I don't know. That's why I asked my question above.

Has it really been proven not to be genetic? I have no idea.

How many gay people do you know that had gay parents or relatives at all? I could google it, but I don't care.

I don't care either, but I googled it anyway. Don't know if this is right or wrong, but here it is.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...s/nih-upi.html

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Many homosexual men appear to inherit a gene from their mothers that influences sexual orientation, a National Cancer Institute researcher reported Thursday.
The finding -- certain to add fuel to the already heated debate over gay rights -- supports earlier studies which suggested that inherited genetic factors at least play a role in determining sexual orientation.

``Being gay is not simply a choice or purely a decision. People have no control over the genes they inherit and there is no way to change them,'' said the study's lead author Dean Hamer, chief of the cancer institute's Section on Gene Structure and Regulation.

Hamer and his colleagues began by studying the family histories of 114 gay men and found more homosexual brothers, uncles and male cousins than would be expected in the general population. Some families had three generations of homosexual relatives.

``Since the uncles and cousins aren't raised in the same household but share genetic information, that suggested there was something inherited going on,'' Hamer said in an interview.

Following up on that suggestion, Hamer studied the DNA from 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and found 33 of them shared genetic markers on the X chromosome in a region known as Xq28.

The X chromosome is one of two sex-determining chromosomes; it is always inherited from mothers. Genes are arranged along 46 chromosomes, each consisting of tiny coils of DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, which carries the instructions to manufacture a particular body substance.

There was no such similar sharing in the same region among heterosexual men. The researchers have not yet compared the homosexuals' genetic information to the other group.

``We expect that this region will be important for both heterosexual and homosexual development -- that there will be a very small and subtle difference'' between the genes of each group, Hamer said.

However, the finding does not explain all homosexuality. Seven out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers studied did not have the common genetic factor, the researchers said.

The research, published in the journal Science, was conducted as part of the National Cancer Institute's study of cancers such as Kaposi's sarcoma which afflict unusually large numbers of homosexuals.

Further study is being conducted to determine whether a similar genetic link occurs in families of homosexual women. Hamer said he also hopes to identify the specific gene involved in sexual orientation.

Gregory King, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign Fund, a gay and lesbian activist group, said he hoped Hamer's study would ``help Americans understand that most lesbian and gay people do not choose their sexual orientation.''

But King also expressed concern that anti-homosexual activists could misconstrue the cancer institute study.

``There will be concern among people who are lesbian and gay that this discovery will be misused to suggest that (homosexuality) is something that needs to be 'corrected,''' King said.

That study doesn't say anything as far as I'm concerned. Does it impress you?

No, but it contradicts your statement to the effect that we know that homosexuality is not genetic. I don't know one way or the other, but it seems to be an open issue at the least.

http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

MAn! Most of it is from church websites. People really don't like gays.

C'mon, NDD. That is an advocacy site. I don't care either way, but it seems pretty clear to me that there is research going in both directions and it is at least an open issue.

Have you ever asked a homosexual whether they feel they have a choice about their sexual preference? I've spoken to several who said that they would prefer to be straight but just can't change how they are.

IF this is true, the question seems to me to be whether homosexual conduct is something bad like bestiality or incest, or something that should be tolerated to some degree. Just like the Team Sergeant said. :D

Nice double helix .gif.

Yep. I noticed the same thing.

I know its an advocacy site, most of them are.

The subject is so controversial they are all going to take a stand. The funny thing is, it seems that the gay's don't wantit to be genetic becuase then somebody will want to "fix" it through genetic research. I can see that happening.

I don't really care. Either way. They're here and nothing is going to change that.

The real problem I have with them is the way they want to shove it in society's face. Not all, but a lot of them. If they would act more like mainstream society, they probably wouldn't have as many problems as they do being accepted in more places.

I can see how it would affect military order and discipline, but I am also sure there are gay people serving quietly and doing good things. The women seem to get that part better than the men to me. BTW, I don't consider lesbians to be gay, they're just a threesome with a pending draft choice.:lifter

I don't think every gay man in the military is there because its a target rich environment, nor do I think they're out to "turn" the rest of us. The answer is its probably best if they don't openly accept gays into the military, because no doubt a few bad apples would ruin it for the rest. I wonder how many openly gay people have tried to join the military and what they were like?

If it is finally determined to be genetic, I don't think there's much way to keep them out.

I don't think they should be allowed to adopt children, because I do believe they will influence the child to be gay, even depsite protests to the contrary. What an adult does is their business, but where children are concerned its a different matter all together in my book.

This topic makes my head hurt. There's no easy answer for the future. For the present, I say don't let them in, but eventually somebody will have to deal with it. My question is, if its genetic, how are they procreating?

:boohoo

Just kidding. OK, let's stop then. Perhaps others will have something to say.

That is how we know that it is not the right thing to do.

Darwin's law. Their "kind" doesn't survive in nature. No different than a giraffe with a 3" neck... or a toothless crocodile.
Freaks... LOL


There.. that should spice things up from our lib lurkers. :munchin

This is an interesting statement, NDD. While I agree there are some fringe churches who teach hate, I have never been involved with one. If one believes the Holy Bible, then they cannot agree with the practice of homosexuality. The two cannot purely co-exist. To agree that homosexuality is okay as a practice, one must say that they do not agree with parts of the Holy Bible. It is not a matter of liking or disliking a human being, but the behavior.

I have worked with some folks who were openly participating in the homosexual lifestyle. We got along just fine, agreeing to disagree without letting it affect our work.

My wish list - return the behavior to illegal status and enforce it, no adoptions for those who have engaged in the behavior and continue to condone it as a lifestyle.

That should add fuel to the fire Sacamuelas started. :munchin


Edited to add comments rather than multiple posts...