Wednesday, June 27, 2007

There's No Gay Gene

The biggest thing upsetting the CRC-PFOX contingent right now is the idea that the Montgomery County schools would say that sexual orientation is "innate." There's no real argument otherwise, everybody knows it's innate, but this just drives them over the edge. They love to repeat the statement "there is no gay gene," over and over again, as if genetic and innate were the same thing.

The Toronto Star had a nice calm story this week about genetics and sexual orientation. How much of it can I include here? Let's see...
Gay men believe their sexual orientation is inextricably bound up with their very being. It is not a choice – let alone the "wrong choice," as religious and political critics have counter-claimed for years.

Many believe they simply were "born that way," and long for proof that their sexual proclivity is biological or genetic, a variation, not a deviation, of human nature. And how can an innate instinct be the subject of discrimination?

But just as many gay men don't want to know. It's a predisposition, they say, what does it matter what kind? If science delves into the cause, then bet on it, someone will set about finding a "cure." More to the point, they argue, determining the why of homosexuality won't end prejudice.

"The emphasis on finding a biological cause is much more widespread among activists in the U.S. than in Canada," says political scientist David Rayside, director of the University of Toronto's Sexual Diversity Centre.

"Most people here don't care or think the fight for gay rights shouldn't hinge on finding a cause." Hunting the gay gene

Interesting to contrast the US and Canada. I think we'll hear more about that in the comments.

I have talked to people who think this is a huge deal. I personally don't think it matters that much -- for instance, I think it is proper to respect a person's religion, even though that is obviously a choice and not something that is innate. It doesn't mean I should discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. But sexual orientation is different, it's not something a person chooses, it's clearly got a biological aspect to it, and that would, I think, entirely justify rejection of variation in sexual orientation as a dimension for judging people morally.
Theories have been floated for more than a century on what triggers homosexuality. Nurture – a psychologically troubled relationship between parents and child – held top billing until the start of the 1990s, when the tide shifted toward nature.

Two American scientists set the research and the debate in motion.

In 1991, Simon LeVay, a neurobiologist at the Salk Institute of Biological Studies in California, examined the brains of 41 individuals; 19 gay men who died of AIDS, 16 heterosexuals of drugs-related AIDS and six women, of whom one had died of the disease.

Already aware that certain areas of the brain are bigger in men than in women, LeVay checked to see if there was a size variation with the gay men.

To his surprise, he found that one grouping of cells associated with sexual activity was twice as large in straight men as it was in both gays and women.

LeVay emphasized that his work didn't show "how or when sexual orientation is determined, only that it is an aspect of human nature that can be studied by biologists." But the media ran with it, playing down widespread criticism that he hadn't factored in the effect of AIDS on the brain.

Yeah man, that's just a start. One study with a few dozen subjects is not going to answer this question. For one thing, this is pure correlation, and you know what they say.

The story then talks about a study by Dean Hamer, who found some places on the chromosome that seemed to correlate with sexual orientation. The newspapers all went on about a "gay gene" being found.
Wrongly so, said the genetics community. The coverage was inflated, simplistic and misleading. No "gay gene" had been found, nor ever would be. Why? Because behavioural genetics is much more complex than "Mendelian" genetics. In other words, traits such as eye colour are 100 per cent inheritable but the genetic contribution to various behaviours, aggression, shyness, extroversion and so on, is considerably less, below 50 per cent.

Ruth Hubbard, Harvard emeritus professor of biology and biochemistry and author of Exploding the Gene Myth, has said that searching for a gay gene "is not even a worthwhile pursuit.

"I don't think there is any single gene that governs any complex human behaviour. There are genetic components in everything we do, and it is foolish to say genes are not involved, but I don't think they are decisive."

I saw the CRC's resident MD give a talk once where she showed data from a twin study that found that when a twin was gay he was ten times more likely than average to have a gay brother. She argued that the data actually showed that sexual orientation is not genetic, because if it was, they would both be gay a hundred percent of the time. Just goes to show you, people see things differently.

