| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2005 11:56:30 PM |
| Object: |
Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
Does a "gay gene" really exist?
Nathan Tabor
February 16, 2005
"Wonderful Husband. Loving Father. Former Homosexual.
So read the billboards sponsored by Stephen Bennett, the head of a
Christian family advocacy group based in Huntingdon, Connecticut. The
ad, part of a nationwide campaign last year opposed to same-sex
marriage, features a large photo of Bennett with his lovely wife and
two children.
Some advertising companies refused to accept Bennett's ads because of
their "controversial content." Wherever the ads were posted, gay rights
activists rose up in anger to protest the very idea that homosexuals
can change, or even should want to.
But Bennett is one of thousands of practicing homosexuals who has
reversed his sexual orientation and found fulfillment in heterosexual
marriage. His message is simple: unhappy gays do have hope because real
change is possible.
Why do the radical gay activists resent Bennett's message so much?
Because it clearly refutes the urban myth they have so carefully
crafted: the lie that about 10 percent of the population is "born gay"
and simply can't help it. Many today are being taught to believe that
homosexuality is a genetic condition, like skin or eye color. This
deception has been nurtured over the years by the pro-homosexual major
media. But like other urban myths, this is a lie. (To learn more about
how this myth got started, go to
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html.)
Supporters of this "born gay" thesis frequently refer to a series of
scientific studies in the 1990s, particularly one by a homosexual
activist researcher named Dr. Dean Hamer of the National Cancer
Institute, a study that supposedly identified an "X chromosome"
possibly linked to homosexuality. Published in the journal Science back
in July of 1993, that report said merely that researchers were studying
the linkage between certain genes and homosexual behavior.
National Public Radio quickly trumpeted the news, followed by the Wall
Street Journal and other major newspapers. Next Newsweek emblazoned
"Gay Gene?" across its cover. The average layperson reading these
reports clearly got the message that science had discovered a gene that
causes or determines homosexual behavior. But that is not what the
research actually revealed, as even Dr. Hamer himself admitted.
Establishing a possible linkage does not prove causality, as all real
scientists know.
In their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation (published in 2000), the
American Psychiatric Association contradicts the "born gay" claim.
"There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific
biological etiology for homosexuality," the APA said. So much for the
pseudo-science of the New Gay '90s.
We should remember that until 1973, the APA classified homosexuality as
a deviant mental disorder. But 1973 was not a good year for morals and
values in America, being the year that abortion was legalized and the
APA revised its DSSM manual.
Then, in ironic twist of fate, Dr. Robert Spitzer, the very same doctor
who got the APA to change its stance on homosexuality in 1973, came
back in 2003 and changed his own mind. Why did this formerly zealous
pro-homosexual reformer have a change of heart? Because - although he
described himself as "initially skeptical" - he personally
interviewed more than 200 former homosexuals who had changed to
heterosexual through what he called "reparative therapy"!
To his credit, Dr. Spitzer dared to tell the truth about his findings,
despite the rabid rantings of the radical gay activists who foresaw the
dire implications of this revelation. Dr. Spitzer's report, entitled
"200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual
Orientation," was published in the October 2003 edition of the
prominent journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour.
"Almost all of the participants reported substantive changes to the
core aspects of sexual orientation, not merely overt behaviour," Dr.
Spitzer wrote. In other words, they didn't just change their homosexual
actions, but their unnatural attractions as well!
What's more, they were better off mentally for doing so. "For the
participants in our study, there was no evidence of harm," he added.
Dr. Spitzer described these 200 conversion decisions as a "rational,
self-directed goal" that was achieved. Not a single one committed
suicide through guilt-induced self-loathing.
"Mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of
banning therapy that has as its goal a change in sexual orientation,"
Dr. Spitzer concluded. "Many patients can make a rational choice toward
developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their homosexual
attractions."
Coming from the man who was responsible for redefining homosexual
deviancy as "normal" more than three decades ago, that's quite a
turnaround.
