Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Prop 8

[BroncoInferno]

Beautifully stated...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QtokFnwAUng&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QtokFnwAUng&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[epicSocialism4tw]

Keith Olbermann doesnt deserve a link.

The guy is worse than Hannity.

At least Rush is an intelligent shill. This guy is a self-important hack of a sportsreporter.

[BroncoInferno]

Keith Olbermann doesnt deserve a link.

The guy is worse than Hannity.

At least Rush is an intelligent shill. This guy is a self-important hack of a sportsreporter.

Obviously, you didn't watch the video. That would have been intellectually honest, something you are incapable of. Or, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you can explain what points Olbermann made in the video that are wrong. I await your response.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Obviously, you didn't watch the video. That would have been intellectually honest, something you are incapable of. Or, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you can explain what points Olbermann made in the video that are wrong. I await your response.

Yep.

Angrydramaqueen with more of the same "if you can't refute the message then attack the messenger" dishonesty we've come to expect from the radical right.

These people's SOP is "when you're wrong and you know it, attack, attack, attack!"

[epicSocialism4tw]

Obviously, you didn't watch the video. That would have been intellectually honest, something you are incapable of. Or, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you can explain what points Olbermann made in the video that are wrong. I await your response.

You must have missed the purpose of my post.

It was simple.

You are no better than the "Hannitized". "Olbermannized."

If that ideological slumlord isnt intellectually dishonest, then I dont think that there is such a thing.

Tear the fixture from your brainstem. Remove yourself. You will be better off...well, I guess that some people get so scared of reality that they run right back to it. Are you one of those? Who knows.

Anyhow, have fun with your little Olbermann. Ubermench. Overman. Whatever.

[BroncoInferno]

You must have missed the purpose of my post.

It was simple.

You are no better than the "Hannitized". "Olbermannized."

If that ideological slumlord isnt intellectually dishonest, then I dont think that there is such a thing.

Tear the fixture from your brainstem. Remove yourself. You will be better off...well, I guess that some people get so scared of reality that they run right back to it. Are you one of those? Who knows.

Anyhow, have fun with your little Olbermann. Ubermench. Overman. Whatever.

How about watch the video, access Olbemann's points, and then refute them if you find them inaccurate? Are you capable of that intellectually honest procedure?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You must have missed the purpose of my post.

It was simple.

You are no better than the "Hannitized". "Olbermannized."

If that ideological slumlord isnt intellectually dishonest, then I dont think that there is such a thing.

Tear the fixture from your brainstem. Remove yourself. You will be better off...well, I guess that some people get so scared of reality that they run right back to it. Are you one of those? Who knows.

Anyhow, have fun with your little Olbermann. Ubermench. Overman. Whatever.

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

Make it about ideology vs. evaluating the validity of arguments or ascertaining the truth or falsehood of specific claims.

No wonder your "movement" is circling the drain.

:giggle:

[Garcia Bronco]

I'll watch it, but if he says something stupid I am turning it off. For the purposes of this viewing, we'll exclude his name.

[Garcia Bronco]

He says he doesn't understand. He says he doesn't have a vested interest. He doesn't understand that Civil Unions exist. He doesn't understand that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[BroncoInferno]

He says he doesn't understand. He says he doesn't have a vested interest. He doesn't understand that Civil Unions exist. He doesn't understand that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Um, Civil Unions don't exist. And, as Olbermann correctly pointed out, the definition of marriage HAS been changed a couple of times in the countries history: slave marriages were not legally recognized, and marriages between blacks and white were not legally recognized in many states. So, the definition was changed in those cases. The idea of a "traditional" marriage, therefore, is pure BS. It's just plain bigotry. Period.

[Garcia Bronco]

Um, Civil Unions don't exist. And, as Olbermann correctly pointed out, the definition of marriage HAS been changed a couple of times in the countries history: slave marriages were not legally recognized, and marriages between blacks and white were not legally recognized in many states. So, the definition was changed in those cases. The idea of a "traditional" marriage, therefore, is pure BS. It's just plain bigotry. Period.

Call it what you want, but marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or woman and a woman, or a dog and a man, or a woman and a cat. Where does the madness end? I support equal protection under the law and support civil unions, but don't call it marriage. I also believe the government should not be in the marriage game anyway.

