The simple procedure causes the modified mice to reject the advances of their male counterparts and attempt to mate with fellow females.
Researchers found that disabling the FucM gene – which influences the levels of oestrogen to which the brain is exposed – caused the mice to behave as if they were male as they grew up.
Professor Chankyu Park of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejon, South Korea, who led the research, said: “The mutant female mouse underwent a slightly altered developmental programme in the brain to resemble the male brain in terms of sexual preference.”
Scientists have long sought a genetic link to homosexuality, but the academics behind the latest study stressed that it was impossible to say whether their discovery had any relevance to human sexuality.
[...]
Professor Park now hopes to investigate whether the enzyme produced by the gene – fucose mutarotase – has any influence on human sexuality, but conceded that it may be “very difficult” to find willing volunteers.
He obviously has never been to San Francisco.
>> HeeHee said, on July 10th, 2010 at 8:29 am
>> Here is a scientific issue and the religious meddle, as usual.
>> Religion is obsessed with sex – yours of course. Then they get caught with rent-boys.
It’s not religion… it’s _conservatism_.
We liberal religious people are down with the gays.
As a religious person, I’m sick-and-tired of being blamed for small-minded conservatism.
#38–Ah Yea==stop stealing “my line.” Yes, we all project our own values into ill defined scenario’s. Not often one goes onto a blog, or any other situation in life, and gives voice to other people’s opinions they don’t share. Might even be an indicator of a psychiatric disorder. Maybe genetically based?
So, after also agreeing with dismal’s miscreant summary, you actually were talking about something totally unrelated huh?
Good to know. Now I only doubt your writing skills rather than your comprehension.
Maybe this will help clear the air: Ah Yea: is homosexuality a “defect” in any sense of the word or just part of the natural variation that nature seems to employ everywhere?
#39–Animby==I saw that show years ago on Donahue. Yes, the physical and metal getting all mixed up in all sorts of combinations. The bad news is that any relationship with “big issues” is more likely to fail, but the good news is that in such relationships, if those big hurdels are resolved, the relationships generally go on to be very rewarding. I give secondary importance to “sex” when the values and personalities are in synch, the physical comfort must follow?
#40–Greg==funny how close we are on so many things. Too bad its just the very most important thing in the world that puts us at odds? Ha, ha. Also amusing/informing how often you get tripped up by logical inconsistencies. Liberal = diversity, Conservative = narrowly defined. Then, while claiming the liberal iconic status that all good people do, you go and apply the conservative standard to your religion. Not even close to being a good spin on the issue.
OF COURSE RELIGION is the heart of the anti-gay attitudes in our culture. RELIGION IS ALL ABOUT being as narrow as possible in one view: one way, my way, gods way or the highway. The more “liberal” you are about basic tenets, the more likely you are to be rejected by your own religion, then you can start your own. But all that still doesn’t the source one group usually has for hating some other group: religion, particularly the Christian religion. Maybe YOU personally avoid most of the silliness, but again, that doesn’t change where it comes from.
It just doesn’t matter the hatters will keep right on hating
Rodgers and Hammerstein said it well in South Pacific
“You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!”
its clear some of you have been taught
#26 Bobbo… “..we will see in our lifetimes the ability to select for sex, sexual orientation, height, eye shape, skin color, “maybe” even intelligence…”
Physical shapes and colors perhaps, thought and behaviors, never. As you, I believe in science (and even employed as such) but I see this study as a waste of money for it’s purpose but support the “the tinkering” that mighty yield something useful.
I already know the answer to the question – I’m living proof! The rest of the homosexual controversy is rooted in an even bigger puzzle – why hoomans feel that nature owes them an explanation and then make one up anyway! Fundamentally, I find nature to be a continuum, a bell curve, shades of gray – pick your analogy. Conservatives don’t see shades of gray and need to have things in orderly black and white buckets. Doubly so for the Taliban(s).
#27 Pedrito, I don’t think Bobbo insulted me and it’s the victim that makes that call. Plus,I’ve been called worse.
BTW, when are you going to come out of the closet? Living at home with mom and abuelita is not helping you at all.
#44 Sorry, I don’t have your gene mutation. But don’t worry, the fix is on the way.
So mature of you not to see what Bobbo is calling. Or is it just that you don’t get what he’s saying? My money is on the latter.
Bobbo used the term “prostate thumpers” – a new one to me. FUNNNNY!
#41 GregAllen replied to my comment, “It’s not religion… it’s _conservatism_. We liberal religious people are down with the gays. As a religious person, I’m sick-and-tired of being blamed for small-minded conservatism.”
My sincere apologies to GregAllen and any other religious person I may have offended.
I would have been more accurate if I had stated that many conservative politicians pander to certain religious constituencies for political gain. Then they get caught with rent-boys.
Whether from the left or the right, religious or not, hypocrisy is one of the great problems. Another is the insistence on your side winning, even if it is bad for the country.
Ah yea.
That was a fantastic link you provided on what makes people gay. I recommend it to people interested in this subject.
