Is There a 'Gay' Gene?

[smutpen]

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.

50/50 odds signify randomness only for a characteristic that is evenly distributed among the population.

Even if separately raised identical twins of gays had only a 30 or 40 percent chance of being gay, the figure would be statistically significant, because a random member of the population is far less than 30% likely to be homosexual.

 

[Guest]

Prepare my defenses?

Against what? Against whom?

You don't research anything, you merely moralize.

You don't present logical arguments, you wander aimlessly, certain that you are the only one correct.

You haven't read anything that has been published in the last thirty years, and you are lost and alone with your outmoded rhetoric.

You have delusions of godhood, yet you remain a small-minded, pathetic little man, attempting to get a rise out of people you don't even know.

Your ego is amazing. And that's why many on this site choose to play with you. Not because you are correct or interesting or are even making valid points. Just because we're looking for diversion, and it's fun to watch you spin.



(P.S. This is a porn site, fucktard. You are getting exactly the response you expected with this thread so don't be so pissy.)

 

[amicus]

In your hissyfit...you forget that others than myself read your words...

and..you are what you portray yourself to be...

 

[Mhari]

I think I'm still missing the point. What does it matter if there's a gay gene or not? And is anyone's sexual orientation the business of anyone else?

~M

 

[Guest]

Darling -

-that was certainly not a hissy fit. It was a logically stated post responding to the usual nature of your threads.

But your sexist response is so typical of you.

The people here already know me - I don't really have any concerns.

You probably should be worried that they are reading everything YOU are saying.

(watch that bein' pissy stuff - you'll get yourself all worked up into a righteous snit)

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I think I'm still missing the point. What does it matter if there's a gay gene or not? And is anyone's sexual orientation the business of anyone else?

~M

He's using us as a focus group to research a book he's writing.

His essential point, as I understand it, is that the feminist movement is the cause for many of modern society's troubles. He says he's got the prologue and first chapter completed, which must mean that chapter two is about how feminism has caused the phenomenon of male homosexuality, even though I seem to recall bath houses being really popular long before there was any such thing as feminism...but I'm probably wrong.

~lucky

 

[Guest]

Maybe you're having a hissy fit?

Could be - you could trace that back to hysteria and how doctors used to treat such "ailments" of women.

(Meet me at my place - vibes at the ready, baby!)

 

[amicus]

Mhari....quite right...'gay' gene or not...as far as personal preferences go..

however...

If homosexuality is endemic, or genetically passed on, then it is a part of humanity and must be viewed as all other things are, under the law and with equality for all.

However, if it is not...if it is just a 'chosen' lifestyle, then that opens a whole new category of social, legal, ethical and moral questions.

Those who denigrate this forum as just a 'porn' site, speak for themselves, for I have encountered some truly intelligent and introspective writers here, who only tolerate the aberrant in order to explore 'erotica' properly.

The issue and debate about homosexuality in modern society is an important one..not from a 'personal' viewpoint as you expressed, for each has a 'right' to their own way of life.

But when a movement begins to change and demand things from the society that tolerates and protects it...then...that society must begin to question...

amicus

 

[amicus]

Sweetsubsarahh, "(P.S. This is a porn site, fucktard. You are getting exactly the response you expected with this thread so don't be so pissy.)" (stated by sweetsubs...)

And yes...you are a focus group...as I mentioned at the onset of the thread, "The Feminine Mistake"

Let us even go back a step further, to the 'Liberal Mentality' of the guru's on this forum...Global warming...disproved,
Green house effect...disproved....Ozone depletion...disproved...
next that, "They are born that way" disproved....no 'gay' genes

Do you quiver in anticipation as to what my next subject will be?

(Amicus chuckles, sits back with a really fine cigar, and sips a really good 4 star Brandy...)




__________________

 

[Guest]

No, sweetie, sorry.

I don't really care.

You've been on ignore for quite awhile (which has the lovely side benefit of not showing any of the threads you start) but tonight a friend said - "Hey! The dickhead is posting again!" So I stopped in to chat.

Nothing new. Same small-minded nonsense.

 

[amicus]

sweetsubnormal...

You have every right to immerse your head in the sand and deny that the earth is a globe and really not the center of the universe, I for one will not disturb your ignorance...

