I am no fan of RBG. But she was very good-looking when young enough to have children.
Posted on 07/09/2015 6:47:42 AM PDT by Moseley
A genetic cause for homosexuality is not scientifically possible. A homosexuality gene, if it existed, would quickly die out. However, it gradually becomes clear that liberals and progressives are poorly-educated about science. They passionately believe in evolution, yet they don’t understand it.
Public discussion is driven by an assumption that one may be “born homosexual.” Being ‘born’ homosexual is a medical impossibility unless there is a specific gene causing it. That is, heterosexuals would have one genetic DNA sequence while homosexuals have a different DNA sequence in its place.
I discovered something debating this topic: One central point simply escapes the understanding of liberal activists. Homosexuality powerfully reduces reproduction. It is a lack of sexual desire for the opposite sex. Any individual who lacks desire to engage in sexual activity that results in children will have dramatically fewer children. Duh.
Robert Oscar Lopez reported on the controversy here Wednesday at www.BarbWire.com, “Yes, Gay is a Choice. Get Over it.” A college professor expressed her opinion in a newspaper editorial that homosexuals can choose to stop being homosexual. The University of Toledo fired Crystal Dixon. Lopez points out how liberals reduce people to the level of animals with no self-control. Lopez also recounts his personal transition from gay man to heterosexual husband celebrating twelve years married to his wife.
(Excerpt) Read more at barbwire.com ...
That's the money line right there.
Natural selection isn't PC.
While, as the article argues, is it quite evident that homosexuality cannot be a monogenetic trait -- it would have long ago died out had it been -- this does not prove it cannot be inborn. First, non-adaptive polygenetic traits can survive if each of the genes for them is itself part of the genetic signature for some other, adaptive, trait. Second, there is the little understood realm of epigenetics. Homosexuality could arise from some "insult" suffered in utero (e.g. exposure to some chemical, perhaps elevated levels of some hormone) and be "from birth" without being genetic in basis.
The problem is that a behavior tendency being inborn does not somehow make the behavior moral. Psychopathy seems to be inborn, but we do not therefore decide that the behavior of psychopaths -- lying, cheating, stealing and murder -- is morally neutral or to be "celebrated". No more would an inborn tendency toward the commission of buggery make buggery morally neutral or something to be "celebrated". It is in the realm of moral reasoning that the left fails on this (though their actual devotion to their shibboleth of neo-Darwinism is dubious in this matter, too, since somehow they devote a great deal of effort to defending the Darwinian dead-ends of homoeroticism and "transgenderism").
“”A homosexuality gene, if it existed, would quickly die out”.
Seems like it, but it might be more complex than a single gene. There are bad things that haven’t died out—like juvenile diabetes. And there are lots of homosexual animals out there, too. Hard to explain unless there is some tendency in the DNA to occasionally spin off the homo individual.
80% were molested as children.
What else do we need to know?
Humans are more complicated than are animals. Factors that contribute to homosexuality include:
1) Genetic malfunction. Homosexuals have a much higher rate of other genetic flaws and birth defects, with both physical and psychological consequences.
2) About halfway through fetal gestation, male fetuses secrete a small amount of testosterone that travels to their brain and tells it is a “male” brain. If it is not received, for whatever reason, including chemical interference, the brain is by default female. This has been extensively studied since the 1960s. This is enough, in *animals*, to determine their mating behavior and sexuality.
But importantly, it is *not* enough to do so in humans.
In humans, it will help determine sexual identity, sometimes androgyny, and can result in more effeminate males and more masculine females. But it does *not* determine their sexuality.
3) Hormones in adolescence and adulthood. Males do have a small amount of the female hormone estrogen; and females do have a small amount of the male hormone testosterone. And while varying levels of these and others will result in significant “secondary sex characteristics”, they do not include sexuality. (With the exception that females with more testosterone than normal tend to be somewhat more sexual and enjoy sex more.)
4) “Nurture”. The people who raise children have considerable influence into their sexuality, sexual behavior, social behavior, and sexual expectations, as does other formative influences such as peers and schooling.
The negative side of this, which is quite influential, is sexual abuse, which has clearly been shown to result in abusive behavior by children, as well as sexual confusion. Pornography figures into this as well.
Likewise, “sexual experimentation” is often used as an excuse by a sexually experienced person to abuse those who are less experienced, and can be used to persuade others that their sexuality is something it is not.
Wife an I know a couple who’s son’s homosexuality was apparent to us from an early age. However, the boy’s parents were stunned when he came out to them.
I think your on to something in the combinatorial sense.
Yes, the hormonal imbalance theory. I believe that is a prime cause of much homosexuality. Highly muscular lesbians dominating female sports promotes that line of thought.
Simple, call the scientific logic "Hate speech".
"""If homosexuality were carried by a gene, it could be detected by amniocentesis, and parents who do not want a homosexual child could make an appointment with planned parenthood.
That would pose a very difficult dilemma for liberals, would it not?............"""
Indeed it would.
No, liberals even are wrong that humans are the only animals that kill for “fun”, as any owner of a house cat who leaves mice and moles as trophies on the doormat knows perfectly well.
It is a mental illness. Any other explanation is pure bull!
You are correct. Some dogs kill cats, by playing with them too roughly, not actually trying to “kill” them.
I had a Black Lab that loved playing with cats, but he was 155 pounds compared to a 12 pound cat. So often, he would hurt them and even kill them, he was just toying with them, but too roughly!
I never saw him eat one or tear it up; typically, he broke their necks or backs by jumping towards them.
There’s one theory where there could be a genetic basis for homosexuality. Assuming there’s multiple alleles involved, it’s possible that carriers of some of the alleles get a reproductive advantage that compensates the disadvantage of a homosexual pheontype. Suppose that female carriers of the male homosexuality genes wanted to have sex with males more than the average - and hence had more than the average number of children. It is possible that that could compensate they’re male children having no offspring.
The interesting thing about this is that in the modern world because of birth control the amount of sex has been strongly decoupled from fertility rates. This means that the homosexual genes should leave the population as the base comment argues...
But homosexuality is not exclusively male.
Is there one homosexuality gene for male homosexuals and another homosexuality gene for lesbians?
And how did both come into being?
I am no fan of RBG. But she was very good-looking when young enough to have children.
This is interesting, but your analysis sort of depends upon the idea that homosexuals are exclusively males attracted to other males.
But there are lesbians. Homosexuality exists among both males and females. So your proposed biological basis for homosexuality doesn’t fit the observed existence of both male and female homosexuals.
Furthermore, how do we avoid calling this a “dysfunction” — i.e,. an abnormality or deformity or disease?
Because of the social pressure to get married to the opposite sex mentioned above. Homosexuals who can function for a period of childbearing years in conventional marriages can still be promiscuous with men on the down-low; or divorce and be exclusively homo after having the kids. The rate of bisexuality for women is even higher than for men. Remember, it is not an on-off switch. It is an addiction to a certain type of sexual practice; but that doesn't make the other practices impossible, especially if their purpose suits an agenda of "fitting in" in society, congregation or business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.