Ooh, there is something deliciously ironic in this next sentence:
By the end of the '90s, interest in the hunt for a gay gene had waned. Why, skeptics asked, would there be one when it plays no role in the evolutionary scheme of things?

This next guy has been at the center of a lot of the recent discussion; his name was first mentioned by a conservative writer as supporting their view that orientation is a choice, but he then explained: "The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality."
Since then, the scientific consensus is that sexual proclivity is influenced, but not hardwired, by DNA. Geneticist Francis Collins, head of the international Human Genome Project, has written that "whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."

But the debate hasn't entirely gone away, or, indeed, all of the research. Next year at Northwestern University, 1,000 pairs of gay brothers will be studied to see if Hamer's X-chromosome findings finally can be reproduced. (Driven by AIDS, as well, critics would argue, by cultural bias, science has focused overwhelmingly on men, not gay women.) U of T's Rayside is leery about yet another study, concerned at society's increasing temptation to interpret all kinds of human behaviours in biological, particularly genetic, terms.

"These scientists think they're doing good, but they don't realize there's a political component to their work. It contributes to the trend toward genetic selection."

I suppose there's always the threat that knowledge will be used for foul purpose, but I don't see that as a good reason to remain ignorant. Who knows, maybe they'll find the gene that causes people to use knowledge for foul purpose, and use that knowledge to make people nice.

30 Comments:

Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

This discussion simply points out how superficially educated so many of our citizens are. All they apparently remember, and this includes Ruth Jacobs, M.D., is Mendel and his peas, so "genetics" get so overly simplified it becomes basically meaningless. The new field of evo-devo, for instance (Evolutionary developmental biology) is showing us today how just a few regulatory genes, arranged in an intricate web with a hierarchy of control, has led to the development of much of the diversity of life.

In human sexual development there are at least 54 distinct genes involved before there are any hormones flowing, and the time, place and context of their activation/inactivation is crucial to the process. It's fair to say that there are at least dozens of gay/straight genes, with a similar number of male/female genes.

June 27, 2007 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As Jim has just clearly demonstrated, there is no proof that homosexuality is innate, and plenty of reason to think it might not be. Bizarre that Jim keeps thinking Collins supports the TTF position when he says unequivocally that what only a predisposition is innate; a predetermination is not. The nature of the predisposition is unknown and thus may turn wrong when certain external stresses are present, the predisposition making homosexuality an easiest adaption. It also could well be resistable and subject to correction by therapy.

Jim's unscientific assertion that "everybody just knows" homosexuality is innate is now what the MCPS curriculum says, flippantly inserted by the infamous O'Neill at the last moment.

And then there is pseudo-scientist, Dr Beyer, who defends this assault on rationality.

What a collection of kooks!

June 27, 2007 10:52 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

See this excerpt from

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
CLINICAL REPORT
Guidance for the Clinician in Rendering Pediatric Care
Barbara L. Frankowski, MD, MPH; and the Committee on Adolescence
Sexual Orientation and Adolescents

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/1827

Human sexual orientation most likely exists as a continuum from solely heterosexual to solely homosexual.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association reclassified homosexuality as a sexual orientation or expression and not a mental disorder.

The mechanisms for the development of a articular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental
influences. IN RECENT DECADES, BIOLOGICALLY BASED THEORIES HAVE BEEN FAVORED BY EXPERTS.
[capitalization added).

June 27, 2007 12:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The mechanisms for the development of a articular sexual orientation remain unclear,"

exactly

"but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice;"

why?

"A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed."

What are they and, besides conjecture, what are they based on?

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental
influences."

Other than political correctness, why have social, moral and personal factors been excluded as possibilities?

"IN RECENT DECADES, BIOLOGICALLY BASED THEORIES HAVE BEEN FAVORED BY EXPERTS."

Irrelevant, and undocumented anyway. Rather than just repeating this, why can no one explain why they think this? If they have basis, teach that, not how popular a theory is among scientists.

