Natoma said:
Uhm, he said that there is a significant genetic component to homosexuality, which there is. Sexuality is strongly controlled by a mixture of our genes and hormonal womb environment which in turn also affect the expression of said genes to various forms including homosexuality and heterosexuality. But they are the same, expressions of different facets of an innate human sexuality. Much the same way eye color changes, but it's just a gene for eye color. There isn't a gene for blue or green or red. Just differences in how it gets expressed.
He never said that there is a "Gay Gene" that some have and others don't. Whoever wrote the article doesn't understand biology it seems since they extrapolated that meaning.
Oh, right, criticize others for their understanding of Biology when yours is on par with a freshmen in High school.
On each Chromosome, which can be considered a form of 3 dimensional compression for linear DNA, there is encoded information which is defined as a Gene that will ultimatly produce a protein or functional RNA molecule. We can further refine this to a non-tangible 'Genetic Map' that is an information carrier that is locality dependent (at a spot called a Loci), yet variant to specific changes in the information held at said location. This is what brings about the term Allele which is a particular variation of a Gene.
What you said is utter horseshit that's on a grade 8 level my friend. There are several 'genes' known at this point (two on C15, one on C19) that code for a specific eye color (eg. Blue, Brown...) vis-a-vis regulating melanin production. While not all the genes involved have been located, the mechanics behind it are well understood and it's strictly controlled by classic transmission genetics.
So, first off you're blatantly wrong with there not being a gene for specific eye color (as there are at least 3; and how would you explain Waardenburg Syndrome?!?) and the problem with the Homosexual <-> Genetic link is that, as the author stated, it just doesn't feasibly work.
Howard Dean is wrong (as are you) because by invoking genetics it means that there is a "Gay Gene(s)" where on your linear DNA there are loci which hold information that will ultimately produce a homosexual if in one configuration, and a heterosexual if in another. Now, you can add Complexity/Chaos Theory to this and talk about how these genetic links (which by definition are encoded in a gene) have a nonlinear effect on your sexuality, but fundamentally you're left with the same argument. So, where's the Gay Gene? Where are the bp's that control sexuality?
Then it opens the door for the inevitable, Where's the Beastiality Genetic link? Do Pedophiles have a genetic basis too? And the answers for these are shit no, Life is a selfish bastard - having sex with a donkey doesn't help. Beastiality & Homosexuality are clearly inferior strategies, this is beyond debate.
[url=http://gaychristianlove.tripod.com/argument.htm said:
Full Spirit: Holistic Gay Christian Wellness & Undestanding[/url]] It is a choice[?]
Although there is little evidents that prove the genetic cause of homosexuality, but social evident has show that almost all homosexual did not choose to be gays and lesbians.
I'll save you some time, you won't find them. There is no "genetic link" and you won't find one. The research done which have found "connections" are all fallacious when examined (and unable to be reproduced by among the most eminent facilities) and nothing more than media hype and homosexual "propaganda" for lack of better words. Rather, you'll find your causes in the "hormonal womb environment" which you identified and in other "environmental" influences that, perhaps, at a young age cause imbalances from the natural progression of an individuals biochemistry and leads them down a path wrt sexuality that becomes self-reinforcing and psychological with time. Right in line with psychology and behavioral neuroscience has been saying.
FYI: The Author is ultimately correct, perhaps you should have read up first.
The book of leviticus also forbids eating fish on days other than Friday and forbids women who are menstruating from leaving their homes until the bleeding stops. It also says if your kids disobey, you should stone them to death. Don't see any of those rules, or many of the other archaic rules in leviticus, being adhered to either.
Shit dude, I don't care what that book says myself. Yet, as I said, if you're a believer and you publically position yourself as one - perhaps you should: (a) Know what is says (eg. What you claim to believe) and (b) Adhear to it.
As far as Leviticus, it's some crazy stuff. Yet, if you're inclined to believe some of it and consider yourself a follower I'd hope you wouldn't be a hypocrite and support just the things you like. But, thats HMO.
