Latest ads
-
Premium Land with House for Sale- anil1961
- Updated:
-
AWS Certified Solutions Architect-Associate + AWS Certified Cloud Practitioner- Sanjeewani95
- Updated:
-
🚀 එක පැකේජ් එකයි - මාසෙටම Unlimited Internet! 🌐- sayuru bandara
- Updated:
-
🎬 CapCut Pro 1 Month Access! LKR 600- sayuru bandara
- Updated:
-
🚀 Google One AI PRO Plan (Gemini Pro Activation) – 18 Months Access! LKR 2200- sayuru bandara
- Updated:
ලංකාව සමලිංගිකත්වයට සහය පළකරයි
- Thread starter Radioactive
- Start date
please read
about 300 species known to be involved in Homosexual acts
Also see
http://www.lgbtscience.org/dean-hamer/
Dr. Dean Hamer was an independent researcher at the National Institutes of Health for 35 years, where he directed the Gene Structure and Regulation Section at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. In 1993, he published a landmark paper showing that the Xq28 marker on the X chromosome was linked to homosexuality. Dr. Hamer received his Ph.D. from Harvard Medical School.
As the researcher who showed a genetic link to homosexuality, your research is often distorted.
I think that groups like Focus on the Family are misusing the idea of science to promote their own cultural and religious ideas. The science is really convincing that genes and biological factors are very important.
Anti-gay activists love to say, “there is no gay gene.” What is your response?
People on the right often say “there is no gay gene.” They will even cite me when I say there is no single gay gene. And that is correct, just as it’s true that there is no height gene. There is no eye color gene, and there is no hair color gene. All of those traits are controlled by a large number of genes that interact with one another and interact with the environment. But that doesn’t mean that those traits aren’t largely genetic. So, there are probably many different genes that affect sexual orientation. We don’t know what they are yet. We don’t know exactly how they work. But there is very convincing evidence that they do exist.
Why isn’t there more research on the etiology of sexual orientation?
The main thing that’s holding back research on sexual orientation now is the lack of funding. And that is largely because the right wing so vehemently opposes this type of research. If we had the same amount of research on the ‘gay gene’ as we do on a lot of other genes for behavioral traits, we will have a breakthrough very quickly.
Anti-gay organizations like to claim environmental factors cause homosexuality – such as bad parenting or sexual abuse. To make their point, they often cite scientists who use the term “environment.” But what do scientists actually mean when they use this word?
The environment could be something like having measles when you are three years old. The environment could be the exposure to hormones in the mother’s womb. It could be anything that is not inherited. One of the great things about behavioral genetics is that it can tell us not only whether a trait is genetic, but also whether it is environmental and what type of environment is important. And geneticists distinguish between shared environment which is things like the way parents treat children or the schools that they go to, or whether or not they go to the Cub Scouts, and other more random environmental factors.
All of the evidence shows that there is nothing in a person’s upbringing that causes them to be gay. Just like there is nothing in a person’s upbringing that causes them to be straight. What we do know is that none of the factors that used to be suspected like having a father that was distant, having a mother that was too close, playing too much ball with Sally or not playing enough ball with Tommy — we know that none of those are important. None of them have held up to careful controlled research.
Talk about factors other than genes that play a role in sexual orientation.
In addition to the genetic research, there have been a large number of studies of other traits that seem to be correlated with sexual orientation. This includes certain acoustic clicks in the ear. The length of different digits, handedness, and so on and so forth. And all of these are probably markers of underlying sexual development events that are important for sexual orientation. So they may not necessarily cause a person to be gay or straight but they are related to the same biological pathways. I think that the critical point is that none of these are choice, none of them are even learned. These are biological markers for something very deep that goes on inside people.
about 300 species known to be involved in Homosexual acts
Also see
http://www.lgbtscience.org/dean-hamer/
Dr. Dean Hamer was an independent researcher at the National Institutes of Health for 35 years, where he directed the Gene Structure and Regulation Section at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. In 1993, he published a landmark paper showing that the Xq28 marker on the X chromosome was linked to homosexuality. Dr. Hamer received his Ph.D. from Harvard Medical School.
