New research shows that homosexuality is an advantage

[Scotracer]

Here's two papers on homosexuality and how it ties in with evolution. Up until now it had been a mystery how homosexuality had still been evident in a population since it appeared to be detrimental to fertility.

New evidence of genetic factors influencing sexual orientation in men: female fecundity increase in the maternal line.

There is a long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality because the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction according to which natural selection should progressively eliminate the factors that reduce individual fecundity and fitness. Recently, however, Camperio Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217-2221, 2004), comparing the family trees of homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual probands from the maternal line but not in those related from the paternal one. This suggested that genetic factors that are partly linked to the X-chromosome and that influence homosexual orientation in males are not selected against because they increase fecundity in female carriers, thus offering a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. Since then, new data have emerged suggesting not only an increase in maternal fecundity but also larger paternal family sizes for homosexuals. These results are partly conflicting and indicate the need for a replication on a wider sample with a larger geographic distribution. This study examined the family trees of 250 male probands, of which 152 were homosexuals. The results confirmed the study of Camperio Ciani et al. (2004). We observed a significant fecundity increase even in primiparous mothers, which was not evident in the previous study. No evidence of increased paternal fecundity was found; thus, our data confirmed a sexually antagonistic inheritance partly linked to the X-chromosome that promotes fecundity in females and a homosexual sexual orientation in males.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014

A population-genetic model indicates that if there is a gene responsible for homosexual behaviour it can readily spread in populations. The model also predicts widespread bisexuality in humans.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 5158b.html

The first shows that it is evolutionary advantageous for a society to have homosexuals and the 2nd gives credence to the "gay gene" hypothesis. In light of these two things, can religions continue to accuse homosexuality of being unnatural and/or morally wrong? And how should this research affect the socio-political nature of the debate over equal rights?

[xcept]

From May 1989 through April 1990, 1,001 adult homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics were interviewed regarding potentially abusive sexual contacts during childhood and adolescence. Thirty-seven percent of participants sexual contacts during childhood and adolescence.
Thirty-seven percent of participants reported they had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner; 94 percent occurred with men.

Median age of the participant at first contact was 10; median age difference between partners was 11 years. Fifty-one percent involved use of force; 33 percent involved anal sex. Black and Hispanic men were more likely than white men to report such sexual contact. Using developmentally based criteria to define sexual abuse, 93 percent of participants reporting sexual contact with an older or more powerful partner were classified as sexually abused. Our data suggest the risk of sexual abuse may be high among some male youth, and increased attention should be devoted to prevention as well as early identification and treatment.{17} male youth, and increased attention should be devoted to prevention as well as early dentification and treatment.{17} The same is true for pedophiles The association between perpetration of sexual abuse and the offender's own victimization as a child has been well documented in the literature. Various researchers have examined this relationship by assessing the exclusiveness of the sexual abuser's behavior, the gender of his victims and the gender of his own childhood abuser... Subjects were 135 pedophiles ... who admitted to their offenses. A total of 42 percent of pedophiles ... reported being sexually victimized in their own childhoods .... [and appear to choose their age-specific victims in accordance with the age of their own experience of sexual victimization. Although the cause of child molestation remains undetermined, these results support social-learning and modeling theories.{18} Is Social Disapproval the Cause of Distress Among Both Pedophiles and Homosexuals?

[Goat]

you can't prove there is a gay gene so this stops your entire debate dead in its tracks. Tjhere is nothing more to debate here.

I challenge your statement that 'you can't prove there is a gay gene'. This is a straw man, because no one said there is a gay gene. What was pointed out is that the mothers of men who are gay tend to be much more fertile. This provides a biological mechanism for why the percentage of gay individuals do not change no matter what the societal values are.

[xcept]

The above is from narth.com (the biological research on homosexuality)

Hope that helps you out a bit more.

[xcept]

you can't prove there is a gay gene so this stops your entire debate dead in its tracks. Tjhere is nothing more to debate here.

I challenge your statement that 'you can't prove there is a gay gene'. This is a straw man, because no one said there is a gay gene. What was pointed out is that the mothers of men who are gay tend to be much more fertile. This provides a biological mechanism for why the percentage of gay individuals do not change no matter what the societal values are.

oh really now? Tend to be? That's of no help at all. How would this study work in China, where there is a limit of how many children a person can have? The study is a fraud based on that fact alone.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 25:

the problem with this is a person who has chosen to follow the gay lifestyle already has inalieable rights. You are saying they should have additional rights. Suppose to take a black female lesbian. She already has rights as a woma, and rights as a minority and you would be giving additional rights as a lesbian. What additional rights to give a heterosexual to balance the law out?

You had me at libian.

Anyway, I would consider the right to marry the person/s one loves to be among the rights homosexuals don't have in many / most countries.

[xcept]

Ok I'm bowing out of this topic. Not for me. Enjoy.

[Scotracer]

From May 1989 through April 1990, 1,001 adult homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics were interviewed regarding potentially abusive sexual contacts during childhood and adolescence. Thirty-seven percent of participants sexual contacts during childhood and adolescence.
Thirty-seven percent of participants reported they had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner; 94 percent occurred with men.

