Why isn't this an important topic *anywhere*?

[Guy Fawkes]

The topic in question is xq28, the gene that some researchers say may be linked to sexuality; more specificaly, homosexuality. So why, when the whole country was talking about gay marriage, did no one mention this?


http://www.xq28.net/eng/research.html

[alittlelark]

1. Because the religious 'deprogramming' corporations

might not make big $$$ off desperate families if that came out


Although I have seen discussions on it on the Discovery Channel, and in a few papers...few and far between.

[Libralabrat]

2. Why not?

Because science scares religious zealots.....you can give them every bit of empirical data, and they will ignore it. They did the same thing to prove blacks were inferior. In short, they are psychos.

[Cleita]

3. Applause.

Welcome to DU. :thumbsup:

[CHIMO]

4. Some More Things To Study

Alice was 17 years old when she went to the doctor to find out why she still hadn't got her first period. He sent her on to a hospital for an internal check.
There, she was taken into a room for an ultrasound test. As the test was being administered, she saw the technician frown; he said that the machine didn't seem to be working, and they had better move to another room and try another machine. Again, there seemed to be something wrong. The technician left the room to call a doctor. The doctor looked at the machine, frowned too, and then did an internal check up. What he found was nothing. In Alice's body, he found no womb, no uterus, no ovaries. Nothing. And that's how Alice discovered she had AIS.

http://www.rnw.nl/special/en/html/040423vh.html

The audio portion is about half an hour. I found it hard to listen to. It is on the right side down the page a bit. Just imagine that you were in that situation.

[stranger_with_candy]

5. First i have seen it

Thanks for posting it.

[newyawker99]

6. Hi stranger_with_candy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[stranger_with_candy]

8. Thanks

newyawker99!!

[Cats Against Frist]

7. Because it's not true -- or at least not scientifically proven

And it WAS "big news" about 9-10 years ago. The Hamer study that produced the "xq28 theory," has never been able to be replicated, by scientists -- "replication" being one of the cornerstones of scientific theory.

Unless something has changed, recently, and I didn't hear about it. Homosexuals have clung to this "discovery" for almost a decade. Today you will hear some scientists say, "perhaps there is a biological or inherited factor," but, to my knowledge, there is still nothing more conclusive than speculation.

There is much more psychological evidence that homosexuality is a psychological condition. This is apparently not acceptable to say, because a post of mine was REMOVED for daring to suggest that homosexuality, though not a "choice," per se, can be almost entirely attributed to environmental factors, and develop much as any other sexual preference or fetish. "Deviance" is subjective, however, and the scientific community has found no cause to label homosexuality deviant, though it may originate in the same ways as other taboo sexual practices.

And I am not a "freeper," because I refuse to cling to certain lies that speckle "identity politics." I fully support hate crimes laws, anti-discrimination laws, and though I wish the government wouldn't legislate marriage at all, if they ARE going to, I think that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Why can't there be a gray area? The totalitarian mindset penetrates both the right and the left -- why is it so hard to conceive of the idea that homosexuality is psychological, yet not deem it "deviant" or "abnormal," when the actions involved take place between two (or more?) consenting adults? Why does it "have" to be biological?