New Study Shows Gay Men Have Variation Of DNA Over Straight men

[Frank Cannon]

Since Homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce, then Why haven't those recessive genes already eliminated themselves out of the human gene pool?

LOL. Can't reproduce. Really? That's a revelation......

When Christian rock star Trey Pearson announced he was coming out of the closet and separating from his wife and their two children after seven and a half years of marriage, he said that his wife had been his “biggest supporter” and that “she just hugged me and cried and said how proud of me she was.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/its-possible-gays-and-lesbians-can-have-happy-marriages

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

LOL. Can't reproduce. Really? That's a revelation......

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/its-possible-gays-and-lesbians-can-have-happy-marriages

Frank: READ the Topic of this Post.

It's about Gay Behavior being caused by DNA, not gay sperm count or anything else to do with his ability to impregnate a woman.

[Frank Cannon]

Frank: READ the Topic of this Post.

It's about Gay Behavior being caused by DNA, not gay sperm count or anything else to do with his ability to impregnate a woman.

And you are aware how DNA is transferred on, right? There were a hell of a lot of closeted gay dudes in marriages pumping out kids up until the last 30 or so years. You said it was "biologically impossible" for gay dudes to reproduce. That's totally absurd. LOL. Just look at this fairy for proof....

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

And you are aware how DNA is transferred on, right? There were a hell of a lot of closeted gay dudes in marriages pumping out kids up until the last 30 or so years. You said it was "biologically impossible" for gay dudes to reproduce. That's totally absurd. LOL. Just look at this fairy for proof....

Not with each other they don't.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@Frank Cannon

The Topic is Homosexual, not AC/DC.

Homosexual Behavior does not produce children.

How do you even know your example of the clown with the mallet even made the drop?

And it wasn't some surrogate guy?

Marital infidelity is not unknown with Brit Royalty either.

Were you there to witness or film him actually impregnating the woman?

[Frank Cannon]

Not with each other they don't.

Don't have to be with each other. Say God started us out with 100 people on the planet and 2% of them had some mutated gene that made them want to screw the same sex. It isn't much different than people with lobster hands or a tail. At any rate, even though they want to live with a same sex partner, societal norms force them to set up a family structure because it says so in the bible after all. Well even though these people should technically die off, the fact that they keep reproducing sends that gene down the line where it pops up at random times. Now we have John Kasich.

[Sanguine]

Not with each other they don't.

Of course not.  Who suggested that they did?  That's not what you said.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Of course not.  Who suggested that they did?  That's not what you said.

You quote me and then post that "That's not what I said."

How many times do I have to keep Dragging this thread back on topic?

Homosexual Behavior is not caused by DNA.

If anyone has actual proof that it is, . . . which trumps the entire page of Links to papers conclusively destroying Behavioral Genetics that I linked to, . . . Then DRAG IT OUT AND POST IT!

Continuing to circumvent the main thesis of the Junk, Crap, Agenda Driven, Sloppy Scientism the original article is rooted in does not validate any of the 'Look at my sense of humor Cute' responses I've so far gotten.

 

[Frank Cannon]

You quote me and then post that "That's not what I said."

How many times do I have to keep Dragging this thread back on topic?

Homosexual Behavior is not caused by DNA.

If anyone has actual proof that it is, . . . which trumps the entire page of Links to papers conclusively destroying Behavioral Genetics that I linked to, . . . Then DRAG IT OUT AND POST IT!

Continuing to circumvent the main thesis of the Junk, Crap, Agenda Driven, Sloppy Scientism the original article is rooted in does not validate any of the 'Look at my sense of humor Cute' responses I've so far gotten.

You're just throwing a temper tantrum because no one agrees with you.

[Jazzhead]

Homosexual Behavior is not caused by DNA.

Correct.  Homosexual behavior - just like heterosexual behavior - is a choice.   One can choose to live promiscuously or monogamously,  to cheat or remain faithful.   