When you get down to it, scientists don't think we have a choice in anything we do. It's the nature of science to deny the reality of anything beyond the material world. That's led to a lot of suffering in the world.

June 27, 2007 1:05 PM  
Anonymous youwish said...

I grew up on a dairy farm and was around the manliest man you can think of during my upbringing. I was never abused, or molested (blah blah blah, as PFOX would have it). I had a very loving family, my parents are still happily married, but I knew I was different than other people... I realized I was "gay" when I was young but lived in such a hateful conservative area and could not come out in any way. When I did finally come out in high school, I was abused both physically and mentally by other students, harassed, etc... but my parents remain who they've always been: loving and accepting of who God wanted me to be. I wish everyone could have parents like that.

June 27, 2007 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BOSTON (June 27) - A trial that opened more than a year ago has become bogged down in Boston federal court. There have been hundreds of hours of testimony from witnesses, including 10 medical specialists paid tens of thousands of dollars. The judge himself even hired an expert to help him make sense of it.

The question at the center of the case: Should a murderer serving life in prison get a sex-change operation at taxpayer expense?

The case of Michelle - formerly Robert - Kosilek is being closely watched across the country by advocates for other inmates who want to undergo a sex change. Transgender inmates in other states have sued prison officials, and not one has succeeded in persuading a judge to order a sex-change operation.

The Massachusetts Correction Department is vigorously fighting Kosilek 's request for surgery, saying it would create a security nightmare and make Kosilek a target for sexual assault.

An Associated Press review of the case, including figures obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews, found that the Correction Department and its outside health care provider have spent more than $52,000 on experts to testify about an operation that would cost about $20,000.

The duration and expense of the case have outraged some lawmakers who insist that taxpayers should not have to pay for inmates to have surgery that most private insurers reject as elective.

"They are prisoners. They are there because they've broken the law," said Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who unsuccessfully introduced a bill to ban sex-change surgery for inmates. "Other folks, people who want to get these types of surgeries, they have to go through their insurance carrier or save up for it and do it independently. Yet if you are in prison, you can do it for nothing? That doesn't make a lot of sense."

But advocates say in some cases - such as that of Kosilek , who has twice attempted suicide - sex-change surgery is as much a medical necessity as treatment for diabetes or high blood pressure.

"The duty belongs to the prison to figure out how to fulfill its constitutional obligations to both provide adequate medical care and provide a fundamental security for all inmates," said Cole Thaler, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a gay- and transgender-rights group.

Kosilek , 58, was convicted of strangling his wife in 1990. He claimed he killed her in self-defense after she spilled boiling tea on his genitals.

Robert Kosilek legally changed his name to Michelle in 1993, and has sued the Correction Department twice, arguing that its refusal to allow a sex-change operation violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In 2002, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to medical treatment for gender identity disorder, but stopped short of ordering the surgery. Kosilek sued again in 2005, arguing that the hormone treatments, laser hair removal and psychotherapy she has received since Wolf's ruling have not relieved her anxiety and depression.

"I would not want to continue existing like this," Kosilek testified.

Kosilek 's second trial, which began in May 2006, has featured expert testimony from 10 doctors, psychiatrists and psychotherapists. Wolf has not indicated when he will rule.

The Correction Department has spent about $33,000 on two experts it retained to evaluate Kosilek . Both Cynthia Osborne, a Baltimore psychotherapist, and Chester Schmidt, a psychiatry professor at Johns Hopkins University, said Kosilek does not need the surgery. Schmidt's fee alone was $350 per hour.

Two other doctors retained and paid for by the department's outside health provider, the University of Massachusetts Correctional Health Program, at a cost of just under $19,000 said they believe the surgery is medically necessary for Kosilek . Two other doctors who work for the health provider agreed with that.

In addition, two psychiatrists who testified for Kosilek recommended the surgery. A Boston law firm representing Kosilek for free paid for those experts but would not disclose the cost.

In Wisconsin, five inmates sued after the Legislature passed a law that bars Correction Department funding for hormone treatments or sex-change surgery. The case is expected to go to trial in October.