Slave marriages were also recognized. It depended on what the owner wanted. And California recognizes civil unions.

[spdirty]

Yep.

Angrydramaqueen with more of the same "if you can't refute the message then attack the messenger" dishonesty we've come to expect from the radical right.

These people's SOP is "when you're wrong and you know it, attack, attack, attack!"

dont even start you ****ing hypocrit. You are the FIRST one to attack the messenger and completely ignore the message whenever a point is made from a source you dont like.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

dont even start you ****ing hypocrit. You are the FIRST one to attack the messenger and completely ignore the message whenever a point is made from a source you dont like.

Really?

Give me some examples.

That's what I thought, you lying sack of sh*t.

[Drek]

Call it what you want, but marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or woman and a woman, or a dog and a man, or a woman and a cat. Where does the madness end? I support equal protection under the law and support civil unions, but don't call it marriage. I also believe the government should not be in the marriage game anyway.

Slave marriages were also recognized. It depended on what the owner wanted. And California recognizes civil unions.
The madness ends when all the uneducated masses like you realize that gender and sexual orientation do not and never have fit into the puritanical boxes you've been brainwashed into thinking they belong in.

Homosexuality and cross-gender identification have been part of human society since the first hunter gatherers roamed the earth. That is the facts and it doesn't matter how hard you believe in something else, those facts are not going to change.

As long as you make someone else acquiesce to your beliefs so you can feel comfortable you're suppressing their civil rights.

[Pseudofool]

As long as you make someone else acquiesce to your beliefs so you can feel comfortable you're suppressing their civil rights.Word.

[Garcia Bronco]

The madness ends when all the uneducated masses like you realize that gender and sexual orientation do not and never have fit into the puritanical boxes you've been brainwashed into thinking they belong in.
Homosexuality and cross-gender identification have been part of human society since the first hunter gatherers roamed the earth. That is the facts and it doesn't matter how hard you believe in something else, those facts are not going to change.

As long as you make someone else acquiesce to your beliefs so you can feel comfortable you're suppressing their civil rights.


LOL. Homosexuality is choice driven and just because people make those choices doesn't mean they have a right to anything. Further, you have no idea what the nomads of the earth did thousands of years ago. Those are not facts but your opinions. I am sure even a dumbass who thinks geology is science understands the difference between facts and opinions. Well, obviously not.

[Garcia Bronco]

As long as you make someone else acquiesce to your beliefs so you can feel comfortable you're suppressing their civil rights.

I believe murder is wrong. AM I supressing murderer's civil rights?

You guys could also take a few moments and actually look up the word bigotry as well. You might learn something.

[barryr]

Really?

Give me some examples.

That's what I thought, you lying sack of sh*t.

Spoken from a prime example of the dumbing down of America. Go to school.

[enjolras]

I believe murder is wrong. AM I supressing murderer's civil rights?

You guys could also take a few moments and actually look up the word bigotry as well. You might learn something.

Ok:

bigotry:
"the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So we need the definition of bigot:

"a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

What are we supposed to learn from that exactly? The argument against homosexuality is very much a bigoted one.

[enjolras]

While we're on the subject:

I believe murder is wrong. AM I supressing murderer's civil rights?

I LOVE this game:

Murder infringes on someones right to..you know..exist.

Gay marriage infringes on someones right to........

If you get murdered you no longer exist. Gay people get married and it affects your life in what way exactly?

Oh ya it doesn't.

[enjolras]

I also believe the government should not be in the marriage game anyway.

Slave marriages were also recognized. It depended on what the owner wanted. And California recognizes civil unions.

If you don't want the government in the marriage game, then what's to stop people from calling their particular union 'marriage'?

Oh and slave marriages where never recognized by the government. There is actual case law from that period dealing with that, as slaves did not enjoy much in the way of legal status (although it was illegal to murder them, but executions where ok... the difference being quite unclear). If the owner wanted to 'recognize' it, then fine.. the government did not. Which meant that when the owner died and the kids decided to sell the slaves the married couple had no rights as to how the sell proceeded. That is the particular case that I'm familiar with.

[Garcia Bronco]

While we're on the subject:



I LOVE this game:

Murder infringes on someones right to..you know..exist.

Gay marriage infringes on someones right to........

If you get murdered you no longer exist. Gay people get married and it affects your life in what way exactly?

