Gay Gene


the link


this link is talking about: The Gay Gene: Assertions, Retractions, and Controversy I will explain this report in the same orderliness.. First, The introduction: he talked about Homosexuality and the rights of homosexuals, because he said that there is nothing that can prove that in the scientific way so that means that homosexuality can not get the rights to get married and other rights but he also said that we don’t know what the future can tell us; yes they did not find any thing that can prove that homosexual is genetic, but if they find that it is there, then that means that parents might elect to insert a heterosexual gene into their child or abort the child altogether. In the years from 1991 and the gays are forcing the media and seem to have a life of their own. Second, Preliminary Findings: in 1991 Simon LeVay from Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego found that there is a difference between heterosexual and homosexual young men brains, he says that the cluster of neurons known as INAH 3 in the hypothalamus were reduced in size in homosexual men, much to the same degree that the same group of neurons is reduced in women. On the other hand there was a problem with this discovery that LaVay himself is a homosexual and has lost his partner because of AIDS. The most important paper that reported on the (gay gene) was from Hamer et al. from NCI in the July 19, 1993 .Hamer reported that the linkage translated to a “99.5% certainty that there is a gene (or genes) in this area of the X chromosome that predisposes a male to become a heterosexual”. Next, media response: Newsweek was the first to talk about this issue .Hamer reported that the linkage translated to a “99.5% certainty that there is a gene (or genes) in this area of the X chromosome that predisposes a male to become a heterosexual”. After that USA Today talked about it, and it was the first newspaper to talk about it. Soon the Time magazine talked about it. In the Time article, some anti-gay activists liken the ‘homosexuality gene’ to other genetic links that society finds undesirable, such as “mental and physical illness.” Also, Reed Irvine of the watchdog group Accuracy in Media says, “It’s a little more complicated than a hereditary factor. The media have given zero attention to the many, many homosexuals who have gone straight. I think it’s sending the gays the wrong message to say that you cannot change because it’s something your genes have determined” (Henry, 1993). The pro-gay organizations had mixed feelings: on the one hand, knowing that sexual orientation is pre-determined gives homosexuals some relief from blame – from society, their parents, or themselves – but at the same time there is something to be said about the concept of their sexuality being thought of as a genetic ‘disease.’ In this manner they could be ostracized even more. Next, Problems Arise and Confusion Remains: The year 1995 marked beginning of the end of optimism for chromosome Xq28 as an indicator of male homosexuality. LeVay’s findings, the article reports, “have yet to be fully replicated by another researcher” (Horgan, 1995). Also, one study contradicted Hamer’s results and Scientific American reported that he had “been charged with research improprieties and is now under investigation by the Federal Office of Research Integrity,” which was basically a result of his excluding “pairs of brothers whose genetic makeup contradicted his finding” (Horgan, 1995). Another study by George Ebers and George Rice in 1995 indicated that “there is no reason to focus linkage studies on the X chromosome” and that there is “no evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son”. Finally, in 1999, George Rice and George Ebers found that their results “do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality”. Last,

Conclusion: In my opinion I think that the government should not give this any rights because it will make other people who have some other problems say that this is their right, for example People who take drugs. And if the governments open this door they won't be able to close it and the biggest example of that is Netherlands, where every thing is legal. And even after that there is a big percentage of suicide, so that means that even after they toke what they say that is their rights the didn't become happy! And they will not and never be happy if they go against nature.


Abdulla Alhumaidi