Those who argue against allowing the surgery say it could open the floodgates to other inmates who want sex-change operations or other treatments considered elective.

In Massachusetts, 10 inmates have been diagnosed with gender identity disorder and are receiving hormone treatments. Two other inmates besides Kosilek have asked for sex-change surgery.

Corrections officials say their decision to deny the surgery has nothing to do with costs or the politics of crime. They cite the testimony of their experts and Kosilek herself that her feelings of depression have diminished since she began taking hormones.

Former Commissioner Kathleen Dennehy testified that allowing Kosilek to complete the transformation into a woman would present a security problem. Whether she stays in a male prison or is transferred to a female prison, she could become a target for sexual assault, Dennehy testified.

Dennehy also said prison officials cannot be influenced by Kosilek 's talk of suicide.

"The department does not negotiate or respond to threats of harm or suicide in an effort to barter," she said. "You couldn't run a prison with that kind of leveraging going on."

June 27, 2007 5:31 PM  
Anonymous t said...

Hey, Anon-

I bet you had a sex change... you just seem so hateful.

June 27, 2007 6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Hey, goofball Anon- Dr Beyer has degrees from Cornell and UPenn. You have degrees from what- Wiki U?

Did you come over here after Yahooboards closed?

June 27, 2007 9:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I bet you had a sex change... you just seem so hateful."

Interesting remark.

June 27, 2007 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hey, goofball Anon- Dr Beyer has degrees from Cornell and UPenn. You have degrees from what- Wiki U?"

George Bush has an Ivy League degree. And yet you and the good doctor think he's a blithering idiot.

June 28, 2007 1:35 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

I do not pretend to know how "smart" or how "well educated" our current President is. But we all know the difference between those admitted to Yale solely as legacies and those admitted on their own merit.

George W. Bush was the speaker at the 2001 Yale graduation of my older son (he was not a legacy). The President bragged about how he was a C Student at Yale, and still became President (not, of course, even alluding to the fact that his rise was largely -- or even almost entirely -- the result of his well-connected father's friends).

Ann Richards' 1988 comment about George H.W. Bush is more apt to the son: "He was born on third base, but thinks he hit a triple."

June 28, 2007 6:33 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"George Bush has an Ivy League degree. And yet you and the good doctor think he's a blithering idiot."

That's because he is a bliterhing idiot. He barely got by with his C average and was a rabble rousing frat boy. If it was not for Yale's legacy admission policy, which he now opposes, Dumbya never would have gotten in.

Bush drew attention, as he has in the past, to the fact that he followed his father into Yale University, even though he was a mediocre student. When he returned to Yale to deliver a commencement address in 2001, a few months after taking office, Bush was self-deprecating about his academic performance during his college days. "And to the C students, I say, 'You, too, can be president of the United States,' " he said then.

Yesterday, Bush again noted his family's ties to Yale, where his grandfather, who became a U.S. senator, went to college and his daughter Barbara received a degree this year. "Yeah, yeah. I thought you were referring to my legacy," he said when a journalist pressed him for his views on the admissions practice.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46572-2004Aug6.html

June 28, 2007 7:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
You, GA, on the other hand, think GB is a genius. Perhaps compared to you?
GB had no jobs except for what Daddy got him and probably even GB senior is sorry now- I know most of the country is.

I read right wing websites- and they don't support him either anymore- seeing Iraq being a disaster(not for the same reason I do), immigration reform and the impression on these sites that he is now cozying up to militant Islamic groups.

Pretty soon, GA, you will be his only fan.

June 28, 2007 8:50 AM  
Blogger Robert said...

In regards to the original post:

A pastor I was seeing several years ago for conversion therapy, after several months said to me:

"Robert, God made you the way you are, and God loves you the way you are."

That's all the explanation I need.

rrjr

June 28, 2007 12:15 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "[Gayness] also could well be resistable and subject to correction by therapy.