Conservatives need to stand up and hold homosexuals accountable to the
facts. They will have to acknowledge that their lifestyles are personal
choices, before anyone else should be expected to grant them the
legitimacy they seek.
The Gay Gene doesn't exist. Whether it's through "reparative therapy"
or through a higher power, the fact remains: homosexuals CAN change . .
.. if they want to.
.
|
|
| User: "Ninure Saunders" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
17 Feb 2005 07:17:24 AM |
|
|
"I anticipated some misuse of the study results but I did not anticipate
that some of the media would say such ridiculous things as that the study
raised the issue of homosexuality and choice. Of course no one chooses to
be homosexual and no one chooses to be heterosexual. I did anticipate, and
in my presentation warn, that it would be a mistake to interpret the study
as implying that any highly motivated homosexual could change if they
really were motivated to do so. I suspect that the vast majority of gay
people - even if they wanted to - would be unable to make the substantial
changes in sexual attraction and fantasy and enjoyment of heterosexual
functioning that many of my subjects reported. I also warned against the
study results being used to justify pressuring gay people to enter therapy
when they had no interest in doing so and I have already heard of many
incidents where that has happened. That is what troubles me the most about
this controversy."
- Dr. Robert Spitzer, May 16, 2001
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
Take my polls
http://ninure.100megsfree5.com
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
The Bible Site - help provide free scripture
http://www.thebiblesite.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Martin-Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
19 Feb 2005 04:01:12 PM |
|
|
It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be passed on -
except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.Bisexuals I imagine would have to be
the key
"Ninure Saunders" <RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote in
message
news:RainbowChristiannohate-1702050733380001@h-68-164-12-81.chcgilgm.dynamic
..covad.net...
"I anticipated some misuse of the study results but I did not anticipate
that some of the media would say such ridiculous things as that the study
raised the issue of homosexuality and choice. Of course no one chooses to
be homosexual and no one chooses to be heterosexual. I did anticipate, and
in my presentation warn, that it would be a mistake to interpret the study
as implying that any highly motivated homosexual could change if they
really were motivated to do so. I suspect that the vast majority of gay
people - even if they wanted to - would be unable to make the substantial
changes in sexual attraction and fantasy and enjoyment of heterosexual
functioning that many of my subjects reported. I also warned against the
study results being used to justify pressuring gay people to enter therapy
when they had no interest in doing so and I have already heard of many
incidents where that has happened. That is what troubles me the most about
this controversy."
- Dr. Robert Spitzer, May 16, 2001
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
Take my polls
http://ninure.100megsfree5.com
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
The Bible Site - help provide free scripture
http://www.thebiblesite.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
19 Feb 2005 04:08:18 PM |
|
|
"Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be passed on -
except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far too
many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims that
being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
picture? ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
19 Feb 2005 04:11:05 PM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be passed
on -
except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far too
many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims that
being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
picture? ;-)
i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is that since
gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the mentioned
premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to procreate.
so your comparison is based on your missing his point
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
19 Feb 2005 06:11:34 PM |
|
|
"Sangfroid" <cold@comcast.net> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be passed
on -
except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far too
many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims that
being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
picture? ;-)
i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is that since
gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the mentioned
premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to procreate.
so your comparison is based on your missing his point
Actually not. If a gene that 30% of the population has sets the
probability of being gay to 10%, gays would make up 3% of the
population. Furthermore, several genes may be involved. If gene A and
gene B both give you desirable traits, but the combination results in
you being gay as well, you'll see some number of gays in your
population. For example, if 17.3 percent of the population have gene A
and 17.3 percent have gene B, then (assuming random chance) 3 percent
would have both and thus be gay.
