The TRUTH Behind Homosexuality and Mental Illness

[rtwngAvngr]

Dealt with and disposed of many, many times on this board.

Where? Post one link.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Has any serious scientific study been performed which even mildly suggests that homosexual acts cause the brain to change. You cannot dispose of actual research based on wild whimsy.

 

[musicman]

Where? Post one link.

Hell, RWA - how many times have you and I discussed LeVar's studies on this board in the last year+? They are proof of nothing; wishful thinking. You yourself abandoned the neurological end of the argument not three days ago. Are you really gonna make me search?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

******* Researchers first suspected that homosexuality might also be gene-related when they studied the occurrence of gayness in siblings. Franz J. Kallman’s and W. W. Schlegel’s experiments in the 1950s and 1960s showed that identical twins had a 100 percent concordance rate for homosexual orientation, where concordance is defined as the level of similarity existing for different characteristics (Wertz 1). Although the results seemed overwhelmingly high, they laid the base for further studies. In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard conducted a similar experiment comparing identical twins, fraternal twins, and nongenetically related adopted brothers. By placing advertisements in gay newspapers, they were able to be relatively certain that the twin responding to the ad was homosexual; by sending the other twin a questionnaire, they were able to determine the other twin’s sexual orientation. If homosexuality is genetically linked, the probability of both identical twins being gay should be higher than that of fraternal twins, which should be still higher than that of nongenetically-related brothers. Indeed, Bailey and Pillard found that both siblings were gay in fifty-two percent of identical twins, in twenty-two percent of fraternal twins, and in only five percent of nonrelated brothers (Burr, Separate 35; Hamer 28; LeVay 112; Wertz 1). In 1994, Frederick Whitham of Arizona State University conducted a similar study and determined that if one twin was gay, there was a sixty-six percent chance that his/her twin would also be gay (Matthews). Granted, if homosexuality was solely gene dependent, Bailey and Pillard would have found 100 percent gayness in identical twins. Though their results did not reveal such a relationship, the numbers were significant enough that they could conclude that homosexuality is gene related.

*********** Yet perhaps the most compelling evidence that sexual orientation has a biological basis came in 1993. Dean Hamer, examining the family trees of gay men, noticed a pattern of inheritance through the maternal side; as a result, he hypothesized that homosexuality may be an X-linked trait since men inherit their X chromosome from their mother. To test this theory, Hamer collected a group of forty gay brothers and drew blood samples to examine their DNA. For thirty-three of the forty brothers, he discovered a remarkable concordance for five markers on a section of the X chromosome called Xq28, where concordance is defined to be the similarity between the markers. Statistical analysis showed that the probability of this concordance happening by sheer chance was less than one in 100,000 (138). Hamer also found that no other region of the X chromosome is linked to sexual orientation, for none of the sixteen markers outside Xq28 showed any statistically significant concordance (139). Upon repeating the study again, he obtained the same results. Thus, it makes sense that Hamer found gay men to have more maternal relatives who were gay than paternal relatives because homosexuality is X-linked. Admittedly, Hamer has not isolated a “gay gene,” but rather a region of over five million base pairs in which such a gene may exist. Critics wonder why “the researchers did not do the obvious control experiment of checking for the presence of these markers among heterosexual brothers of the gay men they studied” (qtd. in Hamer, 141). Yet the answer is obvious: Hamer was not trying to prove that Xq28 alone determines a person’s sexual orientation, but rather that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. Combined with the results of other genetic studies, Hamer’s findings only strengthen the argument that homosexuality has genetic links.

http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html

 

[musicman]

research based on wild whimsy.

!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hell, RWA - how many times have you and I discussed LeVar's studies on this board in the last year+? They are proof of nothing; wishful thinking. You yourself abandoned the neurological end of the argument not three days ago. Are you really gonna make me search?

Im not making you do anything. The competing theory that gay behavior causes structural changes in the brain has even less support.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The assertion that sexual preference is inborn in heteros but a choice for homos is as illogical as it gets. Who would choose that?

 

[musicman]

Im not making you do anything. The competing theory that gay behavior causes structural changes in the brain has even less support.

Nor has it asked for any, for it is not a "competing theory" at all; rather, it is the obvious flip-side of a bald, baseless assertion made by homosexual activists. It is not society's obligation to prove a negative here.

 

[musicman]

The assertion that sexual preference is inborn in heteros but a choice for homos is as illogical as it gets.

Propogation of the species is illogical????!!!! You're slipping, my man!

Who would choose that?

Immaterial. I'm not a mindreader, nor do I have a societal obligation to be one.

 

[5stringJeff]

The assertion that sexual preference is inborn in heteros but a choice for homos is as illogical as it gets. Who would choose that?

Heterosexuality is natural for all people. It's only those who choose to participate in homosexual behavior who have the choice.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nor has it asked for any, for it is not a "competing theory" at all; rather, it is the obvious flip-side of a bald, baseless assertion made by homosexual activists. It is not society's obligation to prove a negative here.

No. It's a wild unsubstantiated grasp at straws. Maybe in the horse and buggy scenarios the buggy is actually pushing the horse. Yeah. That sounds right.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Heterosexuality is natural for all people. It's only those who choose to participate in homosexual behavior who have the choice.

It's obviously not for people naturally drawn to those of the same gender.

 

[5stringJeff]

It's obviously not for people naturally drawn to those of the same gender.

Again, participating in homosexual behavior is a choice. Unless your cellmate is a 350 pound guy named Bubba, you choose to participate in homosexual acts.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Propogation of the species is illogical????!!!! You're slipping, my man!

I also read somewhere that the homosexuality is a natural population control mechanism. this paper said that stress hormones in the mother, possibly indicating a lack of resources to support the propagation of the species, cause homosexuality and thus limit the population.

 

[5stringJeff]

I also read somewhere that the homosexuality is a natural population control mechanism. this paper said that stress hormones in the mother, possibly indicating a lack of resources to support the propagation of the species, cause homosexuality and thus limit the population.

Why would there be a natural population control mechanism, if God's command was to be fruitful and multiply?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why would there be a natural population control mechanism, if God's command was to be fruitful and multiply?

We cannot multiply when the resources for life aren't there. Thus, we must have the resources in place so our ladies aren't stressed out when pregnant.

 

[musicman]

if God's command was to be fruitful

I'm not going NEAR that!!!

 

[5stringJeff]

We cannot multiply when the resources for life aren't there. Thus, we must have the resources in place so our ladies aren't stressed out when pregnant.

Resources for life have never run out.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm not going NEAR that!!!

Fruitful, not fruity!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Resources for life have never run out.

For the planet, no. But there have been temporally and spacially limited shortages from time to time and place to place throughout history.