Median age of the participant at first contact was 10; median age difference between partners was 11 years. Fifty-one percent involved use of force; 33 percent involved anal sex. Black and Hispanic men were more likely than white men to report such sexual contact. Using developmentally based criteria to define sexual abuse, 93 percent of participants reporting sexual contact with an older or more powerful partner were classified as sexually abused. Our data suggest the risk of sexual abuse may be high among some male youth, and increased attention should be devoted to prevention as well as early identification and treatment.{17} male youth, and increased attention should be devoted to prevention as well as early dentification and treatment.{17} The same is true for pedophiles The association between perpetration of sexual abuse and the offender's own victimization as a child has been well documented in the literature. Various researchers have examined this relationship by assessing the exclusiveness of the sexual abuser's behavior, the gender of his victims and the gender of his own childhood abuser... Subjects were 135 pedophiles ... who admitted to their offenses. A total of 42 percent of pedophiles ... reported being sexually victimized in their own childhoods .... [and appear to choose their age-specific victims in accordance with the age of their own experience of sexual victimization. Although the cause of child molestation remains undetermined, these results support social-learning and modeling theories.{18} Is Social Disapproval the Cause of Distress Among Both Pedophiles and Homosexuals?

A lot of people are sexually abused as children, sadly. Do we have any data from heterosexuals to compare? That number on its own isn't useful in discerning a trend...

oh really now? Tend to be? That's of no help at all. How would this study work in China, where there is a limit of how many children a person can have? The study is a fraud based on that fact alone.

And you know how many people disobey this rule?

This study shows that, statistically, women who have a gay sibling are more likely to reproduce (or reproduce in greater quantities) hence the genetic trait not being "weeded out".

Your claim that it's fraudulent is wholly unsubstantiated and with no understanding of the topic, and the fact that the paper was in a peer-reviewed journal shows that you don't actually care about working out any factors...you just want to be a bigot.

[McCulloch]

The above is from narth.com (the biological research on homosexuality)

Hope that helps you out a bit more.

Narth is not a biological research organization. It is a treatment center with ties to religious organizations including Focus on the Family. It has as officers those who believe that the Bible to be the infallible word of God and that homosexuality is a sin.

Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations reject conversion therapy as ineffective at best, and harmful at worst. American Psychiatric Association states that "efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians" and "'Reparative' therapy literature also tends to overstate the treatment's accomplishments while neglecting any potential risks to patients."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated that it "shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish," and added that "The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomized clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field."

Source: Wiki

[xcept]

The above is from narth.com (the biological research on homosexuality)

Hope that helps you out a bit more.

Narth is not a biological research organization. It is a treatment center with ties to religious organizations including Focus on the Family. It has as officers those who believe that the Bible to be the infallible word of God and that homosexuality is a sin.

Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations reject conversion therapy as ineffective at best, and harmful at worst. American Psychiatric Association states that "efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians" and "'Reparative' therapy literature also tends to overstate the treatment's accomplishments while neglecting any potential risks to patients."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated that it "shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish," and added that "The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomized clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field."

Source: Wiki

Wiki as a source huh? Someone has an axe to grind. Either way, you don't want my opinion either since I view homosexuality as a sin. I will say that curing a sin nature is a very difficult thing to do and I really think it takes willingness from both ends. I don't think that someone could figure out a system that works to cure all the sexual sinners such as NARTH, but I know people do recover from he life of homosexuality. People can grow and have strength in Christ. Wiki isn't peer reviewed either by the way.

[Abraxas]

The above is from narth.com (the biological research on homosexuality)

Hope that helps you out a bit more.

Narth is not a biological research organization. It is a treatment center with ties to religious organizations including Focus on the Family. It has as officers those who believe that the Bible to be the infallible word of God and that homosexuality is a sin.

Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations reject conversion therapy as ineffective at best, and harmful at worst. American Psychiatric Association states that "efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians" and "'Reparative' therapy literature also tends to overstate the treatment's accomplishments while neglecting any potential risks to patients."

The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated that it "shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish," and added that "The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomized clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field."

Source: Wiki

Wiki as a source huh? Someone has an axe to grind. Either way, you don't want my opinion either since I view homosexuality as a sin. I will say that curing a sin nature is a very difficult thing to do and I really think it takes willingness from both ends. I don't think that someone could figure out a system that works to cure all the sexual sinners such as NARTH, but I know people do recover from he life of homosexuality. People can grow and have strength in Christ. Wiki isn't peer reviewed either by the way.

Yes, that someone being NARTH. Even the name is suggestive of being anti-homosexual (Therapy of Homosexuality). If you want to believe homosexuality is a sin, I guess there is no way to stop you. No amount of evidence that it is natural and in fact beneficial to a population can alter a view that, at the most basic level, boils down to "God hates it". As for people recovering, at best you can show that a handful went back in the closet. There is no evidence, none, that anything has been effective or reliable in changing sexual orientation.

Further, I cannot let pass the remark earlier that genetic predisposition to a select sexual orientation would mean that rape and pedophilia have genes too. Nothing in that remark follows. In what way does one possibly lead to the other? Further still, I would be interested to hear a justification for the appeal to outrage at a rape gene when in the bible rape is a minor transgression in some places and not even sinful in others (Genesis 19).