As the researcher who showed a genetic link to homosexuality, your research is often distorted.
I think that groups like Focus on the Family are misusing the idea of science to promote their own cultural and religious ideas. The science is really convincing that genes and biological factors are very important.
Anti-gay activists love to say, “there is no gay gene.” What is your response?
People on the right often say “there is no gay gene.” They will even cite me when I say there is no single gay gene. And that is correct, just as it’s true that there is no height gene. There is no eye color gene, and there is no hair color gene. All of those traits are controlled by a large number of genes that interact with one another and interact with the environment. But that doesn’t mean that those traits aren’t largely genetic. So, there are probably many different genes that affect sexual orientation. We don’t know what they are yet. We don’t know exactly how they work. But there is very convincing evidence that they do exist.
Why isn’t there more research on the etiology of sexual orientation?
The main thing that’s holding back research on sexual orientation now is the lack of funding. And that is largely because the right wing so vehemently opposes this type of research. If we had the same amount of research on the ‘gay gene’ as we do on a lot of other genes for behavioral traits, we will have a breakthrough very quickly.
Anti-gay organizations like to claim environmental factors cause homosexuality – such as bad parenting or sexual abuse. To make their point, they often cite scientists who use the term “environment.” But what do scientists actually mean when they use this word?
The environment could be something like having measles when you are three years old. The environment could be the exposure to hormones in the mother’s womb. It could be anything that is not inherited. One of the great things about behavioral genetics is that it can tell us not only whether a trait is genetic, but also whether it is environmental and what type of environment is important. And geneticists distinguish between shared environment which is things like the way parents treat children or the schools that they go to, or whether or not they go to the Cub Scouts, and other more random environmental factors.
All of the evidence shows that there is nothing in a person’s upbringing that causes them to be gay. Just like there is nothing in a person’s upbringing that causes them to be straight. What we do know is that none of the factors that used to be suspected like having a father that was distant, having a mother that was too close, playing too much ball with Sally or not playing enough ball with Tommy — we know that none of those are important. None of them have held up to careful controlled research.
Talk about factors other than genes that play a role in sexual orientation.
In addition to the genetic research, there have been a large number of studies of other traits that seem to be correlated with sexual orientation. This includes certain acoustic clicks in the ear. The length of different digits, handedness, and so on and so forth. And all of these are probably markers of underlying sexual development events that are important for sexual orientation. So they may not necessarily cause a person to be gay or straight but they are related to the same biological pathways. I think that the critical point is that none of these are choice, none of them are even learned. These are biological markers for something very deep that goes on inside people.
Last edited:
Study of gay brothers may confirm X chromosome link to homosexuality
Science article
Kelly is a staff writer at Science.
By Kelly Servick 17 November 2014 11:00 am
Dean Hamer finally feels vindicated. More than 20 years ago, in a study that triggered both scientific and cultural controversy, the molecular biologist offered the first direct evidence of a “gay gene,” by identifying a stretch on the X chromosome likely associated with homosexuality. But several subsequent studies called his finding into question. Now the largest independent replication effort so far, looking at 409 pairs of gay brothers, fingers the same region on the X. “When you first find something out of the entire genome, you’re always wondering if it was just by chance,” says Hamer, who asserts that new research “clarifies the matter absolutely.”
But not everyone finds the results convincing. And the kind of DNA analysis used, known as a genetic linkage study, has largely been superseded by other techniques. Due to the limitations of this approach, the new work also fails to provide what behavioral geneticists really crave: specific genes that might underlie homosexuality.
Few scientists have ventured into this line of research. When the genetics of being gay comes up at scientific meetings, “sometimes even behavioral geneticists kind of wrinkle up their noses,” says Kenneth Kendler, a psychiatric geneticist at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. That’s partially because the science itself is so complex. Studies comparing identical and fraternal twins suggest there is some heritable component to homosexuality, but no one believes that a single gene or genes can make a person gay. Any genetic predispositions probably interact with environmental factors that influence development of a sexual orientation.
Several genomic studies have suggested regions that might influence sexual orientation, but they have relied on small numbers of participants and have been challenged repeatedly. In 1993, Hamer, then at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, published the first of these studies, suggesting that a specific stretch of the X chromosome called Xq28 holds a gene or genes that predispose a man to being gay.