There are simply a lot of ways you get 1 to 3 percent of the population
to have a trait, even if people in that 1 to 3 percent never reproduce.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanggfr" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
20 Feb 2005 09:25:38 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3mzu09jo3.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Sangfroid" <cold@comcast.net> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be
passed
on -
except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far too
many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims that
being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
picture? ;-)
i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is that
since
gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the mentioned
premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to
procreate.
so your comparison is based on your missing his point
Actually not. If a gene that 30% of the population has sets the
probability of being gay to 10%, gays would make up 3% of the
population. Furthermore, several genes may be involved. If gene A and
gene B both give you desirable traits, but the combination results in
you being gay as well, you'll see some number of gays in your
population. For example, if 17.3 percent of the population have gene A
and 17.3 percent have gene B, then (assuming random chance) 3 percent
would have both and thus be gay.
There are simply a lot of ways you get 1 to 3 percent of the population
to have a trait, even if people in that 1 to 3 percent never reproduce.
i agree
i didn't say his point was VALID
i was clarifying what his point WAS
hth
whit
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
19 Feb 2005 06:19:27 PM |
|
|
And you would be wrong as usual.
The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
"Sangfroid" <cold@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:37prrrF5g255mU1@individual.net...
:
: "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
: news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > "Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
: >
: >> It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be
passed
: >> on -
: >> except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
: >> homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
: >
: > Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
: > while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far
too
: > many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims
that
: > being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
: > picture? ;-)
: >
:
: i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is that
since
: gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the
mentioned
: premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to
procreate.
:
: so your comparison is based on your missing his point
:
: whit
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanggfr" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
20 Feb 2005 09:24:57 AM |
|
|
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
And you would be wrong as usual.
i am not making the point. i am pointing out what HIS point was
The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
except that's irrelevant. i didn't say i agreed with his point. i was
clarifying what it was
whit
"Sangfroid" <cold@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:37prrrF5g255mU1@individual.net...
:
: "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
: news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > "Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
: >
: >> It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be
passed
: >> on -
: >> except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
: >> homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
: >
: > Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
: > while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far
too
: > many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims
that
: > being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
: > picture? ;-)
: >
:
: i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is that
since
: gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the
mentioned
: premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to
procreate.
:
: so your comparison is based on your missing his point
:
: whit
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
20 Feb 2005 09:52:35 PM |
|
|
"Sanggfr" <froid@earthlink.net> writes:
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
And you would be wrong as usual.
i am not making the point. i am pointing out what HIS point was
The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
except that's irrelevant. i didn't say i agreed with his point. i was
clarifying what it was
whit
Even if gays never reproduce, that is not relevant for the reasons I
gave in other posts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
19 Feb 2005 08:53:25 PM |
|
|
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
And you would be wrong as usual.
The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
Hmm.
I know that many *do*, but I would have to say it's the opposite amongst my
gay acquaintances.
Susan
"Sangfroid" <cold@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:37prrrF5g255mU1@individual.net...
:
: "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
: news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > "Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
: >
: >> It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be
passed
: >> on -
: >> except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
: >> homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
: >
: > Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
: > while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far
too
: > many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims
that
: > being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
: > picture? ;-)
: >
:
: i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is that
since
: gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the
mentioned
: premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to
procreate.
:
: so your comparison is based on your missing his point
:
: whit
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanggfr" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
20 Feb 2005 09:17:42 AM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FYSRd.13176$uc.10011@trnddc09...
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
And you would be wrong as usual.
The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
Hmm.
I know that many *do*, but I would have to say it's the opposite amongst
my
gay acquaintances.
i would say the same. his personal acquaintances are obviously a skewed
sample
LOTs of gays have biological children
the "vast majority" do not, suggesting his sample group is skewed
most gays i know do not have bio children, but MANY do. far from a vast
majority, and i would suggest (consistent with your experience) that that is
the case nationwide (in Canada as well)
whit
Susan
"Sangfroid" <cold@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:37prrrF5g255mU1@individual.net...