Such "therapy" has been tried for over 50 years and has failed miserably. The studies by Shidlo and Shroeder and Spitzer show that this "therapy" is almost always, if not always, a failure. That alone testifies to gayness being innate.

Anonymous said "Other than political correctness, why have social, moral and personal factors been excluded as possibilities?"
For precisely the reasons I mentioned above as well as the fact that pop-psych theories of gayness like distant fathers don't stand up to scrutiny. If distant fathers caused gayness there should have been a boom in gays after World War II because of all the absent fathers, there wasn't, thus discounting this theory altogether.

Anonymous said "[That biologically based theories of gayness have been favoured by experts is]Irrelevant, and undocumented anyway. Rather than just repeating this, why can no one explain why they think this? If they have basis, teach that, not how popular a theory is among scientists.

All manner of independent studies have pointed to gayness as being biologically based. None of them by themselves make the case, but taken as a whole the conclusion to most experts is all but certain, that gayness is biologically based. If it weren't there wouldn't be studies showing that gays have finger lengths more simllar to women than to heterosexual men, different fingerprint density than heterosexual men, hair worls that go the opposite direction of heterosexuals, different eye blink rates, hearing response, startle response, female typical reaction to pheromonmes in gay men, gay men produce differnt odours than straight men, mothers with same chromosone deactivation are much more likely to give birth to gays, men with more older biological brothers (living with them or not) are much more likely to be gay, and no doubt a varitety of other correlations I've forgotten.

June 29, 2007 11:37 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Jim notes the work of Simon Levay who discovered a grouping of cells associated with sexual activity was twice as large in straight men as it was in both gays and women. While the anti-gays have insisted that this was due to the men being infected with HIV studies of gay sheep have shown the same size differentials in the same brains structure. This makes it virtually certain that AIDS did not cause the size differential, but rather that the different brain structure causes men to be gay.

There you go anonymous, yet another solid reason why most experts favour a biological explanation for gayness.

June 29, 2007 11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not expect anyone on either side of the issue to like what I say, but...a cure for Homosexuality from both the liberal religious traditions and the that of Psychology. Allow me to state at the outset that I may indeed have found a real and workable cure. I choose to put this idea into the world not because I am greatly enamored of it but because I hope that if it is right, I may help to shape the message that such a cure sends. For too long the religious right has dominated any theological thought about a cure. This must change. What would happen if tomorrow a real cure was made by a group in the religious rights pocket such as NARTH? Imagine the fulcrum they would hold over what such a cure meant? I can here Jerry Falwell now.

May 07, 2010 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The liberal theologian might say that a cure is not needed, that the belief that homosexuality is wrong is itself incorrect and based off of bad theology and even worse definitions incorrectly added to the Bible. I would agree, see http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html or http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html. However, I state that this leaves gay males at a disadvantage. They make up roughly 7 percent of the population and can only have the hope of a monagamous relationship with that same 7 percent. Heterosexaul males make up roughly 41 percent of the population but have a pool of roughly 48 percent of the worlds population from which to choose a mate, heterosexual females. The remaining 4 percent of the popualtion being lesbians. My point is this, even a Fully liberal theologian sees the poverty of choices available. Not wrongness of choice, because as I said before this is biological orientation, not personality of the person chosen nor the peronality of the chooser.

May 07, 2010 1:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I put fourth a cure in the hopes of changing the theoligical, social, and even biological course of current research. In the past, the church and psychologists only thought about taking away the "unwanted" behavior. I propose increasing and using the current behavior. As you read I abjour you to remember Paul's famous quote,
'For in the Kingdom of Heaven their shall be neither male nor female"

So that others will not acuse me of puting the cart before the horse, I will start with a cure. Swedish researchers reported finding important differences in how the brains of straight men and gay men responded to two compounds suspected of being pheromones - those scent-related chemicals that are key to sexual arousal in animals. The first compound came from women's urine Androstenol ( (1,3,5(10),16-estratetraen-3-ol), the second from male sweat. Brain scans showed that when straight men smelled the female urine compound, their hypothalamus lit up. That didn't happen with gay men. Instead, their hypothalamus lit up when they smelled the male-sweat compound Androstenone (5 ALPHA ANDROST-16-EN-3 ONE and (4,16-
androstadien-3-one), which was the same way straight women had responded. This research once again connecting the hypothalamus to sexual orientation.