Oh ya it doesn't.

Homosexuality is a choice. Just like murder is a choice. Marriage is a holy communion between a man, woman, and God and should not be infringed upon by sexual deviants. Quit being a bigot towards religious institutions.

[Pseudofool]

Homosexuality is a choice. Just like murder is a choice. Marriage is a holy communion between a man, woman, and God and should not be infringed upon by sexual deviants. Quit being a bigot towards religious institutions.How can you be sure it's a choice? What scientific fact do you base this on? It's an assumption, and what's worse, it's the basis by which you marginalize a whole swath of decent people.

[epicSocialism4tw]

How can you be sure it's a choice? What scientific fact do you base this on? It's an assumption, and what's worse, it's the basis by which you marginalize a whole swath of decent people.

Synaptic plasticity.

That is the only real science that we have regarding this issue.

Nobody is saying that these arent "decent people", but that they make choices that are incompatable with what marriage is supposed to represent and exist as in our society.

It should not just be an excuse for tax breaks. It should be the foundation of a family of man and woman and offspring.

You have to jump through some pretty obvious hoops to get to the place where gay marriage and marriage would be equivalent practices.

What about the fundamentalist polygamist mormons? Why do we impede on their right to polygamy?

What about the pedophiles?

[Garcia Bronco]

How can you be sure it's a choice? What scientific fact do you base this on? It's an assumption, and what's worse, it's the basis by which you marginalize a whole swath of decent people.

It's a choice plain and simple. People have all types of urges that have a genetic base. Everything reduces to biology, but acting on those urges are choices.

[Bronco Bob]

Call it what you want, but marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or woman and a woman, or a dog and a man, or a woman and a cat. Where does the madness end? I support equal protection under the law and support civil unions, but don't call it marriage. I also believe the government should not be in the marriage game anyway.


You are wondering where it will all end. So would you say the first big
mistake was making it legal to let a black man to marry a white woman?
Because that was illegal for a long time to, and people felt a lot more
strongly about it than they do gay marriage. People were thrown in jail,
and even killed because of it. Just trying to get a feel for the extent of
your bigotry.

[Bronco Bob]

LOL. Homosexuality is choice driven and just because people make those choices doesn't mean they have a right to anything.

So one day a guy wakes up and decide girls are yucky, and he would
rather be play the boys. This despite knowing he would be ostracized
for the rest of his life, couldn't legally join the military, would have
a hard time getting a security clearance, would be bullied and beaten
just because of what he choose to do. So given the cost/benefit
analysis, why would someone choose to be gay? I am assuming you
aren't gay. What day did you decide you'd rather be with the girls
and what influenced your descision?

[BroncoInferno]

It's a choice plain and simple. People have all types of urges that have a genetic base. Everything reduces to biology, but acting on those urges are choices.

Sexual orientation is as much a choice as choosing to eat or drink liquid.

[frerottenextelway]

Call it what you want, but marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or woman and a woman, or a dog and a man, or a woman and a cat. Where does the madness end? I support equal protection under the law and support civil unions, but don't call it marriage. I also believe the government should not be in the marriage game anyway.

Slave marriages were also recognized. It depended on what the owner wanted. And California recognizes civil unions.

The fact that you'd compare gay marriage to beastiality shows what kind of person you really are.

[broncofan7]

Who cares---Honestly, what 'virtues' are being protected here? Marriage today has turned into a grand scheme of money pilfering interests, from wedding boutiques, to destination weddings, to the $5K wedding cake....Marriage is not sacred, it is an industry..... an Industry that ends in failure over 50% of the time. Again, who the F* cares if two guys or gals want to get 'married'? I do take issue with Gay couples adopting though....

[watermock]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/msrkRdqLCr8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/msrkRdqLCr8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[epicSocialism4tw]

Sexual orientation is as much a choice as choosing to eat or drink liquid.

You forgot to add "In my opinion...".

The fact of the matter is, that neuroscience has added very little to the discussion about homosexuality.

The argument from naturalism that you hear is the demeaning argument that reduces human rationality to that of confused animals that resort to homosexual stmulation because of the lack of female counterparts or the complete selling out to pure instinct. This argument should be demeaning to a person...simply the idea that a destructive urge must be obeyed to the detriment of wisdom and rationality, and that these people just cant help themselves.