:
: "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
: news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > "Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
: >
: >> It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be
passed
: >> on -
: >> except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
: >> homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
: >
: > Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
: > while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far
too
: > many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims
that
: > being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
: > picture? ;-)
: >
:
: i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is that
since
: gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the
mentioned
: premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to
procreate.
:
: so your comparison is based on your missing his point
:
: whit
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
20 Feb 2005 01:05:13 PM |
|
|
Which is why someone should not generalise.
There are not actual reliable studies to show exactly how many
homosexuals have biological children.
I am gay, I am 40-years-old, I have been out since I was 22. I have
lived in Ireland, Israel, Canada, and the USA. It just happens that the
majority of gay men that I know either have a biological child or
children of their own...
I am sure if I were 21 and just came out and the only gay men I knew
were 18-24, that I might be able to say, "I do not know one gay man with
a biological child."
"Sanggfr" <froid@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37rnvtF5gijv8U1@individual.net...
:
: "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
: news:FYSRd.13176$uc.10011@trnddc09...
: >
: > "The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
: > news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
: > > And you would be wrong as usual.
: > >
: > > The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
: >
: > Hmm.
: > I know that many *do*, but I would have to say it's the opposite
amongst
: my
: > gay acquaintances.
:
: i would say the same. his personal acquaintances are obviously a
skewed
: sample
:
: LOTs of gays have biological children
:
: the "vast majority" do not, suggesting his sample group is skewed
:
: most gays i know do not have bio children, but MANY do. far from a
vast
: majority, and i would suggest (consistent with your experience) that
that is
: the case nationwide (in Canada as well)
:
: whit
:
: >
: > Susan
: > >
: > >
: > >
: > > "Sangfroid" <cold@comcast.net> wrote in message
: > > news:37prrrF5g255mU1@individual.net...
: > > :
: > > : "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
: > > : news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > > : > "Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk>
writes:
: > > : >
: > > : >> It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could
be
: > > passed
: > > : >> on -
: > > : >> except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far
too many
: > > : >> homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
: > > : >
: > > : > Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively
gay,
: > > : > while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are
"far
: > > too
: > > : > many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody
claims
: > > that
: > > : > being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with
this
: > > : > picture? ;-)
: > > : >
: > > :
: > > : i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is
that
: > > since
: > > : gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the
: > > mentioned
: > > : premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to
: > > procreate.
: > > :
: > > : so your comparison is based on your missing his point
: > > :
: > > : whit
: > > :
: > > :
: > >
: > >
: >
: >
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
19 Feb 2005 09:00:20 PM |
|
|
Susan Cohen <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote:
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
And you would be wrong as usual.
The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
Hmm.
I know that many *do*, but I would have to say it's the opposite
amongst my gay acquaintances.
Susan
Same here. I know 8 gay couples and 3 of those couples have children.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
19 Feb 2005 10:51:32 PM |
|
|
The majority I know are not couples.
They are men who denied their homosexuality, got married, had children,
then divorced and came "out".
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
news:83TRd.1318$873.338@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: Susan Cohen <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote:
: > "The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
: > news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
: >> And you would be wrong as usual.
: >>
: >> The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
: >
: > Hmm.
: > I know that many *do*, but I would have to say it's the opposite
: > amongst my gay acquaintances.
: >
: > Susan
: >>
:
: Same here. I know 8 gay couples and 3 of those couples have children.
:
:
:
: --
: "Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
: particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
: religion capable of scientific truth."
:
: Albert Einstein
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
20 Feb 2005 12:45:44 AM |
|
|
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:eMydnTprK_7Si4XfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
The majority I know are not couples.
They are men who denied their homosexuality, got married, had children,
then divorced and came "out".
So are the men in most of the couples I described. They are now living
with a same sex partner after being married to an opposite sex spouse. Two
of the couples I know that have children, the child is the natural child of
one of the partners. The other was an adoption.
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
news:83TRd.1318$873.338@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: Susan Cohen <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote:
: > "The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
: > news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
: >> And you would be wrong as usual.
