Can't you just explain it? Thats a non-googleable term, the best I got from it was a site pondering about homosexuality in other mammals that aren't primates.
Can't you just explain it? Thats a non-googleable term, the best I got from it was a site pondering about homosexuality in other mammals that aren't primates.
Really? Ah, yes, the article is down right now. I would have been more clear had I know it wasn't googleable. Anyway, with the magic of modern technology, two females can be biological parents of the same child. Furthermore, it is theoretically possible for children to inherit genes form three or more parents. So yes, two men can be the biological parents of a child. For the record, I got this from a dubious source, but it seemed to check out.
Well, Xzeno -- I'm not that good on Genealogy but I have heard of two lesbian mothers being biological parents of children, though as far as I know they can only be females [the offspring] -- then again, as you've said I've found some questionable sites telling me otherwise.
As for a child inheriting traits of three people... I find that VERY hard to believe. After all, to be human you need the right # of Chromosomes, and tampering to mix in traits from each and keeping the same # would be a scientific miracle on its own, I'm 100% sure that hasn't been accomplished yet. Has it?
But to just finish my point -- It might still be hard. Lets say the two Lesbian mothers who have children are around -- the earlier thought of 'monkey see monkey do/accept as a choice for later' is always there. Still hard to see as a trait between family members, and as far as I know we don't know where or what the Gene is. So the whole concept of the gay gene is still out of the concept :S
On thing said it was possible, but cited no sources. I don't really see why it wouldn't be possible, but maybe not with today's science?
So the whole concept of the gay gene is still out of the concept :S
What? Seriously? When did you choose to be heterosexual? I have never met a heterosexual who "chose". I have never met a homosexual who "chose". How would it make any evolutionary sense for nature to allow a choice?
It's really a marker founded by Dean Hamer on the X chromosome. This has since been put into dispute. Does this mean it has to be a choice? No. As I pointed out earlier there is other things suggesting hormonal effects on our development in the womb that could explain why people are gay.
Even if Deans theory turns out to be correct the term "gay gene" is not.
A cross-over event between the SRY gene (male-determining gene) on the Y chromosome during meiosis that causes the Y chromosome to lack the SRY gene could produce a sperm cell that lacks the gene that results in maleness, and when that sperm cell fuses with an egg to produce a zygote that also misses out on that SRY gene, the offspring will end up without the ability to express masculin traits, and probably will end up "gay".
In normal language, lack of masculinity (or gayness) is sometimes caused by gene make-up. However, I believe that homosexuality is most likely caused by social/psychological impacts. Just stereotyping people of being "gay" to make yourself feel better that them is sometimes enough to make them become homosexual.
Just stereotyping people of being "gay" to make yourself feel better that them is sometimes enough to make them become homosexual.
Nope. I remember an early experiment done on a boy. They had him raised as a girl, dressing, treating him as a she as he grew up. In all respects other then biology he was female. For a time the held this up as a success, saying the boy was now gay, proving homosexuality was a result of the environment. But later on in life he came out and stated that he still had an interest in girls, that no matter how much they treated him like a girl he still felt like a boy. If I also remember he felt somewhat robbed of his childhood by this as well.
I also remember hearing of a study being done around the same time on rats. The research had found that rats who behaved with homosexual tendencies had a slight mutation in there brains that made a certain spot in the brain more like that found in the opposite sex. Unfortunately a combination of lack of funding and trying to compete against the supposed success of the other experiment they were never able to determine if this same alteration was also found in the human brain.
Of course we have advanced far beyond these two experiments by now. But the debunked findings of the first one I think proves homosexuality to not be a result of nurture.
Might be a bit hard since it was a while ago I heard of these experiments but I will see if I can dig up a link or something.
A cross-over event between the SRY gene (male-determining gene) on the Y chromosome during meiosis that causes the Y chromosome to lack the SRY gene could produce a sperm cell that lacks the gene that results in maleness, and when that sperm cell fuses with an egg to produce a zygote that also misses out on that SRY gene, the offspring will end up without the ability to express masculin traits, and probably will end up "gay".
That's an ignorant idea. Just because your not masculine doesn't mean your gay.
