Posted on 08/03/2002 2:04:27 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
In this age, one of the most difficult issues facing our nation today is the issue of homosexuality. For the most part, homosexuals become extremely offended if one even suggests that their sexual orientation was a choice.
Perhaps the greatest defense for the acceptance of homosexuality is the so-called "gay" gene. While it may not be easy to "come out" of homosexuality, there is credible and substantial evidence disproving the "gay"-gene theory.
The first question is, does the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice, or not, really matter? The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual-activist group, doesn't think so. "The vast majority of gay people will tell you that same-sex orientation is an innate part of who you are and is not changeable," a spokesman said. "But in the final analysis, it really shouldn't matter."
Whether the sincerity of that statement is valid or not, the simple fact is that whether homosexuality is a genetic trait or not does matter. If homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then the lifestyle and act must be accepted by everyone, because it cannot be prevented. However, if it is a choice, then anyone has the right to label homosexuality unacceptable and immoral.
The scientific basis the homosexual community uses to prove the "gay"-gene theory are two different studies conducted in 1993 and 1995. The studies found a specific marker in the X chromosome that links to homosexuality in men.
In 1993, biologist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute found that in 40 pairs of homosexual brothers, 33 of them had the same set of DNA sequences in a part of the chromosome called, "Xq28."
This has caused many homosexual leaders to proclaim this "evidence" and demand respect and acceptance of homosexuality because of this apparent genetic trait.
However, in late June of 1995, reports were confirmed that Dean Hamer was being investigated by the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services. Reports found that Hamer may have selectively reported his research and data – which has led many to question the credibility of his research.
Furthermore, in the late '90s, a team of researchers at the University of Western Ontario in Canada found no trace or evidence of the "gay" gene in homosexual men. The study found that the region of the X chromosome known as "Xq28" has nothing to do with the sexual "orientation" of a person.
Neurologist George Rice studied the DNA of 52 pairs of homosexual brothers and found that their Xq28 sequences were no more similar than what might happen from sheer chance.
Despite the debunking of evidence to back the "gay"-gene theory, homosexual advocates continue to use the out-dated evidence to promote the existence of a homosexual genetic trait.
Much more evidence can be provided. Identical twins, for instance, share the same set of chromosomal patterns. Therefore, if one twin's DNA has a homosexual genetic trait, then it is inevitable that both twins will be homosexuals. However, that is not the case with all twins. When one twin is homosexual, the probability of the other identical twin being homosexual is 50 percent. Thus, the "gay"-gene theory is, once again, debunked by using logical, scientific research.
Still, there is even more evidence against homosexual genes. If homosexuality is, indeed – despite other evidence – a genetic trait, that gene would eventually be ousted from the gene pool because homosexuals tend not to reproduce. Instead, homosexuality has appeared in civilizations across time. In some parts of the world, homosexuality flourishes, but in other parts of the world, homosexuality is not present.
Additionally, if "gay"-gene theory were true, it would be next to impossible to change the lifestyle to heterosexuality. However, it is not impossible to change sexual orientations – Stephen Bennett is a great example, and so are the thousands of others who have come out of homosexuality.
With this incredible load of evidence mounting up against the "gay"-gene theory, it would be safe to say that homosexuality is actually not something one is born with, but a choice.
Instead of using hard evidence and facts, the homosexual community has stooped so low as to use media to force feed this unproven theory as fact in order to advance their agenda.
I remember reading somewhere that the incidence of homosexuality occurring in both identical twins was significantly higher than in fraternal twins or normal siblings. Does anyone know if this is this true, and if so, why does the author not mention it?
Because maybe it goes contrary to the author's agenda? No political journalist is immune from writing with an ideological slant. Ommision of facts is, in fact, the best method as the author can just claim 'ignorance' if it is brought to his/her attention later.
Journalists on both sides of the aisle use this method. That's why I am thankful for Internet access so I can do my own research.
Another boggling question: If homosexuality were genetic, what would that say about nature and biology. Why would nature take a course (genetic mutation towards homosexuality) that would, in the end, doom the genetically and naturally flawed species. And how come this genetic affliction is only trying to destroy the human species? How come when I was a kid on the farm I never saw a bull that didn't like cows? A rooster that didn't like hens or a boar that wouldn't go gaga over a couple of sows?
Religion is a choice. Can it be labeled unacceptable? Certainly history tells us that many religions have been labeled as unacceptable. The consequences of that type of labeling was not very pretty.
What if we change your example to use the word heterosexual?
I think it is a bit higher, but if it was purely genetic as the gay Nazi lobby teaches, would not identical twins both be either gay or straight. The fact that it is not even close to a 100% correlation proves there are other more significant influences than just genetics.
I think the consequences of trying to put gay lables on young children is not very pretty, but that is the goal of gay activists.
Then it would fit the pattern of nature and biology. We, humans, are a sexual species as opposed to asexual. That means it takes one from column A (female) and one from column B (male) to reproduce. In all of nature there is no column C (whatever)
OK, but what about the other 7 pairs of brothers?? If they didn't have that same DNA sequence, then why are they gay? (Oh yeah, because they want to be...just like the first 33.)
I personally believe Homosexuality is a choice … sometimes the choice is made subconsciously long before the young child has realized that a choice was made.
That is undobtably partially true. But you leave out the free will component. There are genetic, environmental factors, and free will all play a role. But what is being taught to children is that you are born that way. That is the message along with the labling of kids as gay and the acceptance of acting out on that lable at a young ages.
Never ceases to amaze me the propensity of people on FR to hold forth on subjects who have absolutely NO idea of what they are talking about.
There are all kinds of traits and diseases OBVIOUSLY known to be genetic that one or more siblings can have and others can't. Not everyone gets the same genes even when they're brothers and sisters.
I, a brother, and a sister have blue eyes, a trait known to be a recessive gene. Another brother and a sister, who look very much like the rest of us, do not have blue eyes.
The same is true of blonde hair, a large number of diseases, etc.
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.