Naturalistic predestination is a dangerous philosophy, and its benevolence in association with humanism is a joke.

[watermock]

<div><iframe src="http://www.236.com/ovembed.php?vid=MTg5Njc4Njg5Ng==" width="425" height="370" noresize="noresize" frameborder="0" border="0" cellspacing="0" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" style="border:0px;overflow: hidden;"></iframe><div style="padding: 0px 5px 5px 5px; width: 410px; text-align: center; font-size: 0.8em;">Get the latest news <a href="http://www.236.com/">satire</a> and <a href="http://www.236.com/video/">funny videos</a> at <a href="http://www.236.com">236.com</a>.</div></div>

[gyldenlove]

Homosexuality is a choice. Just like murder is a choice. Marriage is a holy communion between a man, woman, and God and should not be infringed upon by sexual deviants. Quit being a bigot towards religious institutions.

Marriage isn't a religious institution at all. Marriage exists in all cultures independent of religion, I know a lot of religious movements like to claim certain things, but this one they can't have. Marriage existed well before the judaism and just because various religions added their own spin to the ceremonies doesn't give them license to control who can and can't be married.

[epicSocialism4tw]

<div><iframe src="http://www.236.com/ovembed.php?vid=MTg5Njc4Njg5Ng==" width="425" height="370" noresize="noresize" frameborder="0" border="0" cellspacing="0" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" style="border:0px;overflow: hidden;"></iframe><div style="padding: 0px 5px 5px 5px; width: 410px; text-align: center; font-size: 0.8em;">Get the latest news <a href="http://www.236.com/">satire</a> and <a href="http://www.236.com/video/">funny videos</a> at <a href="http://www.236.com">236.com</a>.</div></div>

I guess that a pair of modern glasses, a hard-slicked salt n pepper part to the side, a decent suit, and a eye squint makes one appear to be less of a blowhard. Something has to be fooling people into believing what that guy says and it sure isnt his inflammatory ideological slumlording.

[Pseudofool]

It's a choice plain and simple. People have all types of urges that have a genetic base. Everything reduces to biology, but acting on those urges are choices.So we should force them straight? What if repressing the urge to be gay, makes a person miserable? You're okay with that?

[epicSocialism4tw]

So we should force them straight? What if repressing the urge to be gay, makes a person miserable? You're okay with that?

If you are coming from the perspective of whether or not it is okay to suppress an urge of a certain kind, you are setting yourself up to lose this kind of debate. You are entering a rational conversation saying that rationality must be abandoned to achieve ethical behavior here.

"Urges" are specifically irrational thoughts that draw one like a moth to a lamp.

[Pseudofool]

If you are coming from the perspective of whether or not it is okay to suppress an urge of a certain kind, you are setting yourself up to lose this kind of debate. You are entering a rational conversation saying that rationality must be abandoned to achieve ethical behavior here.

"Urges" are specifically irrational thoughts that draw one like a moth to a lamp.Meh. Urges also drive men to women. Are you sure you want to parse out which biological/genetic urges are ethical and which aren't?

The argument against gay marriage of course abandons reasons, as the definition of marriage is arbitrary, and things like monogamy and family-building are far more important.

[Hotwheelz]

Call it what you want, but marriage is between a man and a woman.

According to whom? From where do you get your belief?

[gunns]

LOL. Homosexuality is choice driven and just because people make those choices doesn't mean they have a right to anything. Further, you have no idea what the nomads of the earth did thousands of years ago. Those are not facts but your opinions. I am sure even a dumbass who thinks geology is science understands the difference between facts and opinions. Well, obviously not.

OMG! I am in shock. I've always respected yet not agreed with your views but for you to make such an uneducated statement as Homosexuality is choice driven and the fact they make these choices, makes me now take a new view of your posts as opinion rather than learned fact. That statement is nothing more than your opinion and it is totally misguided. Educate yourself on this before you form another opinion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

According to whom? From where do you get your belief?

Exactly.

That's what's so offensive about these fundamentalist nutjobs - they mistake their beliefs re: marriage for some sort of moral absolute.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

OMG! I am in shock. I've always respected yet not agreed with your views but for you to make such an uneducated statement as Homosexuality is choice driven and the fact they make these choices, makes me now take a new view of your posts as opinion rather than learned fact. That statement is nothing more than your opinion and it is totally misguided. Educate yourself on this before you form another opinion.

