How homosexuality is 'inherited'
Scientists say they have shown how male homosexuality could be passed from generation to generation.
Nature encourages mothers to pass on a "gay trait" to their male offspring by boosting their fertility, the Italian University of Padova team believes.

This would keep the pattern of gay inheritance alive, they told the Royal Society's Biological Sciences journal.

Critics of the theory argue a gay gene would eventually be wiped out because gay couples do not procreate.

Inheritance theory

There is controversy about whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice, the authors of the study admitted to the journal.

Campaigners say equality for homosexual people is the more important issue.

Back in 1993, US researchers suggested male homosexuality was passed from mother to son after they found strong patterns of inheritance in family trees.

It has also been noted that homosexual males are more often the younger siblings of a number of older brothers.
Scientists have said it might be that the mother develops some kind of resistance to the male Y chromosome in her offspring that makes subsequent baby boys more likely to be born gay.

Scientists doing DNA studies on homosexual brothers pinpointed 'culprit' genetic material to a region of the X chromosome that mothers pass on to their offspring.


But other researchers in the US have not been able to replicate these findings.

Highly fertile


Andrea Camperio-Ciani and colleagues argue genetic factors favouring homosexual male offspring could make women more fertile.

"Our data resolve this paradox by showing that there might be, hitherto unsuspected, reproductive advantages associated with male homosexuality," they said.

They looked at 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall.


The female relatives on the mother's side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side.
This suggests that these women who, in theory, pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile.


In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother's and the father's side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.

The researchers believe the homosexuality-increased fertility trait must be passed down on the female X chromosome.

They pointed out that this would not explain the majority (80%) of cases, and that cultural factors might be important.

Bigger picture

"It is clear that our findings, if confirmed by further research, are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality," they said.

In 2002, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced a report into the possible link between genes and behaviour, which included sexual orientation.

It concluded: "There are numerous problems with genetic and other biological research into sexual orientation which mean that any reported findings must be viewed with caution."

It said many of the genetic studies were too small to draw definite conclusions from.

Alan Wardle from the gay rights charity Stonewall said: "This is an interesting debate and there may well be a genetic element, but it's not conclusive.

"It does not really matter whether it is nature or nurture.

"The important thing is getting equality for homosexual people."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/3735668.stm

Would not evolutionary theory contradict this? Homosexuality works against the survival of the species in practice. How and why would a species need to have any homosexuals in any population?

Otherwise, accept this theory or any theory of inherited homosexuality and junk any theories of evolution. Or maybe the human species unlike any other is in a process of reverse evolution. So, in time we will behave and look like primates. Maybe that is how Bigfoot and Sasquach and Yetti and others came to be? But how could they have existed beyond a single generation if they were all homosexuals?


So the political agenda of the science is more important than the validity of the science.

Very interesting article

Critics of the theory argue a gay gene would eventually be wiped out because gay couples do not procreate.

If this above statement is true, then where did it come from in the first place? I know it says it’s passed on by the mothers, but if something can slowly die out, then it must have had a birth, in a sense.

Does what I'm trying to say make sense to anyone?

Completely Kryso.

The thing is, if it's genetic meaning it is passed down, that would mean that we (for the evolutionists) EVOLVED into getting the gay gene.
Or, (for the creationalists) GOD CREATED the gay gene therefore obviously it was in his plan.

Perhaps it is one of natures checks and balances

Its just a genetic mutation that stuck, it can been seen in species other than humans too

Why would any species "need" the gene? Genes that are harmful to the growth and reproduction of a species are "naturally selected" out of the population, according to evolutionary theory. Thus, the protein trail that they are following to and from the genes and alleles studied may actually be a response to environment rather than the reverse. After someone behaves homosexually, the genes are expressed, not before. This may be another case of politics interfering with science. The whole research set may really belong in the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

Homsexuality isn't a physical characteristic...it's a mutation. It just so happens to be a recurring mutation. Homosexuality is caused in the womb, when the foetus is supposed to recieve a certain dose of hormone....I could go into details, but there's no real reason to.

Suffice to say that homsexuality is not...say...a mutation that caused some people to have faulty balance. In the natural world, such people would undoubtable die, and those who had proper balance would survive to carry on...homsexuality is a problem caused by a mutation in the development cycle that occurs entirerly to chance.

Those that possess the genes that create a greater likelyhood of this mutation occuring still have heterosexual children....who in turn have heterosexual children...who in turn have heterosexual children...homsexual children may or may not pop up along the way too, but the family line (and thus the gene that can lead to the mutation) is still being passedon.



