This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mav (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 4 March 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:28, 4 March 2003 by Mav (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)removed from article:
- These studies show that there is no scientific data to support a genetic or biologic basis for same-sex attractions.
This statement doesn't logically follow the findings of these studies; which have shown that 1) there is a possible sexual-orientation dimorphism (difference in the size of a part of the brain), 2) the sexual orientation of identical twins seems to follow a predictable pattern once the orientation of one twin is known, and 3) there is a cetain gene that tends to follow individuals who identify as homosexual. --maveric149
In addition, the current title of the article misses the point -- only one of these studies really deals with genetics. The other two deal with phenotypes and behavior -- which arise from varying degrees of interaction between genes, the chemical environment of the body, the outside environment, self-identification, etc. A MUCH better title would be innate basis of sexual orientation. If there is such a thing as a 'gay gene' (or more likely genes) there is every reason to believe that it/they has/have only some degree of influence on sexual orientation that is somehow "set" in early to late adolescence (thus its supposed "innateness"). Many other factors are probably also at play. --maveric149
I agree that the "no data to support" sentence was biased. Thank you for removing it. Readers should be free to draw their own conclusions.
I am open to an improved title, too. I only chose "genetic basis" because that's what the three types of studies seemed to be focusing on, and the words gene and genetic are fairly well-understood to our general readership. I am not sure what innate means.
I contributed the article to shed light on the moral debate over homesexuality by presenting scientific findings related to the contention that adults cannot change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Some (most?) arguments over morality hinge on the aspect of human volition. A person who doesn't realize what he is doing is wrong, or who "can't help it", is judged far more leniently than, say, a murderer in cold blood. Not to say that homosexuality is equivalent to murder, of course! Just that people are only judged on what they can do. A better example might be a vehicle collision. If you didn't see that other car running the red light, you aren't held responsible, whereas if you plainly say the blind person slowly jaywalking across your path in plenty of time to stop, it's a different matter.
I am trying hard to distinguish between advocacy (which I seem to slip into unbeknownst to my self) and providing relevant, useful NPOV articles. I look forward to receiving additional feedback from Maverick and Danny and SR and anyone else who has good ideas on how I can improve my contributions.
Ed Poor, Wednesday, May 8, 2002
It's been almost a year since I wrote this article. Would someone please finish it? At least the twin studies... --Uncle Ed 22:31 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
Maybe this research item will help:
- Gay Gene Isolated, Ostracized
BALTIMORE—On Friday, scientists at Johns Hopkins University isolated the gene which causes homosexuality in human males, promptly separating it from normal, heterosexual genes. "I had suspected that gene was queer for a long time now. There was just something not quite right about it," team leader Dr. Norbert Reynolds said. "It's a good thing we isolated it—I wouldn't want that faggot-ass gene messing with the straight ones." Among the factors Reynolds cited as evidence of the gene's gayness were its pinkish hue, meticulously frilly perimeter, and faint but distinct perfume-like odor.
--Uncle Ed 21:38 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Hm. I don't know if I should laugh my gay-ass ass off or be insulted. --mav 23:15 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
- I vote for the first one, though you should promptly reattach it. Tuf-Kat
- LOL - now that was unquestionably funny. :) --mav