A well thought out and scientific response to back up your position
I find it terribly difficult to believe that you're a psychologist. Typically, psychologists stay up to date on scientific research that seeks to answer questions.
They've come up with an explanation for why male homosexuals do not go extinct, but they are still working on females.
Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.
The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.
A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.
In 2004 the researchers studied about 200 Italian families and found that the mothers, maternal aunts and maternal grandmothers of gay men are more fecund, or fruitful, than average. Recently, they tried to explain their findings with a number of genetic models, and found one that fit the bill.
"This is the first time that a model fits all our empirical data," said Andrea Camperio-Ciani, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Padova in Italy who led the study. "These genes work in a sexually antagonistic way — that means that when they're represented in a female, they increase fecundity , and when they're represented in a male, they decrease fecundity. It's a trait that benefits one sex at the cost of the other."
And to amplify a point I made earlier:
"I think it's almost beyond a doubt that genes have some influence," said Ray Blanchard, a researcher at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, who studies the effect of birth order in predicting whether a male will be born homosexual. "My personal view is that there is probably more than one biological mechanism contributing toward homosexuality. I think it's also safe to say that there is at least one non-genetic influence."
And to address the validity of the Italian model:
Eric Vilain, a professor of human genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles, has studied possible biological factors influencing homosexuality. He said the system studied by the Italian team seems plausible, but that it's too soon to be convinced.
And also:
Research by Paul Vasey, a psychologist at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, and his graduate student, Doug VanderLaan, provides preliminary support for the Italian team's results. The scientists studied homosexual men in Independent Samoa, known locally as fa'afafine ("in the manner of a woman"). They found that the mothers of fa'afafine produce more offspring than the mothers of heterosexual men in that society.
And finally:
"I think this is an example where the results of scientific research can have important social implications," Camperio-Ciani said. "You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund."
Why Gays Don't Go Extinct | LiveScience
There are many, many unanswered questions. However, I believe I have provided ample evidence for my contention: Homosexuality is not a choice, nor a mental disorder. It is a combination of nature and nurture.
That, X, is research. I do quite a bit of it before drawing conclusions. You do not. You champion ideology rather than common sense. I do not, for if I did, I would not be a Republican in support of gay rights.
Oh this is going to be great. Now you have to prove your accusation. Submit evidence, or lose credibility.