Obviously you don't have much understanding of genetics You cannot simply "make yourself" gay...nor for that matter can you make yourself straight. Although it is true that many people spend a great many years of their lives "in denial" so to speak, sexuality is nevertheless something very deeply engrained in our genetic makeup.

And so it goes. No freedom to choose or result of poor parenting, every action of everyone is just a consequence of genetics. I suppose they will find a "lying gene", a "stealing gene". a "raping gene", an "incest gene", a "polygamy gene", a "poluandry gene", a "polyamourous gene". a "spousal abuse gene", and a general "criminal gene". And if they are just acting out their genetics, I guess that we can no longer prosecute for these offenses. Mind five on the list are in the area of sexual orientation. How mush has to be done so that less than 3% pf any population may bring any nation to ruin?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomi...rce/gaygene.htm
http://www.electricnevada.com/pages00/ira_0903.htm


Again, the political agenda of the science is overtaking the validity and methods of the science. Evolution does not even support the continued possibility of a gay gene mutation in any population. Unless you consider that man is in a process of reverse evolution leading to his own extinction.

Oh for the luv of

Do you even know what you are talking about? From your posts you are giving out the impression of one who is a homophobe.

No, I do not fear homos, homo phobe [fear]. Rather I care enough for them to present the fallacies of the science and logic of their arguments for it being a "natural" state. I care enough for them, and I have known some personally, to let them know that they do not have to remain as they are. I care enough for them to warn them of the consequences, physically and morally, of their actions.

Yet the political and social pundants of the homosexual community do no return the favor. Rather, they choose to call anything that questions their being as hate speech and want to limit my freedom of speech. Maybe a great or small portion of the homosexual community are heterophobes since they want to deny them freedoms they want only their own[you have freedom to speek for the homosexual lifestyle and no freedom to question the homosexual lifestyle in any manner].

I'd bet there is a gene for religious zealotry. It is probably a little angry gene that likes to pass judgement on and condemn all of the little genes near it.

And "hate speech" legislation is the first step toward a fascist/communist system of government. Why? Because the definition and object of "hate speech" can be changed on a whim. This is the true conspiracy of the issues, the "legal" destruction of the framework of society so that a totalitarian one may rise in its place.

... he says will using the word 'homo' which is generally accepted as an insult towards them




So you say your not a bigot... then say their actions are immoral... what business is it of yours what they do?

Wow...I actually had something planned out to say here but, I think fluffybunny hit the nail right on the head! Anyway, the whole idea of women that cary this "gene" being more fertile.......makes perfect sense to me that some of the male offspring would be rendered childless. Like someone else said earlier, it might be one of natures system of checks and balances...

Why do you need to question anyones sexual practice?

What business is it of yours? None. Mind your own business, take care of your own problems...there is no need for you to interject and create a problem where none exists.

Exactly!! Even if it wasn't genetic, it was completely by choice... who gives a damn? Do you really want people to make a national case about what goes on in your bedroom?

They can't have children? Well, a lot of straight couples can't have children either. And some just don't plain want to.

Besides the children argument... there really is no argument. Homosexuals, regardless of whether it's genetic or not, are doing something that makes them happy and makes them feel good. Treating them like criminals, and even comparing them to criminals doesn't help anybody!

Its ok to be gay...just go with your feelings...no need for the hostility anymore, we know the truth...

Why is this even an issue? Gay, straight, bi, what does it matter? Does it have anything to do with anyone except the people involved? Unless it does, you have no right to make a judgement one way or another. Like Disinterested said, do you want a public debate about what happens in your bedroom?

good one, Lottie

You'd think so. I mean the US is supposed to be the 'land of the free' and liberty

Exactly, who cares?

This fits into a discussion evolving on this board:

Myths about Christianity

religious people without the ability to see that it is obviously genetic care .

Essentially the reason it is being fought , is because unlike me ( Who was willing to say "aww screw it this books definition of god is wrong too" *moves on in life* ) a lot of people realise that if homosexuality is indeed genetic , then it cannot be a sin that people choose to do ... and thus the entire bible is falsified . Since most of the US believes in the bible rather then looking into it they start shouting against it . Denying all science that proves it ect. heck I had to resort to psi before I could finally admit it .

Spot on! You have sorted out these racist attitudes nicely.

Another problem caused by religion.
I'm starting to think god is a 4yr old toddler playing with Lego.

