Talk:Homosexuality and Genetics

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This is a controversial topic. Please try HARD not to make any edits which you think MIGHT be reverted. Contributors can help each other to keep this page unprotected by discussing changes instead of making hasty changes. New users are advised to head to less contentious areas.

Perhaps there should be a controversy template on this? (To let people know they 'should ought to discuss edits first?) Samwell 00:35, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm not really sure what the view on this would be. Generally, the desire is to make articles as easy to read as possible, and putting up signs on controversial topics would hamper that smooth reading environment. It is generally left to the editor to recognize that some subjects are controversial (obvious) and that a number of editors over time have created the article as it exists, and discussing changes first is preferred. Some of the changes recently inserted would certainly never stick. For instance the twin research is not favorable to any belief in a strictly genetic cause. Learn together 00:43, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
In looking further, I see other articles have it on their talk pages. I see no problem in adding it here. Learn together 00:54, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
The way the article is written, almost as an opinion piece, it's an invitation to people with something to say on the matter. Homosexuality is not "hard-wired" or inevitable in anybody, some people, seeing this, would think, "them's fightin' words!"
I agree that the twin studies show that the "gene only" hypotheses should be put to rest, still there might be a cause that we're yet unaware. Samwell 00:56, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
It's really not my place to say whether the article was of a "them's fightin' words" variety, but we still have to adhere to certain standards in editing regardless of personal opinion - namely using the talk page for the type of changes that were written. I took the least obstrusive path I could think of, a revert with a suggestion to come talk here. If the new user is serious about working with CP, then a direction has been provided. If the user wishes to lock horns, then that person probably won't be around for long. Learn together 01:58, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
There is more to the genome than just the DNA. There is methylation of DNA (adding of methyl groups (CH3) on the outside of the helix that can deactivate genes. Even with identical twins, these patterns of metalization change over time. This pattern can also be inherited or affected by what is eaten. One study showed that if the mother had one X chromosome completely inactivated through methylation and the other active, this could impact the sexual preference of male offspring[1]. This is still being studied, but there may not be a gene as such that is at issue but yet something that can be inherited. --Rutm 12:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Contents

APA Site and Other Errors

So, this article, like the related topic on homosexuality, also references the inaccurate "research" about adopted brothers being more likely than biological brothers to become homosexual. For a more in depth description of what I'm disputing, look in the talk section of the homosexuality article. Also, this article cites the APA site (American Psychological Association) for reinforcement of this point: "...most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age."

Well, it does state environmental factors could be partially responsible, so +1 point for you. However, if anyone had bothered to look at the APA page that this article references (citation number 2), one would have found the following text which was not included in the article (found at http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#whatcauses). I have added italics and bold to ease reading and to emphasize certain key points. Otherwise, the answers to the following questions are unchanged from the APA site.


What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.


Once again, another faulty citation and a misleading quote. The author should definitely defend his/her position on this section of the article or it should be changed immediately. Better yet, perhaps the article should be reopened to public editing. This is a wiki, after all.

--Terra 20:57, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Relevant research in regards to homosexuality and genetics

Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again

(Probably not desirable in this article, though) Feebasfactor 20:20, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Censorship on this article

I want to know why a cited section on this page has been deleted by Conservative. It is backed up by a quote from a conservative homosexuality therapy site which says that homosexuality is not genetically hardwired. The only reason that Conservative gave for his censorship was that homosexuality is not genetic, but the article plainly agrees with him, and provides scientific evidence that genetics have a minor influence on homosexuality. I am confused as to why this section and the truth it cited has been removed, as it does not disagree with Conservative or with the attitude of this wiki, it in fact reinforces and supports the article. If it was removed because it suggested that genetics do have an influence, however minor, then I still do not understand why it had to be censored. As this page says, a genetic link to homosexuality does not cause homosexual behaviour, only choice does. The truth removed by Conservative only supports this article, and gives it necessary scientific backing to shut down liberal denials. Yours in Christ, --JWeatherman 18:55, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