However, instead of your little hand holding comrades, you are in the big times now and if you have a hair at all...but, I rather think you do not...so

Little girl, you should run along and mutually enjoy the eclectic masturbation of those in your own small pond.

'Feminism, Global warming, Greenhouse effect, Ozone Depletion, Born that way' all left wing fantasies, which should I expose next?

You will have to wait and sneak a look at my posts...since you are on 'ignore'.

(Amicus sashays and bows and mosey's and saunters offstage... for the moment)

 

[snooper]

Before anyone bites my head off, I am not making a moral judgement here, simply stating a few facts.

If 50% of identical twins separated at birth show some characteristic which differs from their sibling, then this is an entirely acquired characteristic. Any genertically based characteristic will be substantially identical in such pairs.

For example if one has red hair, then the other will also. If one wears their hair long, the other may wear it short. The colour is genetically determined, but the length is an conscious choice.

I do not make any deductions from this, other than to note that there are two schools of thought about homosexuality. One thinks it is a genetically determined characteristic and as such, it is not susceptible to change. The other thinks it is an environmentally induced condition and as such, it can be changed in the same way as any other habit can be changed.

 

[smutpen]

...

'Feminism, Global warming, Greenhouse effect, Ozone Depletion, Born that way' all left wing fantasies, which should I expose next?

You will have to wait and sneak a look at my posts...since you are on 'ignore'.

(Amicus sashays and bows and mosey's and saunters offstage... for the moment)

Let's take "Greenhouse effect" first. If the Greenhouse effect were a left wing fantasy, the temperature at the earth's surface would be about the same as in space; a few degrees above absolute zero.

The fact that you list it here seems to indicate a pretty severe lack of understanding of the issues, and of the science surrounding them.

As far as I can tell, thousands of scientists around the world agree that global warming and ozone depletion are real and serious issues, though not likely to be as short-term-catastrophic as some extremists claim.

A brief googling showed me no substantive change in that situation, just lots of completely non-scientific pooh-poohing and strenuous denials of "consensus" from people with a vested interest in ignoring what scientists tell them.

Of course, there are a half-dozen or so meteorologists pompously dismissing the research and conclusions of the vast majority of their peers, without any countering evidence that I could see.

The ozone hole over Antarctica is real; last year's was the second largest yet observed. Ozone levels are dropping continuously all around the world.

Global warming is harder to be certain of, because there are natural variations in temperature which could skew the data.

But there is no doubt whatsoever that man made pollutants are often greenhouse gases, and it's highly unlikely that they have had no effect on climate.

So, do you have some reputable, replicated, peer-reviewed studies that break the case open? I'd like to see a link.

Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are blowing smoke.

 

[smutpen]

Before anyone bites my head off, I am not making a moral judgement here, simply stating a few facts.

If 50% of identical twins separated at birth show some characteristic which differs from their sibling, then this is an entirely acquired characteristic. Any genertically based characteristic will be substantially identical in such pairs.

For example if one has red hair, then the other will also. If one wears their hair long, the other may wear it short. The colour is genetically determined, but the length is an conscious choice.

I do not make any deductions from this, other than to note that there are two schools of thought about homosexuality. One thinks it is a genetically determined characteristic and as such, it is not susceptible to change. The other thinks it is an environmentally induced condition and as such, it can be changed in the same way as any other habit can be changed.

Just plain wrong.

Almost no complex human behavior is strictly genetic or strictly environmental, it is a blend of the two.

If 50% of separately raised identical twins share some behavioral characteristic with their twins, while that characteristic appears in 10% or less of the general population, there is an undeniable statistical correlation, and a conclusively demonstrated genetic influence on the behavior.

 

[pop_54]

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.

Hello sss gorgeous

Don't get us Brits wrong either smutpen, when we make light of such posts as this... fact is we don't give a fuck... we don't suffer the same wacko hang-up's over here... If someone wants to be queer or straight, none of our fucking business.

pops

 

[Guest]

Hello sss gorgeous

Don't get us Brits wrong either smutpen, when we make light of such posts as this... fact is we don't give a fuck... we don't suffer the same wacko hang-up's over here... If someone wants to be queer or straight, none of our fucking business.

pops

Precisely!

Oh well, at least this thread provided a few laughs, at the beginning.

Still chuckling at Liar's post...

Lou

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Is there a gay gene? Is there an author gene? Is there a tennis pro gene?