The finding made some evolutionary sense. An X-linked gene for homosexuality has long been proposed as a way to explain how the trait persists in the population even though gay men tend to have fewer offspring: The gene could increase fertility in females, who would have two “chances” to inherit it.
Science article
Kelly is a staff writer at Science.
By Kelly Servick 17 November 2014 11:00 am
Dean Hamer finally feels vindicated. More than 20 years ago, in a study that triggered both scientific and cultural controversy, the molecular biologist offered the first direct evidence of a “gay gene,” by identifying a stretch on the X chromosome likely associated with homosexuality. But several subsequent studies called his finding into question. Now the largest independent replication effort so far, looking at 409 pairs of gay brothers, fingers the same region on the X. “When you first find something out of the entire genome, you’re always wondering if it was just by chance,” says Hamer, who asserts that new research “clarifies the matter absolutely.”
But not everyone finds the results convincing. And the kind of DNA analysis used, known as a genetic linkage study, has largely been superseded by other techniques. Due to the limitations of this approach, the new work also fails to provide what behavioral geneticists really crave: specific genes that might underlie homosexuality.
Few scientists have ventured into this line of research. When the genetics of being gay comes up at scientific meetings, “sometimes even behavioral geneticists kind of wrinkle up their noses,” says Kenneth Kendler, a psychiatric geneticist at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. That’s partially because the science itself is so complex. Studies comparing identical and fraternal twins suggest there is some heritable component to homosexuality, but no one believes that a single gene or genes can make a person gay. Any genetic predispositions probably interact with environmental factors that influence development of a sexual orientation.
Several genomic studies have suggested regions that might influence sexual orientation, but they have relied on small numbers of participants and have been challenged repeatedly. In 1993, Hamer, then at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, published the first of these studies, suggesting that a specific stretch of the X chromosome called Xq28 holds a gene or genes that predispose a man to being gay.
The finding made some evolutionary sense. An X-linked gene for homosexuality has long been proposed as a way to explain how the trait persists in the population even though gay men tend to have fewer offspring: The gene could increase fertility in females, who would have two “chances” to inherit it.
please read
about 300 species known to be involved in Homosexual acts
Also see
http://www.lgbtscience.org/dean-hamer/
Dr. Dean Hamer was an independent researcher at the National Institutes of Health for 35 years, where he directed the Gene Structure and Regulation Section at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. In 1993, he published a landmark paper showing that the Xq28 marker on the X chromosome was linked to homosexuality. Dr. Hamer received his Ph.D. from Harvard Medical School.
As the researcher who showed a genetic link to homosexuality, your research is often distorted.
I think that groups like Focus on the Family are misusing the idea of science to promote their own cultural and religious ideas. The science is really convincing that genes and biological factors are very important.
Anti-gay activists love to say, “there is no gay gene.” What is your response?
People on the right often say “there is no gay gene.” They will even cite me when I say there is no single gay gene. And that is correct, just as it’s true that there is no height gene. There is no eye color gene, and there is no hair color gene. All of those traits are controlled by a large number of genes that interact with one another and interact with the environment. But that doesn’t mean that those traits aren’t largely genetic. So, there are probably many different genes that affect sexual orientation. We don’t know what they are yet. We don’t know exactly how they work. But there is very convincing evidence that they do exist.
Why isn’t there more research on the etiology of sexual orientation?
The main thing that’s holding back research on sexual orientation now is the lack of funding. And that is largely because the right wing so vehemently opposes this type of research. If we had the same amount of research on the ‘gay gene’ as we do on a lot of other genes for behavioral traits, we will have a breakthrough very quickly.
Anti-gay organizations like to claim environmental factors cause homosexuality – such as bad parenting or sexual abuse. To make their point, they often cite scientists who use the term “environment.” But what do scientists actually mean when they use this word?
The environment could be something like having measles when you are three years old. The environment could be the exposure to hormones in the mother’s womb. It could be anything that is not inherited. One of the great things about behavioral genetics is that it can tell us not only whether a trait is genetic, but also whether it is environmental and what type of environment is important. And geneticists distinguish between shared environment which is things like the way parents treat children or the schools that they go to, or whether or not they go to the Cub Scouts, and other more random environmental factors.