: >>
: >> The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
: >
: > Hmm.
: > I know that many *do*, but I would have to say it's the opposite
: > amongst my gay acquaintances.
: >
: > Susan
: >>
:
: Same here. I know 8 gay couples and 3 of those couples have children.
:
:
:
: --
: "Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
: particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
: religion capable of scientific truth."
:
: Albert Einstein
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
20 Feb 2005 09:28:04 AM |
|
|
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:eMydnTprK_7Si4XfRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
The majority I know are not couples.
They are men who denied their homosexuality, got married, had children,
then divorced and came "out".
Ah - then that makes even more sense.
Susan
"Andrealphus" <OHNOLETSGO@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
news:83TRd.1318$873.338@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
: Susan Cohen <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote:
: > "The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
: > news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
: >> And you would be wrong as usual.
: >>
: >> The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
: >
: > Hmm.
: > I know that many *do*, but I would have to say it's the opposite
: > amongst my gay acquaintances.
: >
: > Susan
: >>
:
: Same here. I know 8 gay couples and 3 of those couples have children.
:
:
:
: --
: "Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
: particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
: religion capable of scientific truth."
:
: Albert Einstein
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Martin-Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
20 Feb 2005 05:54:13 AM |
|
|
This all shows that these matters are very complicated- perhaps I should
withdraw my suggestions, which were at best only tentative
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FYSRd.13176$uc.10011@trnddc09...
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
And you would be wrong as usual.
The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
Hmm.
I know that many *do*, but I would have to say it's the opposite amongst
my
gay acquaintances.
Susan
"Sangfroid" <cold@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:37prrrF5g255mU1@individual.net...
:
: "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
: news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > "Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
: >
: >> It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be
passed
: >> on -
: >> except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
: >> homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
: >
: > Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
: > while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far
too
: > many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims
that
: > being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
: > picture? ;-)
: >
:
: i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is that
since
: gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the
mentioned
: premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to
procreate.
:
: so your comparison is based on your missing his point
:
: whit
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
20 Feb 2005 09:28:43 AM |
|
|
"Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:56KdnZ8lfrHl5YXfSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
This all shows that these matters are very complicated- perhaps I should
withdraw my suggestions, which were at best only tentative
I certainly knew that you were not making an anti-gay statement with them.
Susan
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FYSRd.13176$uc.10011@trnddc09...
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
And you would be wrong as usual.
The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
Hmm.
I know that many *do*, but I would have to say it's the opposite amongst
my
gay acquaintances.
Susan
"Sangfroid" <cold@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:37prrrF5g255mU1@individual.net...
:
: "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
: news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > "Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
: >
: >> It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be
passed
: >> on -
: >> except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too
many
: >> homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
: >
: > Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
: > while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far
too
: > many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims
that
: > being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
: > picture? ;-)
: >
:
: i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is that
since
: gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the
mentioned
: premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to
procreate.
:
: so your comparison is based on your missing his point
:
: whit
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
19 Feb 2005 10:50:12 PM |
|
|
You don't know as many as I do
:P *chuckle*
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FYSRd.13176$uc.10011@trnddc09...
:
: "The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
: news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
: > And you would be wrong as usual.
: >
: > The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
:
: Hmm.
: I know that many *do*, but I would have to say it's the opposite
amongst my
: gay acquaintances.
:
: Susan
: >
: >
: >
: > "Sangfroid" <cold@comcast.net> wrote in message
: > news:37prrrF5g255mU1@individual.net...
: > :
: > : "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
: > : news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > : > "Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
: > : >
: > : >> It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could
be
: > passed
: > : >> on -
: > : >> except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too
many
: > : >> homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
: > : >
: > : > Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively
gay,
: > : > while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are
"far
: > too
: > : > many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims
: > that
: > : > being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with
this
: > : > picture? ;-)
: > : >
: > :
: > : i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is
that
: > since
: > : gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the
: > mentioned
: > : premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to
: > procreate.