You mean this bit?;



yeah... I've put some of the things I have a slight problem with with in bold. Basically your not to hate people, but what they do is perverted, not liked by god and not a 'fine thing'. See as far as I'm concerned you can say 'oh we don't hate you we just feel its what your doing that’s wrong, perverted and what gods hates etc etc' all you want, its still amounts to prejudgious as its saying they commit perverted acts which god hates.

The original theory work was done by a man known as Dr. Bryan Sykes and can be read in his book Adams curse . He has many interesting theories though I believe this one is wrong .


Homosexuallity is not an issue nor is it an unexplained mystery . Infact the only mystery is , Why are we putting so much effort into posting these subjects ?

Link to a story on Dr.Bryan Sykes

No, its a sin people do not chose. People do not choose all of their sins.



You continue to assume that all Christians are bible literalist fundamentalists. Most (including myself) are not.

The bible is the inspired word of God, written by fallible men. It certainly is not perfect, but nor is it false. Nor does proving any one thing false prove the whole bible false.



Again, not all Christians are fundamentalists/literalists. Most Christians, myself included, accept science.

God hates all sin.

All of us are sinners, but God loves all of us (including homsexuals). It is not prejudice, its God's word. I am very accepting of gay people (I work with one, and she is a lot of fun to work with), as I am with all other sinners (which is everyone).

Being a sinner is not a bad thing (and it certainly does not mean that you are condemned to hell)---it just means that you are human.

And what Dr. Stranelove said at the beginning is true---Christians are not supposed to hate Gays, and ones who do will have it counted as a sin in God's eyes.

Keep in mind the original point that was made, that was taken offense to, was that Christians are always portrayed as Gay bashers, which is a misconception.

Dont you believe homosexuality is a sin ?

Independant, the problem is that most "gay bashers" use their religion as justification for their prejudism.

Yes.

Do you believe threatening to shove twelve monkeys down my throat (as you did on the other forum) is a sin?

You have a lot of hate in you that you need get over.

I agree. But not all people of faith are gay-bashers. To the contrary, most are not.

a quick word of advice -

Blatantly lieing about what has been said in these forums in hopes other members will give you sympathy is a quick way to make yourself unpopular around here . Anyone who bothers to read the post in question knows that that was an anology that wasnt even directed at you or anyone , and that there is no way it can be taken as a threat .

Are you just hoping no one will bother to look in the spirituality section and actually read the debate between me and you or what ?

Doing that is also illegal. It would count as both asualt and animal cruelty. Why if your not prejudgious are you comparing homsexuality to a crime?

And why do you compare it with something which is forced upon you, last time I check gays did not jump random people and force them to do things against their will, or threaten to either.

Then the ones who are not need to speak up, because all we ever hear are the religious folks that are against it.

More to the point, who made it ANYONES responsibility to worry about what other grown consenting adults are doing? Why all of the concern? Why the need to regulate someone elses life?

I find it incredibly frustrating and more than a bit disturbing that a group of people would take it upon themselves to attempt to regulate others behavior, moreso since that behavior is 1. genetic, 2. harms no one, and 3. is no one elses business.

With all of the problems in this world; war, starvation, hatred, bigotry, racism...etc why would the actions of grown adults be such a concern? Who put your group in charge? I didn't. I have yet to see a vote that puts christian values in charge in the country ala the Inquisition...

Craziness.

So basically you are saying YHWH makes people sin? I thought that your mythology taught that that was Satan’s job. Doesn’t YHWH know that Satan can sic the union on him – you know, management doing labor's job and all….That statement is total rubbish and shows the contradictory nature of Xian mythology.



No, not yet….but the village idiot is working on it with all his right wing conservative Xian minions!

Fluffy, you speak of the worlds problems such as racism. I see no difference between hating because of race, and hating because of gender preferances.
The people who hate gay people are scum.

You might want to add, Hating anyone because they are diffrent in your own eyes.

Weight , Height , etc.

Its all just Arrogant P***ks who think there way of life is better.

This is why i hate most people

Very....angry young man, Scar Correct...but angry.



Exactly...it's utterly ridiculous to hold homosexuality against someone...that's like me discriminating against someone for having red hair, or brown eyes, or something equally stupid.

I've said it before, but anyone, in this day and age, who holds homosexuality against people is, to be blunt, backwards. Whether it's because of religion ("Oh! It's a sin! Sinful! Dear lord!"), or just because they're mind numbingly stupid ("Momma! Stop cleanin' the tractor an c'mere! I thunk this guy 'ere's gay, Momma!"), predujice like this is better left back in the dark ages where it belongs.

