"Gay Gene" Survived Evolution As It Is Carried By Mothers Who Have More Children, Study - Page 2

Dawnia · #16 Jul 1, '12, 8:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryMelkite

http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/201...-evolution.htm

(To the mods-----the title of this is part of the heading of the article cited-----so I consider it the Title. Can change if still found not within guidelines, of course).

In advance----------

Even IF (again, IF) true, acting on the desires is still a sin.

To paraphrase Glenn Beck:

"I was born an alcoholic; that does not mean that I choose to act on it."

Personally, I tend to think this smacks of malarkey----even some of the comments on the article agree with me. Some may disagree.

Please discuss. (And be civil and charitable, please).

So how does this study get over the hurdle of large families being the norm prior to modern birth control?

austenbosten · #17 Jul 2, '12, 10:21 am

So does that mean people can now have abortions if they see the fetus has the "gay gene"...Does that mean the pro-Death Liberals will finally come to our side and fight against abortion?

mtbender · #18 Jul 2, '12, 10:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawnia

So how does this study get over the hurdle of large families being the norm prior to modern birth control?

How does it get over the modern use of birth control? Seems to me it would be a little flawed based on that alone. Especially since the data on the mother and maternal family were not participants in the study and the data was 3rd party reported…

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=21220855

scipio337 · #19 Jul 2, '12, 11:01 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by austenbosten

So does that mean people can now have abortions if they see the fetus has the "gay gene"...Does that mean the pro-Death Liberals will finally come to our side and fight against abortion?

Well, many threw women and minorities under the bus in their zeal to support abortion at any time, for any reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/us...abortions.html

Not Sure · #20 Jul 2, '12, 11:04 am

Jesse Jackson did at least.

LisaA · #21 Jul 2, '12, 4:15 pm

I would like to see the actual study rather than an obviously biased report. The article starts "Homosexuality is in born...blah blah blah....a new study suggests. Hmmmm does it sound like she wants to make a point by starting with the conclusion rather than the premise?

With 61 mothers of homosexuals and 100 "control" mothers the study concludes correlation is causation. Rather a small sample for drawing such conclusions.

Of course totally ignored is the impact of multiple pregnancies, what each mother encountered during her pregnancy, what her hormone levels were (some consideration of hormonal in the womb effect on sexuality), what impact of society, etc. To conclude it's a gay gene is rather speculative at best.

It is a peer reviewed journal so some credibilty but it would be good to read the actual source rather than a dumbed down article on the study.

Lisa

Dawnia · #22 Jul 2, '12, 5:21 pm

Interesting that the study didn't actually have anything to do with genetics. It was done with personality tests and questionaires about family make up, etc.

Maybe a more apt title would have been women related to homosexual men don't want children and have less stable relationships

Quote:

"mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men (i) had fewer gynecological disorders; (ii) had fewer complicated pregnancies; (iii) had less interest in having children; (iv) placed less emphasis on romantic love within couples; (v) placed less importance on their social life; (vi) showed reduced family stability; (vii) were more extraverted; and (viii) had divorced or separated from their spouses more frequently.