Gay Genes are Made By Levi Strauss, Mostly

Is the ‘Gay Gene’ a Myth? Scientists Say Homosexuality Impossible to Determine by DNA | Christian News Network

“The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother’s DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay,” The Guardian article continues. “That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin.”

Which then leads directly to this sort of bullshit:

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association says the scientific findings show that homosexual behavior is ultimately an individual choice.

“Without a genetic causation, sexual preference in behavior is clearly a choice, a choice which no one is compelled to make,” Fischer wrote in a column last week. “And that choice can be evaluated in any number of ways, including whether or not it is good for human health and whether or not same-sex households are sub-optimal nurturing environments for vulnerable young children.”

“If homosexual conduct is ultimately a matter of choice,” Fischer continued, “then the homosexual lobby has nothing, because homosexual conduct is clearly harmful to human beings in any number of ways, not the least of which is serving as the leading cause of HIV/AIDS, which can leave young men disease-ridden and destined for an early grave.”

As for this idiotic twin-study “proof”…..

Gay Men in Twin Study – New York Times

A new study of twins provides the strongest evidence yet that homosexuality has a genetic basis, researchers say, though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important.

The study, published in the December issue of The Archives of General Psychiatry, adds to evidence that sexual orientation does not result from a maladjustment or moral defect, one author said.

“We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers,” said J. Michael Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, “which is exactly the kind of pattern you would want to see if something genetic were going on.” By “unrelated,” Dr. Bailey was referring to brothers by adoption.

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


Gay Genes are Made By Levi Strauss, Mostly — 15 Comments

  1. this is ALL BULLSHIT!

    It’s both Genetic and a Choice, and sometimes Just genetic, and sometimes JUST a choice.

    To say otherwise is a LIE! Why is it, that a large, not plurality, but large number of homosexuals, at least men, were introduced to homosexuality as teens through pedophilic activity? Why is it that the majority of Pedophiles are were once victimized in youth?

    Because their victimhood normalized their adult tendencies.

    Non procreative behavior has predispositions, but the overriding factor is exprience. I won’t say choice, but factors tiping the balance without their decision that have nothing to do with how they were born.

    • Speaking of bullshit. Provide ANY reputable proof that a vast number of gay people have been molested when they were children. That’s an old wive’s tale, promoted by religious bigots.

      Google “epigenetics” for current research regarding sexual orientation. It is not a choice.

  2. Let’s suppose that homosexuality is a choice. So what? Whose business is it except the people in question. People make all sorts of choices that don’t hurt anyone and are no one else’s business.

    It’s about procreation, you say? Homosexuality is bad for society because people aren’t having children? Well, what about the married couples who choose not to have children? What about the straight American men who choose not to marry, or in some cases even to get involved with women, because the dating and marriage landscape has been so poisoned? Whose choice was it to make the family environment so toxic for men? Shouldn’t they be held accountable for their damage to society?

    • Steve, “because some people are doing something wrong, it’s OK for others to do something wrong” isn’t exactly a sound argument.

      I hear people say that all the time, and it kind of grinds my gears. There’s plenty of arguments (and I’m not even really talking about the “choice” to be gay, or gay marriage, here) and I wish people wouldn’t use bad ones.

      • You have yet to demonstrate that anything I mentioned is “doing something wrong”. Except for feminists, lawyers, and busybodies making the relationship environment toxic for men; if you want to claim that’s wrong fundamentally or for society, I won’t argue with you.

              • Oh, many of us are quite capable of both understanding AND utilizing hypotheticals; however, we’re also more than capable of recognizing – and pointing out – when an apparent attempt at a hypothetical hinges upon an equally-apparent mischaracterization, which (most charitably put) seems to stem from an apparent lack of reading comprehension.

                To wit:

                You wrote “Homosexuality is bad for society because people aren’t having children?”, didn’t you?

                , as a response to SteveF’s reply to your “because some people are doing something wrong, it’s OK for others to do something wrong” mischaracterization is either a) a product of your failure to “read for meaning”, or b) a further attempt at deliberate mischaracterization – so…which would you prefer to be seen as exhibiting? Lack of reading comprehension, or trying to defend blatantly-obvious failed argumentation?

                The choice is yours, of course…

  3. It’s both Genetic and a Choice, and sometimes Just genetic, and sometimes JUST a choice.

    I’d say that’s about all you can really say, and remain accurate – although I’d also say that it doesn’t render ALL of the “research” referred to on the topic “BULLSHIT”…just most of it, with the biggest pieces of it being politically- and/or religiously-motivated (and therefore fatally-flawed) bullshit.

    The whole “Genetics versus (choice of) Lifestyle” thing vis a vis homosexuality seems to me to be just a sub-set of the “Nature versus Nurture” back-and-forth argumentation – and, at this point, just as impervious to settlement, one way or the other, as any other “chicken or egg?” division.

    Personally, I have a difficult time anymore understanding just why the true nature of the difference matters so much to so many people, although I recognize that, clearly, it apparently does.

    • Which is, quite clearly, neither “scientific” nor particularly “enlightening” – mainly being the same old bone-headed “Progressive” psyche, launched in yet another insipid and essentially-pointless little screed.

      But then, it’s Slate, after all, so you can hardly expect actual – you know – intelligence or logic to be expressed, now, can you?…

Leave a Reply