When did hating come up? Yeah, Independent says homosexuality is a sin, and in the judeo-christian mindset, that is correct, but I've had plenty of Christian friends who have thought of me as a sinner for being pagan, yet didn't hate me. Just because it's a sin doesn't mean you have to hate it. I'm sure that there are plenty of Jewish people out there who feel no hatred towards pigs, but wouldn't touch a ham and cheese with a twelve foot stick.

To coin a phrase: Don't be hatin'

a school teacher did a test on her 3rd grade class back in 1968
brown eyes vs. blue eyes.
heres part of the artical....its quiet an insteresting test

In 1968, Jane Elliott was an elementary-school teacher in her all-White hometown of Riceville, Iowa. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had been a "hero of the month" in Elliott’s fourth-grade class, because Elliott believed that "what he was doing was right for all of us, not just for Blacks." When King was shot, her students wanted to know why their "hero" had been killed. Elliott took the opportunity to discuss race with her students.

She queried the kids on what they knew about Black people (none having ever met a Black person). Their responses were bile-laden: "They’re dirty," "They stink," "They don’t smell good," "They riot, they steal," "You can’t trust them, my dad says they better not try to move in next door to us."

Elliott decided to administer a racial reality check. She divided the class into two groups: the brown eyes and the blue eyes. Anyone not fitting these categories, such as those with green or hazel eyes, was an outsider, not actively participating in the exercise. Elliott told her children that brown-eyed people were superior to blue-eyed, due to the amount of the color-causing-chemical, melanin, in their blood.

She said that blue-eyed people were stupid and lazy and not to be trusted. To ensure that the eye color differentiation could be made quickly, Elliott passed out strips of cloth that fastened at the neck as collars. The brown eyes gleefully affixed the cloth-made shackles on their blue-eyed counterparts.

Elliott withdrew her blue-eyed students’ basic classroom rights, such as drinking directly from the water fountain or taking a second helping at lunch. Brown-eyed kids, on the other hand, received preferen

tial treatment. In addition to being permitted to boss around the blues, the browns were given an extended recess.

Elliott recalls, "It was just horrifying how quickly they became what I told them they were." Within 30 minutes, a blue-eyed girl named Carol had regressed from a "brilliant, self-confident carefree, excited little girl to a frightened, timid, uncertain little almost-person."

On the flip side, the brown-eyed children excelled under their newfound superiority. Elliott had seven students with dyslexia in her class that year and four of them had brown eyes. On the day that the browns were "on top," those four brown-eyed boys with dyslexia read words that Elliott "knew they couldn’t read" and spelled words that she "knew they couldn’t spell."

Seeing her brown-eyed students act like "arrogant, ugly, domineering, overbearing White Americans" with no instructions to do so proved to Elliott that racism is learned. Prior to that day in 1968, her students had expressed neither positive nor negative thoughts about each other based on eye color. Yes, Elliott taught them that it was all right to judge one another based on eye color. But she did not teach them how to oppress. "They already knew how to be racist because every one of them knew without my telling them how to treat those who were on the bottom," says Elliott.

That day, Elliott discovered that "you can create racism. And, as with anything, if you can create it, you can destroy it." For 14 out of the next 16 years that Elliott taught in Riceville, she conducted the exercise. In the White enclave of Riceville, fighting racism was not looked upon by most as an honorable duty. As a result of her work, kids beat up her own children. Her parents’ business lost customers. Elliott and her family received regular death threats. And each fall, parents called Elliott’s principal and said, "I don’t want my kid in that nigger-lover’s classroom!"

Not everyone was against Elliott. She believes that 80 percent of the people in Riceville were compassionate, caring people who were concerned about their school and their kids and their community. But, says Elliott, the 20 percent, the vocal, vicious minority, intimidated the rest of them. It seemed as though the only Ricevilleans strong enough to stand up to this vicious minority were Elliott’s students. After participating in the exercise, says Elliott, her students went home and argued with their fathers about racism. Imagine: 8-year-old children telling their parents that they were wrong.

Heres the rest
Another link about the test in 2004

That's what I am doing. I hope I can get some people to listen, and see that there is room for homosexuality with the Christian church.

I got to see her speak live, and I was quite impressed. Her exercis was excellent, and shows the evils of prejudice.

Here are your exact words:



After all of the time I spent trying to explain that there was room for homosexuality within Christianity, when I read this, I took it as a threat. I will let others decide what they think for themselves.

You could have easily have made your point without using such nasty words (and yes, they are nasty).