My “many cause” theory developed back in college when one of my best friends was a lesbian and she’d invite me to her lesbian shindigs where I’d hear their personal stories.
Some seemed born to it. Others seemed to have chosen it. In others it seemed like a dysfunction from trauma and abuse.
But for all, it was a highly personal, complex mix.
The trouble with my “many causes” theory is that neither the gays nor the anti-gays like it because it doesn’t comfortably fit into their agendas.
But slowly, more people, including researchers, seem to be coming to the same conclusion as me.
…. AND TO BE CLEAR, I don’t think any of this relates to civil rights of gays.
Gays are Americans and deserve equal rights.
Period.
End of debate.
bobbo said,
>>Then, while claiming the liberal iconic status that all good people do, you go and apply the conservative standard to your religion. Not even close to being a good spin on the issue.
“Conservative standard” to my religion? I don’t get what you mean.
I’m a Christian and we have both liberals and conservatives among us. Lots of both. Of course, we have tons of people who don’t fit neatly in either category.
Take me for instance: politically I’m a liberal but my personal lifestyle is quite conservative. (That’s a very common combination in my circles.) My own church is highly orthodox, liberal in inclusiveness but strictly apolitical.
Evangelicals and charismatics are usually (but not exclusively) politically conservative but their churches are typically highly un-orthodox. Their private lifestyles are often fairly libertarian as has become glaringly obvious in recent years.
This can be confusing to outsiders, I’m sure. (It even perplexes we insiders sometimes!)
Or are you talking about something else?
Thank you very much, GregAllen.
I appreciate the complement and agree with you post. Very happy to be of service.
Now on to your question, bobbo.
“Ah Yea: is homosexuality a “defect” in any sense of the word or just part of the natural variation”
Let me give you the plain and simple answer.
I don’t know.
And if I may add:
You don’t know.
Nobody knows, and most likely nobody will every know.
Why? Lets go with your standing that sexual preference is genetic based.
Just because there may be a genetic difference doesn’t mean that the expression of that genetic difference is a defect. Genetic difference has given us homo sapiens a larger brain than a chimpanzee. The chimp may view this as a genetic defect, but I certainly do not.
The chimp may view the results of this larger brain as detrimental to the world as a whole, seeing how we have polluted our planet and driven hundreds of species to extinction.
We, on the other hand, may view this as “progress”.
Therefore the answer to your question is societal, not scientific. The answer of whether homosexuality is a defect or not is based on the viewpoint of the person asking the question.
So what do you think?
BTW, for more info, click on GregAllen’s link above which is a repeat of my link. It really is a very good article.
HeeHee,
Thanks for the nice reply.
I just got back from church where we have plenty of gay people, including clergy. The preacher today seems pretty gay (I’ve never asked) and our church loves him.
Liberal religious people generally DON’T have problems with the gays.
Conservative religious people generally DO have problems with gays.
So, you can do a simple boolean logic “truth table” to figure out whether it’s the religion or the conservatism that has a problem with gays.
But I’ll grant you this — when you mix conservatism with religion, it creates a particular noxious brew, worse than the sum of its parts.
#44–Dallas==you say: “Physical shapes and colors perhaps, thought and behaviors, never. /// Never? You say never and claim the status of employed as such? Well, the older I get, the more I think genetics controls/enfluences/is the root of more than we think. Its oversimplified/wrong but instructive: the difference between our behavior and that of a chip/cantaloupe is genetics. Broad parameters. One day, I am sure, the genetic code, hormonal influence, developmental interactions will be better/almost completely understood and there will still be some uncontrolled variability. That is nature’s way === ((Hey! Old “Spirit” song)) <> Well, not exactly on my point, but a nice memory:
It’s nature’s way of telling you something’s wrong
It’s nature’s way of telling you in a song
It’s nature’s way of receiving you
It’s nature’s way of retrieving you
It’s nature’s way of telling you
Something’s wrong
It’s nature’s way of telling you, summer breeze
It’s nature’s way of telling you, dying trees
It’s nature’s way of receiving you
It’s nature’s way of retrieving you
It’s nature’s way of telling you
Something’s wrong
It’s nature’s way, it’s nature’s way
It’s nature’s way, it’s nature’s way
So Dallas–look deeper, if you want to. Why do we think/feel what we do? Why do we dream? It all comes from the brain, the brain is formed by genetics. “Something” is going on there enough not to be totally discounted. Then from that variable given, what looks like free will and self awareness arises and cognitive dissonance arises.
But if your point is that YOU have to take responsibility for what you do and “think”, then I can only agree. Genetics/upbringing is only the start. WE are the end.
And you continue to say: “As you, I believe in science (and even employed as such) but I see this study as a waste of money for it’s purpose but support the “the tinkering” that mighty yield something useful.” /// How anyone much less anyone employed as such thinks this study is a waste of money is sad. Its one building block among the many that will be needed to figure out what going on. Thats valuable. Perhaps you are caught up in the moment?
Being human: noting differences and what you make of them. Its a challenge.
bobbo,
In our modern over-populated world, isn’t homosexuality a good thing?