: > :
: > : so your comparison is based on your missing his point
: > :
: > : whit
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
20 Feb 2005 09:27:40 AM |
|
|
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:p8OdnQKqV6Wdi4XfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
You don't know as many as I do
Okay, yes, I'm sure I don't! :-)
Susan
:P *chuckle*
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:FYSRd.13176$uc.10011@trnddc09...
:
: "The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
: news:WsGdnQ4Yy6oRS4rfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
: > And you would be wrong as usual.
: >
: > The vast majority of gay people I know have biological children.
:
: Hmm.
: I know that many *do*, but I would have to say it's the opposite
amongst my
: gay acquaintances.
:
: Susan
: >
: >
: >
: > "Sangfroid" <cold@comcast.net> wrote in message
: > news:37prrrF5g255mU1@individual.net...
: > :
: > : "No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
: > : news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
: > : > "Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
: > : >
: > : >> It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could
be
: > passed
: > : >> on -
: > : >> except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too
many
: > : >> homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
: > : >
: > : > Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively
gay,
: > : > while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are
"far
: > too
: > : > many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims
: > that
: > : > being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with
this
: > : > picture? ;-)
: > : >
: > :
: > : i think you are missing his point. his point (i am assuming) is
that
: > since
: > : gays don't generally PROCREATE, that this gene (assuming the
: > mentioned
: > : premises) would not be passed on. blacks generally DO tend to
: > procreate.
: > :
: > : so your comparison is based on your missing his point
: > :
: > : whit
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
19 Feb 2005 08:43:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:08:18 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be passed on -
except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
I can assure you from wide personal experience at least 25% of all
males are well open for a male-male fling, no strings attached.
About 10% of the population is exclusively gay, and I wouldn't be
surprised at all if that number is under estimated.
while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far too
many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims that
being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
picture? ;-)
Yes, you are looking at the wrong picture.
Try again.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Martin-Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
20 Feb 2005 05:52:09 AM |
|
|
You could well be right; however whereas blacks as a rule have no
disinclination to disseminate their genes, gays by definition find this more
of a problem. 1-3% gays seems a bit low to me- but perhaps I am wrong there
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be passed
on -
except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far too
many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims that
being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
picture? ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
27 Feb 2005 09:08:51 PM |
|
|
On 2005-02-21 00:52:09 +1300, "Michael Martin-Smith"
<lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> said:
You could well be right; however whereas blacks as a rule have no
disinclination to disseminate their genes, gays by definition find this more
of a problem. 1-3% gays seems a bit low to me- but perhaps I am wrong there
Interesting how you forget what Mohummad Ali and Malcolm X said about
mixed parent families.
Matt
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3acq0ciie.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Michael Martin-Smith" <lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> writes:
It is difficult to see how the putative homosexual gene could be passed
on -
except perhaps as a recessive? I would think there are far too many
homosexuals for a purely genetic cause.
Huh??? 1 to 3 percent or so of the population are exclusively gay,
while about 15% in the U.S. are black, and you say there are "far too
many homosexuals for a purely genetic cause" while nobody claims that
being black is a choice? Anyone else see something wrong with this
picture? ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
28 Feb 2005 01:49:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:08:51 +1300, Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au>
wrote in message <2005022816085180164%kaiwainz@yahoocomau>
On 2005-02-21 00:52:09 +1300, "Michael Martin-Smith"
<lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk> said:
You could well be right; however whereas blacks as a rule have no
disinclination to disseminate their genes, gays by definition find this more
of a problem. 1-3% gays seems a bit low to me- but perhaps I am wrong there
Interesting how you forget what Mohummad Ali and Malcolm X said about
mixed parent families.
A man and a woman getting married? Nope, this mixed marriage thing
will never work.
