I saw a guest speaker, David Frank, on the Colbert Report several weeks ago talking about this. I thought it might make for an interesting discussion. Here is a rather long, related article.

Apparently, research has indicated that there are certain physical manifestations that are more prevalent in homosexual men (they used men mostly because it was easiest to assess them) than heterosexual men. Things like hair whorls and the thumbprint density offer clues to the person's likely future sexuality from nearly the beginning of their lives.

At first, I thought this was wonderful...solid proof of nature over nurture so who could discriminate on the basis of sexuality if it is clearly a natural phenomenon? But after thinking about it a couple of minutes I wasn't so sure this is good. I see mothers blamed by ignorant fathers for doing "something wrong" while their boy was in utero. I can foresee children beaten up by school bullies on the basis of their hair whorls. I can foresee future funded genetic engineering (perhaps from large religious organizations especially) to smite out that "gay gene". Maybe this isn't a good thing afterall?

Questions:
Do you agree with this study's conclusions or see any major flaws with the research?
Is this a good or bad thing?

I read the link and it was not a specific study but a collection of hypothesis' and statistical observation. I did not see any specific scientific rationales to explain the relationships between the observations and sexual orientation. For example: the gene for white hair is physically close to the gene for blindness in many species. If you get one gene you are likely to get the other. That is why white animals are more likely to be blind. I did not see such a hypothesis put forth in the article. It was basic research without explanation. There were no conclusions in the article.

Any basic research in any area is a good thing as knowledge is always a good thing.

------------------

There was no solid proof of any physical manifestation definitively identifying one's sexual orientation.

Do you agree with this study's conclusions or see any major flaws with the research?

Correlation is not causality. It is interesting, but nothing conclusive one way or the other.


Is this a good or bad thing?
It's beside the point. Homosexuality isn't acceptable because it's predetermined, we don't let people off the hook because they had no choice. It's acceptable to people who have a rational understanding of morality because it hurts no one (quite the opposite, in fact). It doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not because if it were* it would be a perfectly valid choice.



*It isn't, of course. Anyone who has supposedly made this choice could tell you that, just as anyone who supposedly made the choice to be heterosexual that the idea of choice logically requires (for all but bisexual people) should be able to tell you. The fact that the bigots ignore something so blindingly obvious proves that facts and logic will get us nowhere.

Mrs P- one of the great misunderstandings of "nature vs nurture" is that there is a possibility of one without the other. For instance- you can have a genetic predisposition to smoke, but if you never have seen tobacco in your life, you have never smoked- you are a non-smoker due to enviroment, but a smoker by genetic trait- works the other way too- schizzophrenia is a classic one with major implications in a persons life. We know that schizzophrenia is a genetic predisposition- but not everyone that has the gene shows symptoms- it appears to need a very specific set of stressors in the more mild cases- but for the most part-college or basic training seem to be the biggie in most hospitalized cases od schizzophrenia- because it is the change and the stressor that activates the gene.

Here is one that happened to me- I gained about 90 "sympathy" pounds when my ex-wife was pregnant with our kids. On a routine physical, I was pretty bad as far as heart-healthy goes, because it turns out I have "metabolic syndrome" where guys like me get the least bit overwieght- we can fall over dead from a heart attack. I would have never had known, because I was the first male in my family to get fat. We all had the predisposition, but I was the first one with a sedentary enough lifestyle to express it!

Also- humans frequently do one thing when they are genetically predisposed to something else- personal drive, ambition and "will" are some things that make a gene a "liar"

The scariest part of all this is how close it comes to Eugenics on the "slippery slope"- like with your statement about religious groups trying to "snuff out" the "gay" gene- but, six generations later, we have some horribly mutated gene that is anti- survival from all this human "selective breeding/gene manipulation"-

So, I get very scared when someone reads TOO FAR into "there seems to be a genetic predisposition here"

Do you agree with this study's conclusions or see any major flaws with the research?
Is this a good or bad thing?

I'm not really competent enough to talk about the study's conclusions. I don't know the science or numbers to make a qualified opinion.

What I can say though is, I think its a bit of a wasted effort. Unless there is a distinct medical need to identify homosexuals, then to me this looks like nothing but an excuse to investigate people who do not need investigating. Wether or not that need comes from homophobes seekng to eradicate homosexuality or homosexuals seeking to identify themselves as a 'seperate sex' seems to me, utterly wasted. Homosexuality has been a fact of life since forever and its never going to go away (by itself). Seeking for ways to identify homsexuals serves no useful purpose, not for the homosexuals and not for the heterosexuals. Quite apart from anything else, it would serve to create all manner of misunderstandings... From Mrs P's linked article:
How many homophobes, after reading this will then automatically begin checking other peoples hands and forming opinions based on such spurius data?

The Nazi high command once sat about a table at Wannsee and tried to define who was and who was not a Jew. They were largely unable to do to so because so many years of interbreeding with non Jews had lent the concept of 'a Jew' so much ambiguity. They also attempted to use physical characteristics as a measure of who was Jewish and who was not. It got so paranoid that even some of the Nazi high command were thought to be partly Jewish when they displayed certain 'Jewish traits'.

This concern with homosexuals, and who is and who is not a homosexual strikes me as standing at the top of the Wannsee slope and eagerly looking down. It won't take much before people are being labelled as gay because their finger lengths indicate they are, or because their hair sits in certain way or their voice is not quite right. The Nazi's simply ended up slaughtering any one who fit the profile. It was easier (more cost effective) they reckoned.