You need to look for a MUCH better cite. That one is a thinly veiled religious site whose purpose is to let people who feel attracted to the same sex know that “they have choices” about how to respond to such urges.
From that website:
I would have agreed with this, until recently.
And now I suppose someone’s gonna come up with a genetic reason why gay people tend to be liberal. :rolleyes:
There was an article in the Washington Post about 25 years ago about the doodles various members of congress drew at their desks. Democrats usually drew silly faces, and Republicans drew weird geometric patterns. I think it’s legitimate to ask if there’s an involuntary component to political affiliations. (Considering the number of political figures who change parties–only 3 or 4 per decade from Congress–the parallels with gay/bisexual people is likewise warranted.)
IANAPolitical Historian, but as I understand it, the key matter here is not whether orientation is genetic but whether it is a choice. Most people wouldn’t be able to explain the difference between phenotype and genotype if their lives depended on it, but do understand that there are things one chooses and things one does not choose.
DO we have the technology to do this separation? I concur that it would be un-ethical to split embryos just to do twin studies, but do the embryos split typically before the point where they are implanted?
Probably this is a hijack. Maybe I will do some Googling.
Regards,
Shodan
“The technology” involves a small knife or other object capable of pulling cells apart. The key is to do this very early, before the cells being to differentiate. It’s much, much easier than the techniques used for cloning. The embryo, at this stage, is relatively robust.
So because of their bigotry their analysis of the biological data should be ignored?
Probably, yes. Would you ask a creationist about the scientific evidence on evolution?
I wouldn’t argue a single gay gene, nor would I argue there is decent evidence homosexuality is polygenic. It doesn’t make any sense to argue that a trait such as sexual orientation is in the same category as something like openness or IQ or height which is what your suite of genes and environment statement is usually applied to.
No it doesn’t. It says there is evidence for and against it. Change it in your head to “Conservative” or “Right-wing” if it makes you feel better. It’s not that important to the topic.
Yes. They are agenda driven, not science driven. They know what they want the answer to be, and will “analyze” the data to fit that answer. Just take a look at their web cite, for Og’s sake. It has the look and feel of an LDS-affiliated website.
Even Republicans recognize climate change these days. They just come to different conclusions about what to do when they try to fit the information into their world-view. Similarly, just because people are incorrectly dividing up the causes of the phenomenon of homosexuality as either “genetic” or “choice” doesn’t mean they fail to properly describe the conclusions of research.
I mean, I don’t really believe variation in human sexual behavior to have a significant genetic component but I still don’t believe there is a choice involved.
This reply is also to what you just said John Mace.
Few recognize anthropogenic climate change, which is the real issue. If you just say “well the climate has always changed”, then you need’t worry about doing anything about it.
I doubt the website has data on how traumatizing it is to try to force yourself into heterosexual behavior and I doubt it mentions anything about the birth order effect (because it implies a lack of choice) but it doesn’t mean they didn’t do a great job of assembling and summarizing the collected research on the genetics of human sexual orientation.
Judge for yourself. References Quoted on this Site. Here is a sample:
Bennion, Lowell. Teachings of the New Testament, Deseret Sunday School Union Board, Salt Lake City, 1953.
Benson, Ezra Taft. “Preparing Yourselves For Missionary Service,” Ensign, May 1985.
Benson, Ezra Taft. “Born of God,” Ensign, Nov. 1985.
Benson, Ezra Taft. “Jesus Christ—Gifts and Expectations,” Christmas Devotional, Salt Lake City, UT, 7
Hunter, Howard W. That We Might Have Joy, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, UT, 1994.
Hurst, Ed. “The Ultimate Friend,” Outpost News, vol. 18, no. 4, Jul. 1994.
Hyde, Garrick and Hyde, Ginger, eds. A Place in the Kingdom: Spiritual Insights from Latter-day Saints about Same-sex Attraction, Century Publishing, Salt Lake City, UT, 1997.
What did I say earlier about this looking like an LDS-affiliated site? No need to guess anymore.
Also, note that none* of their references is newer than 20 years old, and most of them are from much earlier.
*maybe one is 19 years old.
Do you feel like it’s a better argument to discount their website because they are LDS or because their information is 20 years out of date? Because I would say the latter is more specific to their argument and the issue at hand. Their ancient sites did give me something to try and read about Xq28, so it wasn’t all worthless.
On the specific issue of Homosexuality? I’d pick the LDS option. Out of date cites can still be relevant, but on the subject of Homosexuality, the LDS church is hopelessly biased and an active advocate against it.
From your link:
When looking at the paragraph overall, the studies cover behaviors such as professed political orientation, attachment to a party and voting. I think your quote applies to voting.
No, the paragraph clearly addresses whether genetics contributes to your specific party affiliation and to how partisan you are. It discounts the former and affirms the latter.
It clearly addresses whether genetics contributes to a wide variety of political behaviors:
The citation at the end of the sentence you quoted earlier refers to genetic and environmental variance components calculated from data in an Australian study but applies the result to American politics. It’s not a good idea to do that because Australian parties, culture, and population do not map onto the American versions of all these factors.
At this point I might take the LDS website for summarizing research on the genetics of human homosexuality over Wikipedia’s summary of the genetics of political behavior.