I think it's just a coin-toss.

 

[CharleyH]

As far as I understand, you wish to present in the form of a book, a character who takes this particular view, and so as a woman, I am not offended by the mentality presented from the little I have read on the Feminist Mistake thread, since such mentalities do exist in the world, (from both male and female perspectives), nor as someone who happens to be gay, am I particularly offended by anything you have to say on this thread. Neither threads affect my life one-way or the other.

With a background in print/broadcast journalism, I see that you may or may not believe anything you purport to. What I do see is using these threads to research. Just so everyone here knows, the nature of journalism is typically sadistic, to get something at the expense of . . . (different argument, so I'll go on). The point is that if Amicus were to explicitly state his purpose, then he would not be getting what he needs to write his book. Example: PASSIONATE REACTION.

Ok, my response. First of all, your inquiry is not exactly scientific. You are presenting social concerns, which end up simply being speculation and opinion. Statistics are the least exact of any science, so really it doesn’t matter what percentages are presented, there is always an oppositionally funded group who can present the same argument and the same statistics to an alternate perspective or outcome, as I am certain you know.

“If as scientific investigation purports, there is no such thing as genetically inherited homosexual 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”

If there is a gene, one might argue that it is a genetic aberration since only a certain percentage of the population carries it in comparison to the rest of the population. In this case, one could argue that due to the XY factor, ‘all human males are an aberration’. Of course, one needs to assume that there is a line of ‘normality’ because you can’t prove abnormality unless there is something standard to weigh it against. In this instance, any pro-genetic evidence would make the argument that homosexuality has partially driven the feminist movement, ‘mute’ because you would have to then try to disprove that XX is the standard, and that the rightful place of females is at the top of the food chain, so to speak, and therefore male homosexuality is natural, blah, blah, blah.

You present a social standard: Psychology pre-1973. This is not a scientific fact, it was the standard societal perspective presented. While the feminist movement can be traced in bits and pieces throughout history, it was not until the 20th century that the full presence of feminism was felt. In this case, there is no argument that the feminist movement has ‘partially’ or ‘at all’ driven male homosexuality, nor even the so called ‘ills’ of the world since 1) homosexuality existed far before the feminist movement, and 2) the ills of the world have hardly changed from one century to the next. But then it depends on what you are saying feminism is responsible for, and at the time of writing this, I don't know.

“However, if it is not...if it is just a 'chosen' lifestyle, then that opens a whole new category of social, legal, ethical and moral questions.”

But when a movement begins to change and demand things from the society that tolerates and protects it...then...that society must begin to question.”

Logically, and from what you have written in your posts, you are seeking to prove that it is a chosen lifestyle, since this would be the only place such a perspective (feminism is a cause of . . . ) could be argued for any length of time. Yet, even if it is a chosen lifestyle, it only opens social, legal, ethical and moral questions because of the perspective that it is acceptable to be heterosexual, (which in my opinion is then also a choice). Nonetheless, one would have to assume religious dogma to be the perfect standard on which this principle is based, and this cannot be proven either.

There are only our opinions here so far, and no evidence one way or another. I would have to wait for the supposed ‘documentation’ to be 'exposed', to comment any further, and even then the arguments would be absurdist, wouldn't they.

 

[Liar]

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

Really, amicus. You didn't get a serious reply out of me because you didn't ask a serious question. The only serious answer to "is there a gay gene" that I can give is "I'm not a scientist, so what the hell do I know?"

Ask, "If there is such a thing as a gay gene, do you think that medical science should try to have it eliniated?" or something like that. Then I might be arsed to reply.

#L

 

[Liar]

If homosexuality is endemic, or genetically passed on, then it is a part of humanity and must be viewed as all other things are, under the law and with equality for all.

However, if it is not...if it is just a 'chosen' lifestyle, then that opens a whole new category of social, legal, ethical and moral questions.

Ok I'll bite. I know I shouldn't, but here we go.

If homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or genetic programming, what difference does it make?

None whatsoever.

Sexual preference is just one of many aspects of any human's personality. Why would a chosen lifestyle all of a sudden raise "social, legal, ethical and moral questions"? If I prefer jazz to rap, or coffee to tea, or even chubby blondes to skinny brunettes, I don't think you'd have any objection. What's the difference between those and preferring cunt to cock, or vice versa?