May 07, 2010 1:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that we know atleast some of the pheromones the body of male homosexuals desire, we know that any"cure" should probably include the male pheromone while blocking the female one. We know from a study with bed bugs that such an effect is possible. Insects communicate through the use of pheromones. Some tell insects ‘there’s an AWESOME breeding ground/food over here, guys’ and others tell members of the same species ‘I’m ready to get laid’. However, another class of pheromones appropriately named ‘alarm pheromones‘ tell other members of the same species ‘We’ve got to fucking leave. NOW!’ You’d be amazed how many insects communicate with one another. Cockroaches do it. Bees do it. Lightening bugs do it, too. Well, bed bugs release alarm pheromones just like other insects.

A lot of pheromones revolve around sex…but here’s the interesting thing: bed bugs don’t have sex pheromones. Instead, male bed bugs run up to any other individual which has recently fed and stab them with their penis. They really can’t tell the boys from the girls and will hook up with just about everyone which looks to be well fed. However, they tend to back off males after a few seconds.

May 07, 2010 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There’s been an increased interest in bed bug biology lately because of their recent insurgence back into our dwellings. They’re a nuisance, so some of this is to look for new ways to control them. Evolutionary biologists are looking at them as model organisms to study sexual conflict. Everybody’s interested in them for various reasons.

Camilla Ryne wanted to figure out how male bed bugs sorted the boys from the girls. We’ve known about alarm pheromones for awhile, and that they cause these guys to scatter. When the boys mount the boys, they release these pheromones…but when the boys mount the girls this isn’t released. Could be correlation…could be causation. Time to experiment.

As mentioned earlier, for this to work one male (the pitcher) needs to be starved and the other male (the catcher) needs to be fed. So this is exactly what she did…any of the ‘victims’ male or female were fed right before this happened and a starved male was introduced to the enclosure. To prevent the release of the alarm pheromone, she blocked the glands with nail polish. To simulate the pheromone, she applied bed-bug extract to females which were being mounted and properly controlled for the effects of the solvent.

May 07, 2010 1:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She found that males who had their alarm pheromone glands disabled were more susceptible to being stabbed by other males. Her control groups had about 2 instances of male-male pairing during the experiment, but the groups which had their glands disabled routinely had 3-5 pairings as well as longer pairing times in the groups with blocked glands.

In the groups with the blocked glands…there was also sperm transfer. They actually ejaculated into the hemocoel as if this were a female and not a male. This wasn’t observed in the male-male control pairings. For all intents and purposes, they were completely unable to tell they were having sex with a male.

Interestingly, the female-male interactions were similar to the male-male interactions. When the alarm pheromone was applied to the female, the time that it took the male to…*ahem* desert his post…was about the same as it took for a homosexual pairing to end. A little longer, but not statistically significant.

May 07, 2010 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So far our cure looks pretty easy. Add male pheromones. Find a chemical that blocks female pheromones without blocking the nasal neurons ability to accept and use the male pheromones.

Now add a few known factors for what makes for strongest biological bond pairing. A company called gene partner does just this. They look at major histamine compatability to find ones perfect match. The GenePartner project was inspired by a famous study performed by Prof. Dr. Wedekind at the University of Bern in Switzerland. In this study, Prof. Dr. Wedekind recruited female volunteers to smell T-shirts worn by men for three consecutive days and rate them for attractiveness. He then analyzed the particular part of DNA that codes for HLA (human leukocyte antigen) molecules and found that women preferred T-shirts from men whose HLA molecules were most different from their own. Sensing and classifying the HLA genes is something our bodies do automatically and subconsciously.