You gave him the benefit of the doubt longer than most. ;)

[gunns]

You forgot to add "In my opinion...".

The fact of the matter is, that neuroscience has added very little to the discussion about homosexuality.

The argument from naturalism that you hear is the demeaning argument that reduces human rationality to that of confused animals that resort to homosexual stmulation because of the lack of female counterparts or the complete selling out to pure instinct. This argument should be demeaning to a person...simply the idea that a destructive urge must be obeyed to the detriment of wisdom and rationality, and that these people just cant help themselves.

Naturalistic predestination is a dangerous philosophy, and its benevolence in association with humanism is a joke.

So in other words, you have the "destructive urge" to be with another man but you obey your rationality and wisdom and this is why you are not gay.

Hilarious!

You obviously don't know anyone who is gay. Why would a person want to subject themselves to ridicule and prejudice to satisfy a sexual need? That equates them to rapists and pedophiles. I can guarantee, beyond a shadow of a doubt gay people are born gay, it isn't learned, it isn't a choice, it's the same desire you have for the person you love or have sexual urge for. Now for my opinion, God made these people this way so the rest of us can learn the lessons or tolerance and compassion. You and GB reenforce that opinion.

[Arkie]

What about the people born with both sexual organs? What if the doctor removes the wrong one? They may have a female mind inside a male body.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So in other words, you have the "destructive urge" to be with another man but you obey your rationality and wisdom and this is why you are not gay.

Hilarious!

You obviously don't know anyone who is gay. Why would a person want to subject themselves to ridicule and prejudice to satisfy a sexual need? That equates them to rapists and pedophiles. I can guarantee, beyond a shadow of a doubt gay people are born gay, it isn't learned, it isn't a choice, it's the same desire you have for the person you love or have sexual urge for. Now for my opinion, God made these people this way so the rest of us can learn the lessons or tolerance and compassion. You and GB reenforce that opinion.

Sort of lends credence to the theory that extreme homophobes like angrydrama and so many other religious nutters who are obsessed with homosexual behavior may be latent homosexuals themselves.

[Hotwheelz]

I can guarantee, beyond a shadow of a doubt gay people are born gay, it isn't learned, it isn't a choice, it's the same desire you have for the person you love or have sexual urge for.

To be fair, I read somewhere it was mostly (like 95%) biological, but not totally. Lemme find some links.

[Hotwheelz]

Here's a good paper with references. Kinda old, though: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925

THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Dara Newman
In trying to decide on a topic for this WWW project, it seemed logical to try and focus on a current subject. Homosexuality and homosexual behavior has existed for thousands and thousands of years, probably even before the times of homo-sapiens. However, up until a few years ago, the issue was discussed mostly by people in the social sciences. Psychologists, such as Freud, studied homosexuals extensively in hopes of coming up with an explanation for their "abnormal" behavior. All of the explanations that these people created linked homosexuality to experiences that homosexuals have while growing up. Generally speaking, people in the world of psychology believed that homosexuality could be explained by a person's environment. However, in the past four or five years, the subject of homosexuality has been creeping into the world of biology. Studies have been done recently that attempt to look at homosexuality in a scientific light in hopes of coming up with a genetic explanation for sexual preference.

One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did (5).

One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality (4). Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified (7). Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful (7). The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth. Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality (8). As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.

Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a Ò52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men (8). These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and PillardÕs by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a personÕs sexual orientation (8).

Looking at the results of many of the other studies I have discussed, it seems a little strange to me that the student of homosexual siblings who were both male and female came up with similar result as the studies that looked exclusively at male homosexuality. Hamer's study, along with others, have tried to located a gene that influences female homosexuality, but they have been unsuccessful. More importantly, the region of the X chromosome that very possibly could influence male homosexuality does not influence females in the same way. Female heterosexuals merely pass the gene sequence on to their sons. Knowing this, it seems odd to me that there would be such a high percentage of male and female homosexual siblings. Perhaps this suggests that if genetics are responsible for homosexuality, we have a long way to go before we completely understand the gene loci that determine sexuality.