--
Boy Toy
Toxic Toyz 4 Nasty Boyz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
28 Feb 2005 04:53:19 PM |
|
|
"Boy Toy" <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote in message
news:09t621p7smquqhrh4jgrgr35165nan9l9q@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:08:51 +1300, Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au>
wrote in message <2005022816085180164%kaiwainz@yahoocomau>
Interesting how you forget what Mohummad Ali and Malcolm X said about
mixed parent families.
A man and a woman getting married? Nope, this mixed marriage thing
will never work.
ROTFLOL!!!
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
01 Mar 2005 09:19:59 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:53:19 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Boy Toy" <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote in message
news:09t621p7smquqhrh4jgrgr35165nan9l9q@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:08:51 +1300, Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au>
wrote in message <2005022816085180164%kaiwainz@yahoocomau>
Interesting how you forget what Mohummad Ali and Malcolm X said about
mixed parent families.
A man and a woman getting married? Nope, this mixed marriage thing
will never work.
ROTFLOL!!!
Indeed, an apt return shot. :D
Susan
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
17 Feb 2005 01:01:22 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote
Does a "gay gene" really exist?
My favorite example is the "Kermode" bear, or "Spirit Bear."
It's white. That is to say, it's a black bear that's white.
It's not a Polar bear. It's not an Albino bear. It is a black
bear with white fur.
People spent years trying to isolate the specific gene that
was turning th bears white, without success.
Oddly, nobody ever claimed that the bears chose to be white....
"Wonderful Husband. Loving Father. Former Homosexual.
"Homosexuality" is defined by attractions, not behavior.
As all imaginary "ex-gay" men retain their sexual attractions
towards other men, they are all still gay.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
17 Feb 2005 01:15:03 AM |
|
|
*applause*
Well done!
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Lv2dnQMgEfP2oonfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
:
: "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote
:
: > Does a "gay gene" really exist?
:
: My favorite example is the "Kermode" bear, or "Spirit Bear."
:
: It's white. That is to say, it's a black bear that's white.
:
: It's not a Polar bear. It's not an Albino bear. It is a black
: bear with white fur.
:
: People spent years trying to isolate the specific gene that
: was turning th bears white, without success.
:
: Oddly, nobody ever claimed that the bears chose to be white....
:
: > "Wonderful Husband. Loving Father. Former Homosexual.
:
: "Homosexuality" is defined by attractions, not behavior.
:
: As all imaginary "ex-gay" men retain their sexual attractions
: towards other men, they are all still gay.
:
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Proud Sponsor of the 2004 Conservative Mandate" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
17 Feb 2005 10:26:55 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote
Does a "gay gene" really exist?
My favorite example is the "Kermode" bear, or "Spirit Bear."
My favorite example is identical twins where one is gay and the other
is not.
It's white. That is to say, it's a black bear that's white.
It's not a Polar bear. It's not an Albino bear. It is a black
bear with white fur.
People spent years trying to isolate the specific gene that
was turning th bears white, without success.
Oddly, nobody ever claimed that the bears chose to be white....
And guess what? They can't become black haired bears even if they
choose to. Unlike former homosexuals who are now heterosexual because
they chose to be.
"Wonderful Husband. Loving Father. Former Homosexual.
"Homosexuality" is defined by attractions, not behavior.
You must mean specifically "sexual" attraction.
As all imaginary "ex-gay" men retain their sexual attractions
towards other men, they are all still gay.
The ones that are no longer sexually attracted to the same sex are
"former homosexuals."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
17 Feb 2005 12:56:49 PM |
|
|
"Proud Sponsor of the 2004 Conservative Mandate"
My favorite example is identical twins where one is gay
and the other is not.
You do know that identical twins aren't identical, right?
And guess what? They can't become black haired bears
even if they choose to. Unlike former homosexuals who
are now heterosexual because they chose to be.
You're pretending that homosexuality is defined by a person's
actions. It's not. Homosexuality is defined entirely in terms of
attractions.
Your imaginary "ex-gay" men all retain their attractions towards
other men. They're all still gay.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