It is not surprising that Dr. Collins, who embraces pseudoscience like the evolutionary position, embraces the notion that homosexuality is partly genetic in origin despite a lack of solid evidential support. Furthermore, if you check out the NARTH website you will find that they say a person can choose to leave homosexuality but entering into homosexuality is not a choice. Furthermore, NARTH strongly supports reparative therapy which has very limited results whereas people who choose to leave homosexuality via the empowerment of God have excellent results.conservative 22:53, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
But the removed link [[2]] explicitly says '"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project'. Who is more qualified to make a conclusion about the human genome than the leader of the human genome project? Regardless of his pseudoscience positions, he has flatly said that genetics do not cause homosexuality. Also, NARTH's website may advocate an inferior treatment for homosexuality, but it still advocates treatment of it. It is still anti-homosexual, and therefore conservative. I would like to know how these statements are in any way biased and untruthful liberal deceits.
"there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive." Heredity does not mean causation.
"research cites 30% as the estimate of heritability for homosexuality as well, though he views the estimate as a maximum." There is a very low likelihood of inheriting homosexual traits.
"free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present." Self explanatory.
The NARTH article does nothing but support the position of this wiki in a way that liberals are unable to deny. It not only quotes the head of the human genome project, who is more qualified than anyone else to make these claims, it also cites specific studies that support its conclusion that genetics have a minor influence on homosexuality, which can be easily overcome with mental strength. You are undermining the quality of this encyclopedia by removing vital proof of its positions, and leaving it vulnerable to liberal deceit. Yours in Christ, --JWeatherman 20:18, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
P.S. it is spelled "embrace." Please sign your comment as well, I was not aware that I was responding to you until I checked the edit history, Conservative. At first I thought it was a liberal parodist and responded perhaps too harshly. I apologize if I have offended you in any way. Yours in Christ, --JWeatherman 20:21, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
Does NARTH say that a person does not enter into homosexuality as a result of choice? If you do your research you will find out that is NARTH's position. Secondly, the material says that homosexuality is PARTLY a result of genetics and that is simply not true. I do recall Dr. Satinover claiming that boys who are "clutzy" are found somewhat more likely to become homosexuals because they supposedly are less likely to be socialized into manhood but even if this is true (and I believe there are professional football players who are homosexuals) that would not mean homosexuality is genetic in origin. In short, you have not shown that genetic theories are not better explained by environment and volition. Show me a significant number of Amish and ultra orthodox Jews who are homosexuals and your arguments would be far more compelling.  :) NARTH and Dobson are often psychobabble pushers when it comes to homosexuality and their position that a person does not enter into it by choice is errant and unbiblical. Engaging in sin is always a choice. It is not surprising that Reparative therapy has such poor results which even the Baptist Press reporting on it revealed. conservative 22:45, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
You must cite your claims that homosexuality is 100% uninfluenced by genetics. As it stands, the head of the human genome project is a far greater authority on the human genome than you are, and he says that there is a minor influence of genetics on homosexuality:
"As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present."
"Dr. Collins noted that environment, particularly childhood experiences as well as the role of free will choices affect all of us in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it's critical that such data be used to illuminate, not provide support to idealogues."
Dr Collins himself says that environment and upbringing are more important than genetics, and even though inheriting "gay genes" does not necessarily trigger homosexuality, it still has some minor influence. Amish and orthodox Jews who have an anti-homosexual upbringing would naturally exercise greater mental strength than latent homosexuals who have a lax upbringing. You cannot disprove the science of genetics by pointing at extremely well disciplined societies that would, according to Dr. Collins, be able to repress homosexual traits with ease. You are actively damaging the Conservapedia by repressing the fact of homosexual latency and the more important fact that it is "not to be confused as inevitability" (quoted from Collins). This information is more important than your minor quibble with NARTH, and it is essential to liberal-proofing this encyclopedia, and destroying the core dogma of the Homosexual Agenda; "we were born this way and we can't help it". Please, unlock this page and reinstate the removed section. If necessary, I will rewrite it to emphasize the flimsiness of the genetic determination argument. Yours in Christ, --JWeatherman 23:03, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
Your largely mere appeal to authority vis a vis Dr. Collins (whose judgment is certainly questionable given his support of the evolutionary position) is awfully thin porridge and I doubt even Oliver Twist would ask for more. Not going to make dubious factual claims that in an article based on mere speculation. conservative 23:57, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
The human genome project is the leading authority on the human genome, and Collins is justifiably cited as a leading authority on genetics. If his authority cannot be trusted, then how can your authority be trusted, or the authority of your (nonexistent) cites? Do you tell your doctor that he is prescribing the wrong medication, just because he believes in evolution or Mormonism or supports abortion? Collins' support of the theory of evolution has absolutely no relevance here. He is not making claims based on evolutionary biology, which he would be unjustified in doing, he is making claims based on genetics, which he is a leading expert in. He is not making 'dubious factual claims,' he is citing the rigorous scientific studies (cited in the NARTH article) that demonstrate that the "gay gene" exists, but is trivial in determining homosexuality. Your trivial objections to this are damaging the Conservapedia, which exists for educational purposes. You are standing in the way of education, of teaching people the truth about latent homosexuality and how to deal with it. You are sabotaging this encyclopedia's ability to defend itself. I know that I am repeating my arguments, but it is because you have repeatedly failed to address them. It is obvious at this point that you have no interest in the truth, and would rather deceive the readers of this wiki. You should unlock this page so that it can be completely rewritten to take into account the truth; science has found a link between genetics and homosexuality, it is a weak link that is easily overcome with willpower, the head of the human genome project has debunked the "we were born this way" myth. Yours in Christ,--JWeatherman 12:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

JWeatherman has been removed from this project for his accusations. He should not have said things like:

  • You are standing in the way of education
  • you have no interest in the truth

and so on. --Ed Poor Talk 12:42, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Not being able to breed enough

Should this [3] be mentioned here? It is a study from Italy which claims that the reason why "homosexual genes" can get passed on is because the female relatives of male homosexuals tend to have more offspring than the female relatives of male heterosexuals. This is supposedly what helps to pass on those genes and make up for the lack of offspring by male homosexuals. Sklza 19:00, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Personal tools