However,  sexual orientation is not a choice.  Folks are wired the way they are - science isn't required to know this, it's intuitive.  Ask yourself if you could be attracted to the gender you're not wired to respond to.   

God made us all - straight or gay.   What's up to us is how we act in accordance with our sexuality.   

[Sanguine]

You quote me and then post that "That's not what I said."

How many times do I have to keep Dragging this thread back on topic?

Homosexual Behavior is not caused by DNA.

If anyone has actual proof that it is, . . . which trumps the entire page of Links to papers conclusively destroying Behavioral Genetics that I linked to, . . . Then DRAG IT OUT AND POST IT!

Continuing to circumvent the main thesis of the Junk, Crap, Agenda Driven, Sloppy Scientism the original article is rooted in does not validate any of the 'Look at my sense of humor Cute' responses I've so far gotten.

I did prove it.  You reject it.  And....there we are.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

You're just throwing a temper tantrum because no one agrees with you.

@Frank Cannon

Oh, I'm the one throwing a temper tantrum, because no one agrees with me?

Proof, Frank. Real Scientific method Frank.

Not more pictures of Brit Royalty swinging Smurf Hammers.

No one here who doesn't 'Agree' with me has had anywhere near time enough to even begin to examine the Proof I've presented, but it's my problem, a personal issue, because the uniformed on the actual science of the thesis itself boils down to a matter of 'Agreement' trumping the science.


Science is taking a Theory and working yourself inside out to disprove the theory.

Once the possible arguments against the Theory have been exhausted without Proving why the Theory doesn't hold water, . . . Then, the Theory becomes accepted, but only until further discovery achieved through strict adherence to the Scientific Method either modifies or destroys the original Theory.


In Behavioral Genetics it boils down to the results upholding the DNA/Genes are responsible for Behaviors Theory, . . . are Non-Reproducible.

They keep running the same experiments over and over and keep coming up with different, contradictory outcomes.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

I did prove it.  You reject it.  And....there we are.

You have proved that Homosexual Behavior is caused by DNA?

Where?

At some Celebrity Roast in Hollywood? Because you certainly haven't proved it here.

I'm all ears.

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon

No one here who doesn't 'Agree' with me has had anywhere near time enough to even begin to examine the Proof I've presented, but it's my problem, a personal issue, because the uniformed on the actual science of the thesis itself boils down to a matter of 'Agreement' trumping the science.

I told you how genes work in a post. You ignored it. I don't give a shit. You do. It does seem to be a personal problem.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Here, One and All, have a look at how corrupt and full of BS the 'Esteemed and Well Respected' Scientific Journals of today actually are.

In Academia there's a maxim:

"Publish or Die."

And Publish they Do.

There's a site dedicated to tracking Retractions of those 'Scientific' buckets of massaged Hogwash after they get called on rigging their research.

Publishing keeps the big, fat, Govt Research Grants, Private Sector Industrial Research Grants, Mega Leftist Foundational Research Grants rolling in. If you're on the grant gravy train and you don't sell whatever the grant maker wants sold, they'll yank your grant and award it to to some other Degreed Flunky who will.

http://retractionwatch.com/

! No longer available

There's an awful lot more of this 'I'm a Scientist' con game going on in Academia than most people have any idea of.

[truth_seeker]

How come laypersons just fling their opinions about scientific subjects back and forth, with no mention of the experiments, data etc.?

--DNA science is in its infancy

--DNA science is being aggressively pursued for medical applications

--DNA science is already considered proved such that it is used for criminal justice, paternity, genealogy, etc.

--The rate of discoveries is accelerating, as if often the case in scientific breakthroughs.

--The subset called Epigenetics deals with nature/nurture combinations whereby environmental changes, wind up changing DNA over time.

People actually study such things, beyond holding pre-conceived opinions. 

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

I told you how genes work in a post. You ignored it. I don't give a shit. You do. It does seem to be a personal problem.

You don't give a shit.

No shit.

You introduced a non-sequitur to make your point, got called on it, and now it's my personal problem.

