Ok, I was just hoping for scientific justification for hating people who are different.
Let's see, the article i'm reading mentions that Hammer et al (1993) research found a marker for homosexuality in Xq28, and that this could explain the presence of homosexuality in some individuals given that there was significant correlation in the tests used. However, this research was slightly contradicted by Bailey (1999). Then research done by Rice, Anderson, Risch, and Ebers (1999) in a study done with 52 pairs of gay brothers in Canada found that the results were different from Hammers and that it did not suppor the presence of homosexuality influencing genes in region Xq28.
I know for a fact that there are no more than 50 pairs of gay brothers in all of canada. Your article lies.
Was I born furry or did I learn it?
Here's a comment in Science from Hamer and response from Rice et al.. It's pretty interesting.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../285/5429/803a
Like I said, all of this stuff is a mess and the research is woefully inadequate.
Yes, with all the research done it does point towards the idea that homosexuality is affected by biological factors to some undefined degree, but unfortunately there is no causal relationship as of yet and comprehensive explanation of how it manifests (well comprehensive, all encompasing, and backed by the data- there is some comprehensive explanations of homosexuality done by Bem, but it isn't completely supported by the data), but i think an important question to ask ourselves is whether all this means that:
1- That biological factors only play a partial role in it and we just need to find what processes of socialization interact with these biological factors in order to manifest as homosexuality.
2- Or whether it simply means that we've yet to identify the exact biological mechanism, and it really does not require any social process.
On my part, i lean more towards the 1st, but the 2nd is always a possibility.
Now, if you need more literature, i have two pdfs that look at all the theories and data and interpret it, one by a psychoanalist and the other by a group of, i assume, biologists (Bailey, Chivers, Mutansky). The one by the psychoanalist is in spanish though you can just use google to translate. The one by the biologists will be more to your liking as the one by the psychoanalist is more introductory than profesional, but the psychoanalyst does discuss the reasons why there is so few research, the way the media treats it, and how the gay community uses the info.
I almost certainly believe that its the first case, but the second is always a distant possibility.
PM me the PDFs or just give me the citations, I can check them out easily enough because I think I still have library access. I'm gone to sleep though, but I'll look at them tomorrow.
I will have to email them to you because pms does not allow attachments.
I'll PM you my e-mail.
I already sent it to your email, or so i assume it was your gmail.
edit: yep, it's the correct one
handy!
In terms of the purpose of all of this, i consider it purely academic on my part, because i disagree with the notion that homosexuality shoud be justified by appeals to nature; it's simply lazy and dangerous, not to mention fallacious. I do find it annoying how the idea that people are born homosexual has caught on so quickly in liberal circles, and in that case, knowing all this info is good for refuting those beliefs.
I would however, love it if more biologist research would point towards human sexuality being flexible, but unfortunately no one is really looking to prove that, given that there is so few research, and that most who are researching are looking for the biological cause of homosexuality specifically. Though i think that most inmediately on my agenda is eliminating the stigma that homosexual relationships have, so men will:
a- stop insisting that any male contact makes one less masculine
b- stop believing that having any form of sex with a man makes you homosexual
But that is an uphill battle...