Aside from the scientists who are researching the topic of homosexuality and genetics, there are many other people who have concerns and vested interests in the topic. The information that is being discovered has been used by people in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, there are members of the gay community who are very excited to find that the life-style they live is not entirely a choice that they made, as homophobic people often like to believe. Some homosexuals feel that if the world realizes that homosexuality is something people are born with, just like the color of your skin or your eyes, then people will begin to be more accepting of the homosexual life-style (5). However, on the other hand, there is also a group a people who believe that if homosexuality is in fact genetically linked, then there should be a way to genetically alter homosexuals in order to make them "normal" (3).

Before I started researching this topic on the world-wide-web, I did not realize what a new and controversial issue the genetics of homosexuality was. From tid-bits of news that I had picked up along the way, I thought that scientists had located, without a doubt, a gene that plays a role in influencing sexual orientation. From the research that I have discussed above, that is obviously not the case. I am eager to follow this subject more in the future and see what biology will discover next.

References

1) Genetics and Homosexuality, from the Gene Letter

2) Homosexuality: Genetics and the Bible, by Tom Terry, Cutting Edge Magazine

3) Statement on NIH Genetic Study on Homosexuality, from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

4) New study says genetics influences homosexuality, from St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1995

5) Homosexuality and Genetics, one person's views

6) A commentary on "Research on Sex Orientation Doesn't Fit the Mold"

7) Genetics Press Cuttings, from The Knitting Circle, South Bank University, London

8) The Hypothetical Genetics of Sexual Orientation, by Keith Bell, a Boston University undergraduate

9) Is there a genetic basis for sexual orientation?, from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

10) Lesbianism/homosexuality - a human surival trait, a commentary on the Queer Resources Directory

11) Homosexuality: Its in Your Genes, an article posted on QRD

12) Genetics and sexuality, a news report

[spdirty]

How about this deal? We make gay marriage legal but outlaw and ban a part of the gays first amendment...the gay pride parades. Ban em, no more of that crap. No more gay days at disneyland. No more fat guys wearing thongs in the streets to celebrate their "pride." No more just flat out disgusting crap from people "trying to express themselve and their pride." I think thats a fair compromise. And if you violate this law, and do the pride parades, then your right to marry gets stripped. Deal?

[spdirty]

Really?

Give me some examples.

That's what I thought, you lying sack of sh*t.

shlt, I dont feel like looking back but Ill give you at least 5 examples of your out and out hypocrisy this coming week punk.

[spdirty]

Oh, btw, I do absolutely despise Olberman, but his once a year quota of actually having to put out a coherent thought was made. So thats why Im willing to compromise.

[Hotwheelz]

Better one from WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene


New Genetic Regions Associated With Male Sexual Orientation Found

WebMD Health News

Jan. 28, 2005 - The genes a man gets from his mother and father may play an important role in determining whether he is gay or not, according to a new study likely to reignite the "gay gene" debate.

Researchers say it's the first time the entire human genetic makeup has been scanned in search of possible genetic determinants of male sexual orientation. The results suggest that several genetic regions may influence homosexuality.

"It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located," says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Those previous studies looked only at the genes located on the X chromosome. Genes on this chromosome are only passed to a son from his mother. But this study examined genetic information on all chromosomes, including genes from the father.

The findings show that identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes were shared by about 60% of gay brothers in the study compared to the about 50% normally expected by chance.
Gay Gene Debate

A heated debate over the existence of a "gay gene" emerged from a 1993 report published in the journal Science by then-NIH researcher Dean Hamer, PhD. That study linked DNA markers on the X chromosome to male sexual orientation.

Since then, questions arose regarding the validity of those results. Other researchers are attempting to replicate and verify Hamer's findings. Hamer is also senior author of the current study, which appears in the March issue of Human Genetics.

But researchers say this study takes a different approach. Its goal was not to replicate those findings but to search for new genetic markers associated with male sexual orientation.

"Since sexual orientation is such a complex trait, we're never going to find any one gene that determines whether someone is gay or not," says Mustanski. "It's going to be a combination of various genes acting together as well as possibly interacting with environmental influences."

Previous studies in male twins have suggested that between 40%-60% of the variability in sexual orientation is due to genes. The rest is thought to be due to environment and possibly other biologic but nongenetic causes.
Search for Gay Genes

In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.

The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone.

The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.

Search for Gay Genes continued...