All of the evidence shows that there is nothing in a person’s upbringing that causes them to be gay. Just like there is nothing in a person’s upbringing that causes them to be straight. What we do know is that none of the factors that used to be suspected like having a father that was distant, having a mother that was too close, playing too much ball with Sally or not playing enough ball with Tommy — we know that none of those are important. None of them have held up to careful controlled research.
Talk about factors other than genes that play a role in sexual orientation.
In addition to the genetic research, there have been a large number of studies of other traits that seem to be correlated with sexual orientation. This includes certain acoustic clicks in the ear. The length of different digits, handedness, and so on and so forth. And all of these are probably markers of underlying sexual development events that are important for sexual orientation. So they may not necessarily cause a person to be gay or straight but they are related to the same biological pathways. I think that the critical point is that none of these are choice, none of them are even learned. These are biological markers for something very deep that goes on inside people.
සත්තු ගැන එක බොරුවක්.
www.narth.org/docs/animalmyth.html
දෙවැනි එකත් බොරුවක්
http://www.narth.org/docs/hom101.html
when asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, gay gene researcher, Dean Hamer, replied, "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors" (Anastasia, 1995, p. 43). In addition, brain researcher Simon LeVay has acknowledged that multiple factors may contribute to a homosexual orientation (LeVay, 1996).
These are not peer reviewed research and does not recognized by scientific community !
in other words anyone can say what ever they want but will not accept as scientific research.
මචන් උබට හරියට කියව ගන්න බැරිද? soley rooted කියන්නෙ 100% ජානවල සම්බන්දයක් තියෙනවාද කියන ප්රස්නෙට උත්තරය. Dean Hamer ගේ රිසර්ච් වල ජානමය පැත්ත පෙන්නල තියෙනවා.
සත්තුන්ගේ කේස් එකටත් උඹ බොරුවක් කියල දාලා තියෙන්නේ නිකං පිටු 2ක වෙබ් පේජ් එකක් නේ බං?
ඒක කියවල බලපං ඒකේත් පිලි අරං තියෙනවා සත්තු අතර සමලිංගික චර්යාව තියෙනවා කියලා!
මොකද සයන්ස් ආටිකල් එක ගැන කියන්නේ? ඒකත් බොරුද?
මචන් උබට හරියට කියව ගන්න බැරිද? soley rooted කියන්නෙ 100% ජානවල සම්බන්දයක් තියෙනවාද කියන ප්රස්නෙට උත්තරය. Dean Hamer ගේ රිසර්ච් වල ජානමය පැත්ත පෙන්නල තියෙනවා.
සත්තුන්ගේ කේස් එකටත් උඹ බොරුවක් කියල දාලා තියෙන්නේ නිකං පිටු 2ක වෙබ් පේජ් එකක් නේ බං?
මොකද සයන්ස් ආටිකල් එක ගැන කියන්නේ? ඒකත් බොරුද?
සරල ප්රශ්නයක්..
උඹ පිළිගන්නවද ළමයෙක් හරි විදිහට හැදෙන්න පවුලක මවක් හා පියෙක් සිටිය යුතු බව?
Last edited:
මචන් උබට හරියට කියව ගන්න බැරිද? soley rooted කියන්නෙ 100% ජානවල සම්බන්දයක් තියෙනවාද කියන ප්රස්නෙට උත්තරය. Dean Hamer ගේ රිසර්ච් වල ජානමය පැත්ත පෙන්නල තියෙනවා.
සත්තුන්ගේ කේස් එකටත් උඹ බොරුවක් කියල දාලා තියෙන්නේ නිකං පිටු 2ක වෙබ් පේජ් එකක් නේ බං?
මොකද සයන්ස් ආටිකල් එක ගැන කියන්නේ? ඒකත් බොරුද?