If I have a personal problem it's being brushed off by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and then responds by AGAIN, ducking the unsupportable, grant grubbing, cub reporter MAIN Thesis of the article.

NAZI pseudo science.

The entire canard/field of Behavioral Genetics is what got 11 Million people murdered in Nazi Germany's concentration camps.

The Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Russians were genetic inferiors. Their supposed genetic variations/defects from pure Aryan genes/Normal Genes, was the excuse invoked to exterminate them.

[aligncare]

More like a lethal mutation: It does nothing to perpetuate the species. It is a behaviour that is closely linked with a lethal disease.

Yours is the first post to mention mutation. I like.

It’s been awhile since biology but as I recall evolution requires random mutations in DNA replication. Those genetic errors that improved the odds of survival were passed on, but so too were those mutations that offered no practical advantage for survival, such as some variation in physical appearance. And of course, lethal errors in genetic coding took care of themselves.

In my view homosexuality in a population was of no threat to the biological imperative of reproduction—I assume there were plenty of babies being conceived to insure survival of the species.

Every aspect of life on earth is the result of eons of genetic experimentation, trial and error. Homosexuality is just one expression of genetic variation and I believe advances in gene technology will someday confirm that view.

[RoosGirl]

Someone tell me why any of this nonsense even matters at this point?   What possible difference could it make one way or the other?

[musiclady]

Someone tell me why any of this nonsense even matters at this point?   What possible difference could it make one way or the other?

Because the left is trying to use (and has been trying for decades) to "prove" that homosexuality is "natural," and further erode the morality of the nation they are trying to destroy.

That's why it matters.

[RoosGirl]

Because the left is trying to use (and has been trying for decades) to "prove" that homosexuality is "natural," and further erode the morality of the nation they are trying to destroy.

That's why it matters.

And they've already been given extra rights to allow them to basically whatever the hell they want.  So, back to my question; what difference does it make?

[Sanguine]

It matters to me because, 1) it is of scientific interest, and 2) to many people, if it is solely a choice, it removes the need for any sympathy/empathy towards people who identify that way.

I would never argue that it is "natural", just as I wouldn't argue that pedophilia or sociopathy are "natural".  They're clearly not, but the root cause may be beyond a mere "choice".

[RoosGirl]

It matters to me because, 1) it is of scientific interest, and 2) to many people, if it is solely a choice, it removes the need for any sympathy/empathy towards people who identify that way.

I would never argue that it is "natural", just as I wouldn't argue that pedophilia or sociopathy are "natural".  They're clearly not, but the root cause may be beyond a mere "choice".

Yes, there is the scientific interest of it.  It will be a very long time before every gene and combination is understood, so from that aspect it's about impossible to prove that it's not genetic.

[Suppressed]

In my view homosexuality in a population was of no threat to the biological imperative of reproduction—I assume there were plenty of babies being conceived to insure survival of the species.

Not only no threat, but homosexual it appears to offer a positive influence in passing along genes.

"Huh?!?"

Remember that siblings share genes. Studies from the animal world show that offspring are more successful (in evolutionary sense) when a parent has a non-mating sibling.  The non-mating sibling gets much of his genes passed down through the mating sibling, as they generally share many genes.

Thus, if there are multiple "gay genes", they *can* be passed down, at least part by part.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Yes, there is the scientific interest of it.  It will be a very long time before every gene and combination is understood, so from that aspect it's about impossible to prove that it's not genetic.

The field of Behavioral Genetics itself is not a single micron closer to proving Any of its specious crap today than it was when Joseph Mengele was using it as an excuse for his ghoulish experiments.

In the last 75 years it has produced Nothing that will stand real Scientific Scrutiny and Analysis.

That, is 'What Difference It Makes'.

But now, so long as the money keeps rolling in, Gays 'Different DNA/Genes' are responsible for their behavior.

And what happens when the political winds change?

Homosexuals were also exterminated by this junk science in the Nazi Camps.

That's a part of 'What Difference It Makes' at this time in history or any other time.