Mustanski compares the study's approach to a search for doctors in a town of 40,000 people, a number that roughly corresponds to the number of human genes.

Rather than guessing that doctors live in a particular type of house and going to only the houses that meet that criteria, researchers in this scenario would knock on every door to ask the residents if a doctor lives on their street. Using a similar approach, researchers were able to locate a few potential genetic neighborhoods that likely contribute to male sexual orientation.

Researchers say the next step is to verify these results in a different group of men to see if the same genetic regions are associated with sexual orientation. If the findings hold up, then Mustanski says they could start to look for the individual genes within these regions linked to sexual orientation.
New Targets for Gay Gene Research

Elliot S. Gershon, MD, professor of psychiatry and human genetics at the University of Chicago, says the study represents an important step forward in understanding how genes affect human sexual orientation.

"It is worth testing genes within a region of linkage to see if one of them has a variant that is more frequent in men who are gay than in men who are not," says Gershon, who is also currently involved in another study of gay brothers and genetic influences on sexual orientation.

"This report adds to the legitimacy of research on normal variations in human behavior," Gershon tells WebMD. "There is an argument that has been made in public press that it doesn't make sense to study conditions or traits that are behavioral. But this suggests that there is a genetic contribution to this particular trait of same sex orientation."

[Pseudofool]

Science will never be able to prove whether all homosexuals are predisposed to be such. Not that such evidence would convince the amoral bigotry of those that oppose gay marriage. That's right those that oppose gay marriage are amoral--they favor tradition over compassion for another human.

[Hotwheelz]

Science will never be able to prove whether all homosexuals are predisposed to be such. Not that such evidence would convince the amoral bigotry of those that oppose gay marriage. That's right those that oppose gay marriage are amoral--they favor tradition over compassion for another human.

Well, unless we examine every single gay person, of course we'll never be 100%. And I don't doubt there are some who can choose, but most can't. No matter how hard I want to like penis, I can't like it.

And even if it was a choice... So ****ing what? As long as it's between consenting adults, it's fine by me.

[Rohirrim]

Naturalistic predestination is a dangerous philosophy, and its benevolence in association with humanism is a joke.

I challenge anyone to explain the meaning of this sentence.

[gunns]

How about this deal? We make gay marriage legal but outlaw and ban a part of the gays first amendment...the gay pride parades. Ban em, no more of that crap. No more gay days at disneyland. No more fat guys wearing thongs in the streets to celebrate their "pride." No more just flat out disgusting crap from people "trying to express themselve and their pride." I think thats a fair compromise. And if you violate this law, and do the pride parades, then your right to marry gets stripped. Deal?

Ok then how about this deal? We outlaw and ban a part of the Catholics first amendment...the St. Patrick day parades and celebrations. Ban em, no more of that religious crap. No more St. Patrick day celebrations at bars or churches. No more fat guys wearing green derby's in the streets to celebrate their "pride". No more just flat out disgusting religious crap from people "trying to express themselves and their pride." I think that's a fair compromise. And if you violate this law, and do the St. Patrick day parades or celebrations, then you have to have an abortion and if a man, your wife or girlfriend has to have one, and low and behold if you are SOL as far as a female punishment victim, castration. Deal?

[gunns]

To be fair, I read somewhere it was mostly (like 95%) biological, but not totally. Lemme find some links.

A gay person is born that way. If there are 5%, it includes the bisexuals who are experimenting with sex. Not the ones who are trying to become "straight" but not succeeding.

[spdirty]

Ok then how about this deal? We outlaw and ban a part of the Catholics first amendment...the St. Patrick day parades and celebrations. Ban em, no more of that religious crap. No more St. Patrick day celebrations at bars or churches. No more fat guys wearing green derby's in the streets to celebrate their "pride". No more just flat out disgusting religious crap from people "trying to express themselves and their pride." I think that's a fair compromise. And if you violate this law, and do the St. Patrick day parades or celebrations, then you have to have an abortion and if a man, your wife or girlfriend has to have one, and low and behold if you are SOL as far as a female punishment victim, castration. Deal?

deal. Im sick of getting pinched on that stupid ass holiday for not wearing green. But I wanna add one more. No more Valentines day. Gayest holiday EVER!

