Strangely, a paper based on a large study of brothers and twins which supports the idea that male sexuality, including homesexuality, has a strong genetic basis, has been completely ignored by homophobic religious fundamentalist. I say strangely because these same religious extremists are almost invariably creationists of one sort or another, either Young Earth Creationist loons and frauds like Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and Michael Behe, who ignore almost all science, or Old Earth Creationists like Francis Collins and Alvin Plantinga who only ignore the inconvenient bits and bits they can't pretend aren't true.
Background: Findings from family and twin studies support a genetic contribution to the development of sexual orientation in men. However, previous studies have yielded conflicting evidence for linkage to chromosome Xq28.
Method: We conducted a genome-wide linkage scan on 409 independent pairs of homosexual brothers (908 analyzed individuals in 384 families), by far the largest study of its kind to date.
Results: We identified two regions of linkage: the pericentromeric region on chromosome 8 (maximum two-point LOD = 4.08, maximum multipoint LOD = 2.59), which overlaps with the second strongest region from a previous separate linkage scan of 155 brother pairs; and Xq28 (maximum two-point LOD = 2.99, maximum multipoint LOD = 2.76), which was also implicated in prior research.
Conclusions: Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 influencing development of male sexual orientation.
A. R. Sanders, E. R. Martin, G. W. Beecham, S. Guo, K. Dawood, G. Rieger, J. A. Badner,
E. S. Gershon, R. S. Krishnappa, A. B. Kolundzija, J. Duan, P. V. Gejman and J. M. Bailey.
Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation.
Psychological Medicine, available on CJO2014. doi:10.1017/S0033291714002451.
These are the people who tell us, on the one hand, according to degree of delusion, that the god of the Bible created everyone as is and personally makes each and everyone of us, or nudged evolution along with the intention of evolving us as we are, and on the other hand, that homesexuality is a sin because it says so in the literal and inerrant, or metaphorical and inerrant, Bible.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
This comes in the middle of a chapter which seems obsessed with looking at naked women and children, including granddaughters. (What nasty-minded, sex-obsessed people wrote this stuff?) And it comes in the middle of a book which spells out who you can own as slaves, when to sell daughters as sex slaves and for how much, under what circumstances you should have the men of the town kill your sons and daughters, and which animals you should burn as sacrifices on which days. Curiously, the only one which counts these days judging by the frenzy which devout fundamentalist get themselves into over it, is the one which, superficially at least, appears to prohibit certain homosexual activities (but only between men).
But then it was only a few decades ago that earlier fundamentalist got themselves almost a badly worked up over premarital sex and interracial marriage, so maybe it's only the sexual activity they think they can get away with controlling which concerns them.
However, it now looks as though they've got themselves onto the horns of another dilemma in their haste to control other people (and probably to publicly dissociate themselves from desires they find it difficult to admit to). If the study by Saunders, et al. is confirmed by other studies, they are going to have to explain why their creator god makes homosexuals, either by special creation, as is, a few thousand years ago, or by guided evolution with the intention of making them.
Any sanctimoniously homophobic creationists willing to deal with this one, or is it to be selective ignorance of the science again? How about some of the Christians in Uganda who want to kill homosexuals because they imagine it will endear them to their imaginary friend in the sky and satiate its blood lust for a while? What if you're right about creationism and your imaginary friend created some people to be gay?
For 'Intelligent Design' frauds, the challenge is to explain why your assumed magic creator designed people to do what it had forbidden them to do, and how this meets the criteria for 'intelligent'. Any professional liar from the Discovery Institute willing to give it a go? No?
Who'd be a religious fundamentalist looking for excuses to hurt people and present yourself as morally superior these days, when this nasty scientific truth thing keeps taking your excuses away from you, eh?
'via Blog this'