re: One step closer to tying homosexuality to the human genome

quote:

---

All three abnormal sexually desires and behaviors. See the similarities?

---

1) I'll spend no more time after this post discussing a genetic science concept with...well...you


2) I asked if you saw a fundamental difference,,,you respond with perfunctory similarities.


yeeesh

I think what

quote:

---

onmymedicalgrind

---

is trying to say is want is us to say that for example on chromosome 14 gene #148 an A has been changed to a T. However if he reads my second link he will see that they this is as close as research have gotten it. He is changing his argument to nit pick the actually nucleotide #.

quote:

---

In the p53 gene of lung cancer, five major Gright arrowT mutational sites (in codons 157, 158, 245, 248, and 273) consist of methylated CpGs (Yoon et al., 2001).

---

quote:

---

If a gay gene is truly is identified it does NOT make homosexuslity normal.

---

No, but is does make it...wait for it...genetic.

And homosexuality isn't normal regardless, because the norm is defined by the majority. The majority of people are not gay, regardless of the reasons for homosexuality existing. Being abnormal doesn't make it immoral however, any more so than being born with eleven toes is immoral.

quote:

---

If a pedophile gene is identified will this make being a pedophile normal?

---

No, but pedophilia would be both abnormal and immoral because it involves exploitation of a non-consenting individual lacking the capacity for sexual decision making.

You are simply misusing the term "normal". What you're trying to argue is morality, not normalcy.

quote:

---

What about a beastility gene?

---

Can the animal legally consent?

quote:

---

Do people with down syndrome really care that a down syndrome gene has been found?

---

quote:

---

It was a simple comparison "if" being the key. You can name if a gene if found for any mental illness, sexually abnoramality.

---

You edited in an "if." I quoted your original post before you did so, so nice try.

The funny thing is that even if you said "if" originally, you would still be 100% wrong. The genetic basis behind Down Syndrome was elucidated decades agoe. Its not secret. And it has nothing to do with a "Down Syndrome" gene.

Do you even trisomy bro?

(no message)

quote:

---

Roger Klarvin

---

Dude gave away with the DS comment he's not ready for big boy science talk. Hell, he's not ready for middle school science talk.

quote:

---

Dude gave away with the DS comment he's not ready for big boy science talk. Hell, he's not ready for middle school science talk.

---

I have a 2000 year old book! All the science I NEED to tell my gay is bad

(no message)

quote:

---

This is false.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Of the relatives whose sexual orientation could be rated, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities were substantial under a wide range of assumptions about the population base rate of homosexuality and ascertainment bias.

---

quote:

---

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. 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"

---

Oh. My. God.

quote:

---

You caught teh ghey? I didn't know it was contagious

---