May 07, 2010 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HLA molecules play a central role in controlling the activation of immunological effectors during an immune response and are therefore essential for immune resistance. A greater variety in HLA genes offers a greater variety in possible immune responses. In terms of evolution, this makes perfect sense: children of couples with a higher variety in their HLA genes (and hence, immune responses) will have better protection from a greater variety of diseases. Simply put, this means that their body has more weapons to use in its defence against a disease. An important additional effect is that comparing HLA genes can help identify kinship and prevent potential inbreeding.

In 2003, the GenePartner team decided to take this discovery one step further and see if there are specific patterns of HLA genes that “attract” each other more. In collaboration with the Swiss Institute for Behavioural Genetics, they tested a large number of individuals (both romantically involved couples and persons not in a relationship) for their HLA genes. The results were astounding and led to the development of a formula that combines the diversity factor studied by Prof. Dr. Wedekind, together with several other evolutionary factors researched and developed by the Swiss Institute for Behavioral Genetics.

May 07, 2010 1:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The GenePartner formula measures the genetic compatibility between two individuals and makes an accurate prediction of the strength of their basis for a long-lasting and fulfilling romantic relationship.

Genetic compatibility

High diversity in specific immune system components ensures greater resistance against a variety of diseases. Our bodies automatically sense how diverse the immune systems of people around us are, and we subconsciously classify them depending on how genetically compatible they are to our own.

With genetically highly compatible people we feel that rare sensation of perfect chemistry. This is the body’s receptive and welcoming response when immune systems harmonise and fit together.

May 07, 2010 1:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The effects of genetic compatibility

Genetic compatibility results in an increased likelihood of forming an enduring and successful relationship. Research has also shown that the sex lives of genetically compatible partners are more satisfying than average.

Now our cure is getting more complicated. Add male pheromones. Make a perfume of the MALE mate with whom we would have genetic compatability. Find a chemical that blocks female pheromones without blocking the nasal neurons ability to accept and use the male pheromones or the gentically compatible partners natural aroma.

Finally a simple piece. Mix the whole thing into a substrate that might be used nasally. Vaseline comes to mind but I am quite certain better substrates could be found. Ideally, the substrate would last 24 hours and increase absorption when the bodyheated up, ie when having sex. Such technology is already available in many deodorants.

May 07, 2010 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Putting it all together, Add male pheromones. Make a perfume of the MALE mate with whom we would have genetic compatability. Find a chemical that blocks female pheromones without blocking the nasal neurons ability to accept and use the male pheromones or the gentically compatible male partners natural aroma. Mix the whole thing into a substrate that might be used nasally. Ideally one that would last 24 hours and increase absorption when the bodyheated up, ie when having sex.

The cure for Homosexuality would not be heterosexuality, but a prosthesis leading to all people smelling of the perfect love match. Over time imprinting would likely take place. Not just male humans but all humans would be the beloved. Not Heterosexuality but real choice, bisexuality.

May 07, 2010 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I end with the words of both Paul and Jesus.

5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.

5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness:
for they shall be filled.

5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children
of God.

5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake:
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

5:11 Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you,
and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

5:12 Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in
heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

"For there shall be neither male nor female in the Kingdom of Heaven"

If you beleive you can further the science I propse, please email biobricks@hotmai.com

May 07, 2010 1:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Homosexuality is not a disease, however, homophobia, i.e., thinking homosexuality is a disease is a disease.

You need to be cured of your phobia that homosexuality is a disease.

May 07, 2010 6:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You call that "science?"

The "science" you propose is infantile and simplistic. Your assumption that human beings choose their mates like bedbugs do is preposterous. There's a lot more than pheromones that goes into human mate selection.

Further, your unattributed theft of Cheshire's intellectual property is appalling. I suppose we should be grateful you at least used GenePartner's name for their article, which you also used without attribution and you failed to show where you altered it.

Someone genuinely pursing scientific study would never be so dishonest. Your bias, apparently based on your strong religious beliefs, appears to be what motivates you, not some desire to honestly analyze and discuss variations of human sexuality.

May 08, 2010 9:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home