We’ve all read the studies which show that marriage is good for people and for society. (Here’s one link but there are many: http://tinyurl.com/ycr8ed9 )
So, homosexual marriages benefit society without contributing to over-population.
Doesn’t sound like defect to me. Seems like a evolutionary accommodation.
(I’m a “breeder” BTW. When I argue this way, people assume I’m gay but I’m straight. I just have a very high belief in equal rights.)
#50–Greg==boolean logic huh? How about most chritian sects teach that we are all gods children, that you should not judge lest ye be judge, that gods plan for each of us is unknowable, that we are all gods children, that you should love the sinner and not the sin, and that homosexuality is a mortal sin. From that mishmash 55% of the sheeple hate gays. 20% aren’t sure. 5% think gays are ok as long as they don’t act on it. 5% turn against all religion, 5% leave the church and create their own dogma and the balance sing louder.
I don’t see the boolean logic to simple cause and effect at all. So, I say “boo!”
#52–Greg==we yearn for meaning in an existential universe. If one chooses to create meaning within a marriage context, then yes, marriage gives comfort, serially or otherwise? As stated, homosexuality does not breed out because the locus of genes that supports it also makes women more fecund. So, if you mean to say homo’s are good because they keep the population down, I say: “boo!” Let science inform you.
Society is “better off” by any condition that keeps us off the streets, out of the bars, and chemically or socially castrated.
I personally don’t believe in equal rights. But I do believe in leaving other people alone. Close to the same thing?
bobbo,
Yes, boolian logic. Try it sometime.
HATE GAYS:
Conservatives
Christians
Urologists
Rural people
Red heads
LIKE GAYS:
Liberals
Christians
Urologists
Rural people
Red heads
Plug this into a table and spot the determinant difference.
Even if you can show that urologists or rural people or Christians are more anti-gay, it’s not the pee or farms or bibles that are causing it.
It’s still the conservatism.
#49–Ah Yea==well done, not directly responsive to our discourse but rather superceding by being more encompassing? OK, we can do that.
Again, you are wrong, in a nice way, but still wrong.
Can’t “prove” anything one way or the other according to strict scientific standards, can only disprove. But that standard is for the physical world. Society, self awareness does not work that way. Certain moral truths can be devined by honest introspection. From such exercises you might find two great truths about the human condition: we are all the same AND we are all different. The truth is normally found by appreciating how/when these truths exhibit themselves at the same time.
The gay is such a truth.
Look within yourself Ah Yea. Did you “choose” to be straight? I’ll play the roulette wheel of life (95% of the numbers are one color, 4% another, and the house takes 1) and say NO. Did anyone while growing up “teach” me to be straight?—Again NO. Did god pay devine attention and blow me one way or the other? I’ll make that a NO and equate it to genetics which is how he works his will anyway. So, what are we left with? Thats right==genetics.
And the gay is just like everyone else, living out his genetic variability AND different from the ones living out their genetic variability as straights. All the same and different at the same time.
It works and thats all the truth is.
Bobbo,
I’ll give you real-world example.
The Book of Mormon says nothing about homosexuality yet Mormons are famously anti-gay.
Why? Because Mormons are overwhelmingly conservative.
But, if you can find me a liberal Mormon you can bet they’ll have no problem with the gays.
So, you can logically conclude that it’s not the Mormonism, it’s the conservatism that makes them hate gays.
Well, I gotta go. Bye.
#55–Greg==your religious thinking at work again. Boolean logic arises from a set of givens. Like religion.
Where do you get conservatives hate gays to such a degree that they do not also like gays? You act like the log cabin repukes don’t exist.
And thats how your religious thinking blinds you to whatever it is you think you consider. You just leave out inconvenient facts in the broad brush of rigid thinking.
You need to “weight” the elements of your Boolean algorithm. My causation model at #53 is much more explanatory and doesn’t begin with the answer as does your cocked up program.
I know our posts are crossing each other in this hubbub. We can all make some Ice Cream Sundays and reread our mistakes in leisure?
Thank you very much bobbo for your compliments. I have a great deal of fun debating you and this one has been very good.
No onto some responses.
You state “Can’t “prove” anything one way or the other according to strict scientific standards, can only disprove.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The right answer is, Science remains SILENT. It’s a basic tenet of the scientific principle.
There is no conclusion ‘one way or the other’. Defaulting to “Disprove” is making a statement. Wrong.
As to the “equate it to genetics which is how he works his will anyway.”
Got Religion?? Know the mind of God??
Please, read the article both myself and GregAllen posted. You will be enlightened and see the fundamental error of your position.
It’s not all Genetic. End of story.
Ah Yea==you are of course welcomed in return.
You say: “It’s not all Genetic. End of story.” /// Your admission goes to all I’m saying which is “its partly genetics.”
More or less genetics depending on the subject being discussed. When it comes to sexual orientation, I’ll take a WAG and say 95% genetics with the 5% being those denying their homosexuality and thinking they are straight.
Ah Yea==how did you choose to be straight? Do you recall the exact circumstances?
Silly to deny that which we do not control. Responsibility comes in after that, not before.