs might have been same-sex couples. (Some of those, I found believable; others, I think are unlikely or ridiculous.)

 

Yes, some groups within Jewish believers say that Judaism does not condemn homosexuality, while others say it is against Jewish Law. I'd never known any of Jewish thought ever accepted it.

 

Yes, some groups within Christian believers say that Christianity should not condemn homosexuality, while others, of course, say it's against Christian teachings. I'd never known any of Christian thought accepted it... despite an ongoing debate within my own denomination.

 

Wow, it was freeing!

 

It's true, Jesus' own words as recorded never speak on homosexuality, either for or against it. Several times, though, he speaks with people who were considered sexually immoral or ritually unclean. Each time, he doesn't condemn or judge them. Note: at the time, he was speaking as a Jewish teacher to both Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles). In other words, I don't intend to be pro- any religion in saying that. (Consider it my opinion on the literature itself and on the commentaries offering support for acceptance of GLBT people.)

 

For the record, yes, I'm gay and Christian, and I've had an uneasy time reconciling the two. It was one excuse (for me anyway) to stay in the closet for so long, and I still find myself trying to integrate the two into a whole "me."

 

But I don't think it's useful for us to look at it from the view of only science or only one religious group. If we want people to really look or really change, it has to be a broader perspective. ...And shouldn't our goal be the truth, even if we find a few of our beliefs are right and others might need rethinking?

 

My goal in my response is to say we have to look at the whole picture and be open minded, if we really want to find the answers ourselves or promote other people's search for those answers.

[rknapp]

Interesting, thank you for this deeper insight into religion, adblue. I was raised Roman Catholic *shudders* but I've never taken communion and the last time I set foot in a church was for my late grandmother's funeral service twenty-six months ago. I'm only mildly surprised that there are Jewish, Christian, and Muslim factions who don't condemn gays for their sexuality. You can successfully guess that every religion is like that where there are people who accept it wholly, people who ignore it, and people who hate it. Some religions have more people who hate it and some have more people who accept it.

 

What I got from your response is that people need to actively seek their own answers to their questions, as opposed to asking some religious authority who will simply give them their take on a matter that is entirely opinionated and therefore should be left to personal speculation. If that is any part of what you were thinking, I agree.