No Specific Gay Gene a Good Thing

by on

5 Comments for “No Specific Gay Gene a Good Thing”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    Not really able to get in, so my sarcastic comment may be off-base.

    So instead of having a single gay gene, we have a closet gene, a down low gene, a dy… uh motorcycle gene, a fa…bulous gene, a femme gene…

  2. posted by mike king & David Bauler on

    oh, if one study says it, it must be 100% accurate. right? ?

    • posted by JohnInCA on

      Being skeptical of a single anomalous study is always appropriate.

      That said, this study is not a single anomalous study. It’s just the most recent in a long line of studies that keep confirming each other, which is how science works (you have one study that finds something surprising, other studies that confirm it, bigger, more in-depth studies that elaborate and further refine, replications that verify the first wasn’t fluke or fraud, etc. and so-on)

      And even going back to the 1993 study, it’s all basically been the same: yes, there’s a genetic component. No, it doesn’t explain everything. From there, different studies have pointed to things that might matter (a while back some research showed that epi-genetic effects were a likely culprit, the twin studies showing that having a gay twin made you much more likely to be gay then the base probability, the older brother studies, etc. and so-on)

      So yeah, don’t believe a single anomalous study. But don’t believe the journalists trying to spin this as a turn-about or refutation of previous studies either.

  3. posted by mike king & David Bauler on

    As for late-term abortions, “the left” tends to be leery of a ban that doesnt take into account certain health and safety realities.

    Very few people actually want abortion to always be legal or always be illegal. most people are somewhere in the middle.

    • posted by Jorge on

      “Very few people actually want” applies to a lot of social issues that get decided the few people way.

Comments are closed.