මුනුත් එක්ක ඔව්ව කතාකරලා වැඩක් නෑ බන්, දැන් කියය් අපිත් ගේ කියල , මුන් ලින්කන්ගේ කාලේ හිටියනං කතාවක් හදය් ලින්කන් කල්ලෙක් ගේ හොර ෂොට් එකක් නිසා තමය් කලුජාතිකයන්ගේ අයිතිවාසිකම් වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටින්නේ කියල
මම උබට එක පාරක් කිව්වේ. සමලිංගිකත්වය කියන එක බටහිර දැන් දේශපාළණිකමය දෙයක් වෙලා තියෙන්නේ. APA එකටත් දේශපාළණිකමය බලපෑම් ඇවිත් තිබුන නිසයි උනුත් එක මානසික රෝග ලැයිස්තුවෙන් ඉවත් කරේ. එහෙම ඒවාට peer reviews එකක් බලාපොරොත්තු වෙන්න බෑ මොකද එහෙම කරොත් ඒකට සහභාගිවෙන එවුන්ගේ රස්සාවට තට්ටුවෙන වැඩක් වෙන්නේ. ඒක තමයි මෙතනින් මම උබට කිව්වේ.
අනික peer review වුන පළීයට කිසිම research එකක් ඇත්ත නෑ. එකම ජාතියේ හිතන එවුන් කොටසක් research එක review කරොත් අන්තිම මතය biased වෙන්න පුලුවන්.
circumcision research මේ වගේ, යුදෙව්වෝ නිසා කවදාවත් ඒක අහිතකරයි කියලා කියන්නේ නෑ.
යුදෙව්වෝ කියන්නේ බටහිර දේශපාළණිකමය අතින් ප්රබල කොටසක් ඉතින් උන්ගේ faith එකට කාටවත් බෑ පහර ගහන්න. දේශපාළණයට එනකොට සත්යය විකෘති වෙනවා.
උබ ඉන්නේ biased view එකකයි, ඕක ඉවත් කරලා විවෘත මනසක් හදාගනින්.
මචන් උබට හරියට කියව ගන්න බැරිද? soley rooted කියන්නෙ 100% ජානවල සම්බන්දයක් තියෙනවාද කියන ප්රස්නෙට උත්තරය. Dean Hamer ගේ රිසර්ච් වල ජානමය පැත්ත පෙන්නල තියෙනවා.
සත්තුන්ගේ කේස් එකටත් උඹ බොරුවක් කියල දාලා තියෙන්නේ නිකං පිටු 2ක වෙබ් පේජ් එකක් නේ බං?
මොකද සයන්ස් ආටිකල් එක ගැන කියන්නේ? ඒකත් බොරුද?
උබටත් කියවන්න බැරිද බන්?සමලිංගිකත්වය කියන්නේ "Animal Instinct" නෙවෙයි, ඒක විශේෂ අවස්ථාව හරියට
cannibalism වගේ. උබ ගිහින් මිනිස්සු මරාගෙන කනවද?
රාහුල කුමාරයා හැදුනේ පිරිමියෙකුගෙනුයි, ගෑණියෙකුගෙනුයි නැතුව කොල්ලෝ ගහලා ආප්ප ගහලා හැදුන කෙනෙක් නෙවෙයි නේ. ගොනෙක් වුනාට ගොන් කතා කියන්න එපා මචන්.
මම මූව දැක්කේ ඊයේ පෙරේදා බං. කලින් දැකලා නෑ.
math mooge ewa dakinna aran echchara kal na mage hithe.
me year eke jan wala idanda mnda mooge ewa dakke
මුනුත් එක්ක ඔව්ව කතාකරලා වැඩක් නෑ බන්, දැන් කියය් අපිත් ගේ කියල , මුන් ලින්කන්ගේ කාලේ හිටියනං කතාවක් හදය් ලින්කන් කල්ලෙක් ගේ හොර ෂොට් එකක් නිසා තමය් කලුජාතිකයන්ගේ අයිතිවාසිකම් වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටින්නේ කියල
උබටත් කියලා වැඩක් නෑ බන්.
එක්කෝ උබ brainwash වෙච්ච එකෙක් නැත්නම් උබත් කොලුකාරයෙක්. මට කියන්න තියෙන්නේ එච්චරයි.
Similar threads
