Political Crossfire Forums

[Demonic Spoon]

Okay. Homosexuality is being promoted as genetic...but that does not make sense.

homosexuality CANNOT be a dominant allele, since it's far too rare. It is also too common for it to be a random genetic mutation. It, therefore, must be a recessive allele. So, then, anytime in the future that a person with two recessive alleles would not reproduce (since that would mean they are gay).


Two counters to this arguement commonly are:

1) Carriers could exist and spread the gene without being gay themselves. They could, but even if two carriers mate, there is a 1/4 chance of the gay gene being elminated, and if the more likely pair of a noncarrier and a carrier occurs, then it's a 1/2 chance for the gene to be eliminated. Since there are so many chances for the gene to be eliminated, and none for the gene to become common, it would have definately been eliminated by now.

Also, you must ask how the gene originally came INTO existance. Evolution occurs when a mutation occurs (or something else that causes genetic variation, like "crossing-over") and the mutation is beneficial, causing the creature to reproduce more often. If homosexuality was once a mutation, it would not have prevailed, since it hinders-not helps-the ability of the animal to reproduce

2) Gay people can reproduce with artificial insemination. While this is technically true, artificial insemination has not existed in animal history long enough to ensure the prevailence of the gay gene.

It is physically impossible for a "Gay" gene to have been created and lasted this long in the evolutionary chain. Therefore, homosexuality comes from two places

1) Choice (which is not true homosexuality, since there is no attraction; it is just to get attention)
2) Chemical imbalances in the brain (more common), which is far more plausable than genetics, since it is hormones and chemicals in your brain, not genetics, that create sexual attraction.

[cap'n queasy]

It's a lifestyle choice.

[StrangerWitCandy]

cap'n queasy wrote: It's a lifestyle choice.

I assume you made the conscious decision to become a heterosexual at some point, not because you became actually attracted to the opposite sex right?

[Demonic Spoon]

Lifestyle? Not a lifestyle...were it a lifestyle, every gay person would act stereotypically gay...where as typically most gay people don't act like the stereotype.

[StrangerWitCandy]

I don't know how one becomes gay exactly. I could see it quite possibly being chemicals in the brain though.

[F'losrix]

Demonic Spoon wrote: 2) Gay people can reproduce with artificial insemination. While this is technically true, artificial insemination has not existed in animal history long enough to ensure the prevailence of the gay gene.
Just because a person is gay, that doesn't mean they're incapable of reproducing 'the old fashioned way'. :wink:

In the past, a lot of gay people entered into heterosexual marriages and produced chlidren because it was the only acceptable way to live.

In the present day, a fair number of gay people don't come to terms with being homosexual until after they've already pursued a heterosexual marriage and produced children.

Quote: It is physically impossible for a "Gay" gene to have been created and lasted this long in the evolutionary chain. Therefore, homosexuality comes from two places
1) It does appear that there is no single gene that causes homosexuality.
2) It may arise from the combined interaction of several genes, hormones and as yet unknown environmental influences.

Quote: 1) Choice (which is not true homosexuality, since there is no attraction; it is just to get attention)
What percentage of gay people do you think this applies to? I'd say few to none, myself - I can't imagine anyone wanting that sort of attention (meaning the constant hate from family, peers, church leaders, and by extension the government).

Quote: 2) Chemical imbalances in the brain (more common), which is far more plausable than genetics, since it is hormones and chemicals in your brain, not genetics, that create sexual attraction.
Which ignores the possible genetic causes for those chemical imbalances to take place, if indeed this is the cause. I personally think a purely 'chemical imbalance' explanation would be too simple; you'd think there'd be a 'cure' by now, in that case.

What you haven't considered is that not everything that is genetic is necessarily 'inherited' as a dominant or recessive gene. Consider intersex conditions, which definitely arise from a genetic cause, but are not generally speaking a mutation that is passed down.

What I think is more likely as the cause of homosexuality is an unusual combination of genes giving someone a predisposition. The trait becoming fully manifested then depends on hormonal influences in combination with environmental factors that serve to imbed this into a person's psyche. There may even be more than one combination of genes that give rise to it, and they're probably different for gay men vs. lesbians.