[Rohirrim]

I always find it odd that the fundies actually believe there are people who would choose to be gay in this homophobic country. Yeah, and there are people who tie antlers to their heads and go skipping through the woods on the opening day of deer season.

[Pseudofool]

I challenge anyone to explain the meaning of this sentence.I got it:
Naturalistic predestination is a dangerous philosophy, and its benevolence in association with humanism is a joke.

He's saying the notion that "free will" doesn't exist is dangerous. Further he's suggesting that such a belief is not altruistic towards humans, or that a person holding such a belief could never have people's best interests in mind.

Personally, I believe the myth of freewill is one of the most destructive of the past several centuries. It allows for beliefs like "if he worked harder he wouldn't be poor" and "if he fought his urges, he wouldn't be gay" and "he should have known better" it allows for us to refuse help to others on the basis of blame. It's clear to me, considering the later, if someone had known better they would have done better.

Dismissing free will allows people to realize that a good deal of other people's (as well as their own) failings are socially, culturally, and circumstantially constructed. It gets people past the blame-game, and towards real solutions.

[Pseudofool]

I always find it odd that the fundies actually believe there are people who would choose to be gay in this homophobic country. Yeah, and there are people who tie antlers to their heads and go skipping through the woods on the opening day of deer season.There's nothing funny about it.

It speaks to, obviously, their own urges. They must be able to entertain the notion that gay sex must be so pleasurable as to warrant any social cost.

[Bronco Bob]

I challenge anyone to explain the meaning of this sentence.

Drama Llama got a new thesaurus for his birthday.

[Hotwheelz]

Yeah, and there are people who tie antlers to their heads and go skipping through the woods on the opening day of deer season.

Oh, how fun!

No, but yeah, looks like I was wrong on the 95% thing. Even if they chose, though, there's nothing with buttsecks.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage

<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> By JESSE McKINLEY (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/jesse_mckinley/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and KIRK JOHNSON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/j/kirk_johnson/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
</nyt_byline>
Published: November 14, 2008
<!--NYT_INLINE_IMAGE_POSITION1 -->
SACRAMENTO — Less than two weeks before Election Day, the chief strategist behind a ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) in California (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/california/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) called an emergency meeting here.

We’re going to lose this campaign if we don’t get more money,” the strategist, Frank Schubert, recalled telling leaders of Protect Marriage, the main group behind the ban.

The campaign issued an urgent appeal, and in a matter of days, it raised more than $5 million, including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. The money allowed the drive to intensify a sharp-elbowed advertising campaign, and support for the measure was catapulted ahead; it ultimately won with 52 percent of the vote.

As proponents of same-sex marriage across the country planned protests on Saturday against the ban, interviews with the main forces behind the ballot measure showed how close its backers believe it came to defeat — and the extraordinary role Mormons played in helping to pass it with money, institutional support and dedicated volunteers.

“We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,” said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally called, in Salt Lake City.

“But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.”

The California measure, Proposition 8, was to many Mormons a kind of firewall to be held at all costs.

“California is a huge state, often seen as a bellwether — this was seen as a very, very important test,” Mr. Otterson said.

First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause.
“And they sure did,” Mr. Schubert said.

Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

The canvass work could be exacting and highly detailed. Many Mormon wards in California, not unlike Roman Catholic parishes, were assigned two ZIP codes to cover. Volunteers in one ward, according to training documents written by a Protect Marriage volunteer, obtained by people opposed to Proposition 8 and shown to The New York Times, had tasks ranging from “walkers,” assigned to knock on doors; to “sellers,” who would work with undecided voters later on; and to “closers,” who would get people to the polls on Election Day.

Suggested talking points were equally precise. If initial contact indicated a prospective voter believed God created marriage, the church volunteers were instructed to emphasize that Proposition 8 would restore the definition of marriage God intended.

But if a voter indicated human beings created marriage, Script B would roll instead, emphasizing that Proposition 8 was about marriage, not about attacking gay people, and about restoring into law an earlier ban struck down by the State Supreme Court in May.

“It is not our goal in this campaign to attack the homosexual lifestyle or to convince gays and lesbians that their behavior is wrong — the less we refer to homosexuality, the better,” one of the ward training documents said. “We are pro-marriage, not anti-gay.”

Leaders were also acutely conscious of not crossing the line from being a church-based volunteer effort to an actual political organization.

Continues:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin