So Obama follows this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5ixmT83JE

I want McCain/Palin to win to give those folks the apoplexy and heartburn they so richly deserve.

Then why are gay men 10000000x more drama queenish than straight guys?

John,

I am a future genetic counselor, so let me explain a few things…

1-In humans, there are very few things regulated by a single gene. Even eye color, that high school biology example, is actually regulated by several genes such that two blue-eyed parents occasionally have a brown-eyed child (without anyone having an affair).

2-Much of the current thought is that, while ‘gay-ness’ is biological, it is not genetic. Those who advocate this view point to studies that show that a man is more likely to be gay if he has older brothers (or half-brothers on his mother’s side…it doesn’t hold true for half-brothers on the father’s side) and the more older brothers he has, the more likely he is to be gay. (The mechanism suggested is that the woman’s body recognizes fetal male hormones as ‘invaders’ and reacts to start destroying them and that this reaction increases with each pregnancy.)

3-Throughout history, few homosexuals have no offspring. This was even more so in societies that essentially required marriage…gays in heterosexual marriages would simply have affairs on the side and ALSO have children with their spouse. Even now, most gays have at least one heterosexual experience before figuring out that they are gay, to say nothing of the many people who had 3 kids and 20 years of marriage before coming out.

4-Gay men have fewer direct offspring than heterosexual men…but more indirect offspring through their maternal relatives. If there is a gene that has the effect of making a man gay (and thus having few or even no offspring) yet, in a woman, that same gene has the effect of increasing her fertility such that that family has more offspring overall in the next generation, that gene will be selected for.

5-Based on observations of animal sexual behaviors (particularly in primates), sexual interaction is a good way to increase group cohesion and to cement alliances. This is true whether the behavior is hetero or homo. Thus, anything that would increase the number of possible sexual partners an organism would interact with would be selected for.

Does Sully still claim to be a Catholic?

I remember when Ratzinger became Pope, Sullivan basically claiming to know what REAL Catholocism is better than his Holiness. Naturally I shot off a snarky email pointing out how incompatible that was with Catholocism… he gets very bitchy when you call him on his BS I highly recommend it.

And the only people who pay attention to his prattle anymore are libtards seeking an echo chamber and Networks seeking a “conservative” who will bash conservatives. Redundant?

But on the subject of his relevance, to turn a Robertsian phrase, the way to make Sullivan irrelevant is to stop making Sullivan relevant.

I also find it interesting that in conversations regarding the genetic component of homosexuality, the straight males tend to focus on the males and not the females. Hoping that the genetic factor will eventually limit that gay males of the population but will leave the female bi/lesbian community in tact for their viewing pleasure.

You mean how B Hussein Obama must support the views of his anti-American church? Oh, wait, that’s not the same, because when you’re a democrat, it’s “different”.

No problem, I understand those types of issues completely. And upon re-reading my initial post, it does “read” more confrontational that it was meant to be. Sorry for that. I’ll work on better phrasing in the future.

I apologize for assuming you were a troll. We get quite a few. I had just walked in the door after changing the brake pads and rotors on the car, I was tired and jumped to conclusions. Anyway, thanks for dropping in. Things do get heated ’round these parts, but there is often thought provoking commentary to be had here.

Dear Vera is the reason I began visiting this blog, and Ms. Charles’ witticisms (and appreciation of G&T’s as well as all marts, least of all Gibsons) earned this reader’s immense respect … as well as this reader’s first blog crush.

Where are thou, dearest Vera??? We need you back!!!

Troll alert seems a little harsh, I was asking the question that apparently the scientists in the article were asking (Does that make them trolls as well?). The idea of a gay gene tends to go against Darwin. If anything you could argue that if it is genetic its damn near proof positive that there is a God, because it seems unlikely that such a gene would exist in evolutionary biology, I suppose. Its an interesting concept that an x chromosome would lead to higher fertility in first generation while reducing the mating possibilities of the second generation, and yet would perpetuate itself.

Regardless, thanks for the link, its an interesting thought.

Does anybody still pay much attention to Sullivan’s prattle?

I can say that I never have.