Proving that theory will take a lot more research and probably technological capabilities that don't exist yet.

Saying that we know concretely one way or the other how homosexuality develops is asinine. We have lots of clues, but no firm answers.

[F'losrix]

cap'n queasy wrote: It's a lifestyle choice.
Proof? When exactly does one choose? Why would someone make that choice? Do you have personal knowledge of it being a choice?

As for it being a lifestyle, I will post for the umpteenth time why it isn't:

Lifestyle is a way of living based on identifiable patterns of behaviour based on an individual’s choice, influenced by the individual’s personal characteristics, their social interactions, and socioeconomic and environmental factors.

For homosexuality to be a 'lifestyle', gay people would have to share these things in common. They don't. We are as just as diverse as heterosexuals in our lifestyles.

Is heterosexuality a lifestyle choice?

What a ridiculous notion.

[SavannahMan]

People make all sorts of poor lifestyle choices all the time - what we have here is people unwilling to take responsibility for their choices and instead wanting to blame it on Mother Nature.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Is heterosexuality a lifestyle choice?

I would say yes. A monogamous heterosexual relationship is how we were designed to exist. Our society is based on it. All this promotion of deviant lifestyles is an effort to destroy our culture.

[Demonic Spoon]

Percent? I don't know, but there are many stories of the "flaming" gays who are more feminine than most girls. Most of these are likely just out for attention.

And I'm talking about BEFORE civilization evolved. Most of humanity's lifespan did not include marriages, and complex social structure. You're forgetting the 40,000 years of the Paleolithic Stone Age (before agriculture and civilization) plus the millions of years of evolution. Plus, there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom, which is rare. Why have the "gay genes" not been filtered out via natural selection?

And as for it being polygenic, it would still be filtered out of the gene pool in the manner I described above. It would take a longer time, but we've had millions of years of evolution to do it. Why hasn't it happened? Why has no animal's homosexuality been eliminated from the gene pool?


And just because it's chemical does not mean there's a cure for it. Plus, it is not really a problem that desperately needs solving, like other chemical imbalances could be. So basically

1) not a lot of research has been done on it
2) Those who deem it enough of a problem to warrent their time in research are usually morons
3) Whether it's chemical or genetic is still being debated, so people would assume such research to be wasted.

[floridaguy]

SavannahMan wrote: People make all sorts of poor lifestyle choices all the time - what we have here is people unwilling to take responsibility for their choices and instead wanting to blame it on Mother Nature. Who says its a poor lifestyle choice? You? When did you choose to be heterosexual?

[floridaguy]

Demonic Spoon wrote: It is physically impossible for a "Gay" gene to have been created and lasted this long in the evolutionary chain. Therefore, homosexuality comes from two places

1) Choice (which is not true homosexuality, since there is no attraction; it is just to get attention)
2) Chemical imbalances in the brain (more common), which is far more plausable than genetics, since it is hormones and chemicals in your brain, not genetics, that create sexual attraction. Are you saying that its possible to choose sexuality. If you were with another man and there was no attraction you would have no problems when it came to sex? If its a choice I don't see how you could. That doesn't make a bit of sense to me. Could you please explain how you can make something that happens naturally through attraction happen on its own? And why in the hell would someone want to do that? For attention? I'm don't follow your logic.

[cap'n queasy]

floridaguy wrote: SavannahMan wrote: People make all sorts of poor lifestyle choices all the time - what we have here is people unwilling to take responsibility for their choices and instead wanting to blame it on Mother Nature. Who says its a poor lifestyle choice? You? When did you choose to be heterosexual?

One does not choose to be normal, they might choose to be abnormal, however. For what ever reason that may be, I don't know why anyone would choose that. It doesn't make much sense to me.

You can see a man and a woman parts were made physically to go together.

The parts don't match up in homosexual couples. We are not physically designed to do that. Only by a type of delusional thinking would anyone come to the opposite conclusion, that we are designed for this and it is healthy and even good.

It's a free world, however, and I don't see any reason for animosity towards gays. It's just another way that people can get messed up in their thinking. I feel sorry for them actually. It must be a emotionally painful life.

[Demonic Spoon]

Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Are they "choosing to be different"?

And Floridaguy: Clarification is needed. "Choice" is not homosexuality at all; it is pretending. Someone who makes a choice to do it is out for attention, not legitimately attracted to people.

And yes, if homosexuality is chemical, then it is possible to change. Hell, even if it's genetic (which it is not) then it is possible to change.

[Gryff1nd0r]

cap'n queasy wrote:

One does not choose to be normal, they might choose to be abnormal, however.

Nobody would choose that. Could you possibly choose to live a gay lifestyle? I don't think so. Even for attention, sexual attractions are strong, and if you were attracted to the opposite sex, you wouldn't go your entire life pretending that you weren't.

cap'n queasy wrote: For what ever reason that may be, I don't know why anyone would choose that.

Because they don't.

cap'n queasy wrote:
Only by a type of delusional thinking would anyone come to the opposite conclusion, that we are designed for this and it is healthy and even good.

It is not a matter of being "designed for it", it is just a matter of who you are attracted to. Why is it not healthy? Why is it not good?

cap'n queasy wrote:
It's just another way that people can get messed up in their thinking. I feel sorry for them actually. It must be a emotionally painful life.

They are not "messed up in their thinking", it is just the way they are wired.

It is only emotionally painful because of intolerant, arrogant people who are afraid of what they don't understand, or put themselves on a twisted, moral pedistal. The fact of the matter is that for a gay person, it would be a much more emotionally painful life to try and live as a heterosexual.

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: People make all sorts of poor lifestyle choices all the time - what we have here is people unwilling to take responsibility for their choices and instead wanting to blame it on Mother Nature.
Answer me these questions, please:

1) Why do they choose it?

2) If it is a choice, why don't they want to take responsibility for it?

3) What, in your view, does that 'responsibility' entail?

4) Why do you assume they are looking for someplace to shift blame for it?

5) Just how do you think sexuality develops? Why do you assume it develops the same for everyone and then some people 'choose' to go against that and pursue something else?

[F'losrix]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Is heterosexuality a lifestyle choice?

I would say yes. A monogamous heterosexual relationship is how we were designed to exist. Our society is based on it. All this promotion of deviant lifestyles is an effort to destroy our culture.

I will repeat: Lifestyle is a way of living based on identifiable patterns of behaviour based on an individual’s choice, influenced by the individual’s personal characteristics, their social interactions, and socioeconomic and environmental factors.

Do heterosexuals choose heterosexuality? Do they all share common personal characteristics, social interactions and socioeconomic and environmental factors? Or is there diversity among heterosexuals in these things?

Heterosexuality is not a lifestyle. Choosing to enter into a heterosexual marriage and raise children possibly qualifies by the narrowest of margins, but that is not the same thing - not every heterosexual pursues such a lifestyle.

Many homosexuals do enter into monogamous relationships, some do marry, and some raise children. Those people have more in common with the so-called heterosexual lifestyle than they do with gay guys who spend their lives in debauchery - and those who do pursue a lifestyle of debauchery are the minority among gay people.

The idea that gay people are out to destroy a culture that they contribute to and very much want to continue to be a part of is ridiculous at best.

[F'losrix]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Percent? I don't know, but there are many stories of the "flaming" gays who are more feminine than most girls. Most of these are likely just out for attention.
\/ Attention drawing behaviors such as you describe above are NOT the same thing as sexual orientation. Certainly some gay people do adopt odd behavior in a sort of retaliation against being outcast - the idea being that if one is going to be ostracized anyway, why not behave as outrageously as possible to throw it back in people's faces, to 'get their goat'? I'm not saying I condone that - far from it. But I do understand whence it comes.

What you're describing is NOT representative of how the majority of gay people behave. People just think it is because it's behavoir that stands out, gets noticed. I find it nearly as irritating as the average straight person probably does.

Most gay people don't want that kind of attention. The next question we usually get in response to that assertion is 'why don't you do something about it and get the 'flamers' under control, then? The answer is that there isn't a 'gay mafia' that goes around controlling the public behavior of other gay people. I don't have a whole lot of control over what other people do or say, nor do I want that kind of control. To the extent I can apply peer pressure, I do. But the notion that those of us gay people who are basically minding are own business and just trying to get through the day to day grind of life somehow have the time and energy to go around policing 'our own kind' is just plain ludicrous.

Quote: And I'm talking about BEFORE civilization evolved. Most of humanity's lifespan did not include marriages, and complex social structure. You're forgetting the 40,000 years of the Paleolithic Stone Age (before agriculture and civilization) plus the millions of years of evolution. Plus, there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom, which is rare. Why have the "gay genes" not been filtered out via natural selection?
This assumes that natural selection always filters out every trait that doesn't foster reproduction. Not every trait that is beneficial to the overall survival of the species is tied to reproduction, though. That said, I don't lean toward this being an inherited trait, passed down from generation to generation - I don't think the evidence as we currently understand it supports such a theory. That doesn't mean I'm going to claim that the matter is settled, though. There remains a lot about genetics and evolution that we don't fully understand and I think conclusions about whether or not homosexuality is genetic - from either side - are premature.

Quote: And as for it being polygenic, it would still be filtered out of the gene pool in the manner I described above. It would take a longer time, but we've had millions of years of evolution to do it. Why hasn't it happened? Why has no animal's homosexuality been eliminated from the gene pool?
Your conclusion requires one to assume that the combination of genes that would produce a predisposition for homosexuality hold no individual benefits to the species, and cannot produce a favorable outcome even when different combinations involving some of these same genes occurs but fails to produce that disposition.

Is that a wise assumption to make? Or is it an oversimplification aimed at supporting a foregone conclusion?

Quote: And just because it's chemical does not mean there's a cure for it. Plus, it is not really a problem that desperately needs solving, like other chemical imbalances could be. So basically

1) not a lot of research has been done on it
2) Those who deem it enough of a problem to warrent their time in research are usually morons
3) Whether it's chemical or genetic is still being debated, so people would assume such research to be wasted.
So why are we discussing this at all?

[F'losrix]

cap'n queasy wrote: One does not choose to be normal, they might choose to be abnormal, however. For what ever reason that may be, I don't know why anyone would choose that. It doesn't make much sense to me.
If it doesn't make sense for someone to choose it, then why would you conclude that it is a matter of choice?

Quote: You can see a man and a woman parts were made physically to go together.

The parts don't match up in homosexual couples. We are not physically designed to do that. Only by a type of delusional thinking would anyone come to the opposite conclusion, that we are designed for this and it is healthy and even good.
Only an overly simplistic approach to human sexuality would conclude that a person's orientation is driven solely by their 'physical parts' and that any sexual behavior that doesn't apply those parts in the manner prescribed by that viewpoint must therefore be unhealthy and evil.

Quote: It's a free world, however, and I don't see any reason for animosity towards gays. It's just another way that people can get messed up in their thinking. I feel sorry for them actually. It must be a emotionally painful life.
Whatever 'emotional pain' we feel with regard to our sexuality largely comes from people who go around promoting the idea that it's something we consciously chose, which in turn leads to reasoning that this makes us a target worthy of blame for being different - and all the sh!t that flows from that. Just because you say you don't think there's a reason for animosity towards us does nothing to change the fact that you're arguing in a manner that DOES promote that animosity, whether doing so as a conscious purpose or not.

We aren't 'messed up' in our 'thinking', because our thoughts aren't the source of it.

We don't want your pity. We want respect for our right to be who we are, regardless of whether that difference makes you uncomfortable.

[F'losrix]

Demonic Spoon wrote: And yes, if homosexuality is chemical, then it is possible to change. Hell, even if it's genetic (which it is not) then it is possible to change.
The real question is does it need to be changed? If the answer is 'yes', should we go so far as to force that change upon people against their will? Continue to persecute those who refuse this 'change'?

To me, this smacks of eugenics, and I have no desire for our society to revisit the same kind of thinking that led to the Holocaust.