#L

 

[Rusty914]

Yeah I have a pair of those.........man they do hurt in the crotch area......lol

Levi's, worn really tight. Mmmm.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Smutty,

I am far from indifferent to the issue. Most work in the field tends towards their being both a genetic and enviormental component to homosexuality. Several studies, including Kinsey & Masters & Johnson postulate that the majority of the female population is at least bi-curious. Feedback on my stories, while highly unscientific, seems to bear that out. I get a lot of notes from straight women who enjoyed my work and find themselves curious. As well as unscientific sampling, my works are wirtten for a female audience and so that may explain women enjoying them even if they aren't bi or lesbian.

In this case, the question is quite loaded. People who don't like gays will twist your result no matter what is found. If for example there was a "gay" gene located. The fundy's would immediatly call for genetic screening before a child was born and if he or she had this "gay" gene, they would call for parents to have some corrective measure taken. If none was avialable they would say a genetic link proves that homosexuality is a disease, a form of genetically inherieted mental illness.

If there is no "gay" gene, then they climb up on the soapbox and start spouting about it being a choice.

Fanatics love absolutes. The idea that you can have a genetic predisposition to being gay or straight and that enviormental factors, working upon that predisposition give you the results is anathema. It isn't clean, or absolute and it gives bigots nothing concrete to rail against or try to have changed.

Scientific results that prove or disprove a genetic factor won't change bigotry or hate. The result can be twisted no matter what, to fit the agenda of those who are homophobic.

The most likely outcome is going to be that homosexuality is a mix of both genetic and enviormental factors. Some people are probably "born" straight and some "born" gay. That is to say the genetic components that predispose you one way or another are probably a combination of dominat and ressive genes, acrosss a wide range of traits, with heterosexual being dominant. Some people will be born with all dominant across the varitey of genetic influences and thus "born" het. Some will have all ressives across that same meliu and thus "born" homo. The vast majority of people will probably have a mix of Dom & ressive traits across the same scale. To those people, enviormental factors will probably heavily influence them.

In a society where homosexuality is accepted or even encouraged, say ancient greece for example, the incidence of homosexuality or bi-sexuality will probably be significantly higher than it is in a society where homosexuality is viewed as abberant. Historically & anthropologically, that is a strong argument for an enviormental component.

A single gene or set of genes that "make" you homosexual or heterosexual is very unlikely. It is more reasonable to believe you are born with a particular phisiological trait set that gives you a predisposition to find either males, females or both attractive sexually. Enviornment and experience then work upon that trait set, building psycological links that will determine the outcome.

It is a much more workable theory than strictly nature or nurture, as it is adaptable to cover a much wider range of possibilities. Should this country become more controlled by the far right and more hostile to gays, you will probably see the incidence of homosexuality in the general population shrink. Should this country become less hostile, it will probably rise. Even if the country swings radically one way or the other abberations will occur. If we make homosexuality a crime punishible by death, there will still be homosexuals. If we make bi-sexuality the law, there will still be straights.

And no matter what you do, there will still be hate. Some people hate based on skin color, as if you can help that. Some hate based on national origin, as if you can help that. Those who choose to hate based on orientation will continue to do so, even if in the end it is proven you can't help that either.

-Colly

 

[thenry]

50/50 odds signify randomness only for a characteristic that is evenly distributed among the population.

Even if separately raised identical twins of gays had only a 30 or 40 percent chance of being gay, the figure would be statistically significant, because a random member of the population is far less than 30% likely to be homosexual.

No, no, no. 50/50 odds are random. Period. Population distribution has absolutely nothing to do with it. What the hell do you mean by "even distribution" anyway?

There are plenty of genetic polymorphisms found stable at a handful of percent. In fact, the first conclusion of a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is that the percentage of the population both carrying and exhibiting the trait in question remains constant.

If the twin had either 100% or 0% then you could hypothesize a mechanism for the outcome, but 50/50 is random.

The fact that you, smutpen, have no idea what these statistics mean lead me to believe they were made up in the first place.

 

[pop_54]

Forgive me if I still seem remote, even compacent to this item... But there's a hell of a lot of effort going into this research and what have you... When I still can't work out... "What the fuck does it matter anyway how many people bat for the other team, or why".

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Double post