I was born to chafe under government control. Does that mean I get my freedom back now?
I am not sure it is biologically possible for people to be born gay. For homosexuality to be a birth-trait, it would have to be a genetic predisposition. If homosexuality were a genetic predisposition, it would be a predisposition that discourages traditional reproductive processes.
Within a few generations, the genetic predisposition would die out — because people with that predisposition are far less likely to reproduce.
SnakeDoc
You don’t choose to be born, but you certainly choose to be gay....
Genetics:
Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically
dictated behaviors of the “one-gene-one-trait” variety have been found only in very simple
organisms. (Ch 1)
From an understanding of gene structure and function
there are no plausible means by which
genes could inescapably force SSA or other behaviors on a person (Ch 1)
No genetically determined human behavior has yet been found. The most closely geneticallyrelated
behavior yet discovered (mono-amine oxidase deficiency leading to aggression) has
shown itself remarkably responsive
to counselling. (Ch 1)
If (exclusive) SSA were genetically inherited, it would have bred itself out of the population in
only several generations, and wouldn’t be around today. (ie. gays with no children would not be
able to reproduce their genes.) (Ch 1)
Generally, geneticists settle for some genetic influence
of rather undefined degree, most
agreeing that many genes (from at least five or six to many hundreds) contribute to any
particular human behavior. (Ch 1) This means:
If SSA were caused by many genes it could not suddenly appear and disappear
in families the way it does. It would stay around for many (eg. at least 30)
generations because it would take that long for that many genes to be bred out.
Therefore SSA cannot be caused by many genes. (Ch 1)
The occurrence of SSA (2.6%) in the population is too frequent to be caused by a chance
mutation in a single gene. Therefore SSA cannot be caused by a single gene. (Ch 1)
Researchers trying to find “homosexual” sequences of genes on the recently mapped
human genome have not found any such sequences although they have found them for
schizophrenia, alcoholism etc. (Ch 9)
The occurrence of SSA is about five time too high to be caused by a faulty (non-genetic)
pre-natal developmental process, so it is not innate in that sense either. (Ch 1)
First same-sex attraction occurs over a very long time span, unlike pre-programmed genetic
events eg puberty, menopause. This argues that first same-sex attraction is not a genetically
programmed event. (Ch 1)
The human race shares most of its genes - something between 99.7 percent and 99.9 percent.
That means all ethnic groups will have most of them. This has the following three implications.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
If homosexuality is genetically dictated, homosexual practices will be identical or
extremely similar in all cultures. But there is an enormous range and diversity of
homosexual practice and customs among different cultures (and within cultures)
(Ch 6)
There would be a similar incidence of homosexuality in all cultures. But
homosexuality has been unknown in some cultures and mandatory in others.
(Ch 6)
Changes in homosexual practice and behavior in different cultures would take
place very slowly, over many centuries. But this is not what history shows. The
decline of whole models of homosexuality (the Greek, over a couple of centuries,
and the Melanesian, within a century); the relatively sudden [in genetic terms]
emergence of the present Western model over a couple of centuries; and abrupt
changes of practice within an ethnic group, even over a single generation, are not
consistent with anything genetic. Even less so the swiftly changing sexual practices
within the current Western model. (Ch 6)
The drop in SSA attraction and practice over the lifespan is too great to attribute to genetic
change – or for that matter, deaths from AIDS. It could indicate some change in sexual
orientation. (Ch 2)
Recent increases in the percentage of those experimenting with same-sex behaviour suggest
social influence rather than genetic change. (Ch 2)
Dean Hamer, one of the strongest advocates of a genetically-based homosexuality, has
remarked that he doesn’t think a gene exists for sexual orientation. (Ch 9)
Twin studies: These very complex comparisons of identical twins and non-identical twins
definitively rule out genetic determinism. If homosexuality were genetic, identical co-twins of
homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time, but they aren’t.
The genetic influence is indirect, certainly lower than 30% for men and 50% for women
and may be as low as 10%. This is illustrated further by the fact that identical twins with
identical genes are at most 11 and 14% concordant for SSA (ie. if one twin is SSA the cotwin
will be gay only 11 % of the time (males), 14% (females.) (Other studies have even lower
concordances).
And remember this: everyone has at least a 10% genetic influence in his or
her behaviour - simply because without genes there can be no bodily activity of any kind, or
human behaviour.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.pdf
Are people born heterosexual?
Gay is a good word and a great surname.
Even more than sex, a natural human desire is for food. We have plenty of obese people in this country, but all the diet books, fads, and Oprah shows prove that no one feels that the propensity towards being fat can not be changed. In fact, everyone treats obesity (ie. the excessive desire for food) as a health issue.
Humans can change their harmful behavior and homosexuality is no different.
I’ll take door number 6, Alex
Can homosexuals be “born?” Well, there are any number of genetic errors already in existence. This would just be another.
I believe that there is no single answer to the question of where homosexuality comes from. Just as with people born with various disorders, I believe it is possible to be “born” “gay” as a result of a genetic defect. I also believe that it is possible for some people to develop a propensity towards being homosexual due to post-utero environmental factors. As in the case of people who develop over the course of time a propensity to desire high octane activities (risk takers), it is possible that some people become homosexual due to the “thrill” of the activity.
Bottom line, regardless of where the development occurs, it is my belief that homosexuality is abberant behavior - it is not a variation of normal human behavior - it is not development of a response set of behaviors that are adaptive - homosexuality does not add to the gene pool as (well stated in your position) two homosexuals cannot share and pass on their genetic material to offspring. Homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality. If this is offensive, tough. Get over it. There are natural differences between men and women too that cannot be legislated out of existence.
Agreement.
I also believe the notion that if born gay both men and woman would be genetically different in the sense that reproduction is off the table, natures doing.
Watching some of my son’s school friends grow from age 3 and up I am not so sure you’re correct. I have watched two of my sons schoolmates, a girl and boy, who each display all the characteristics of their opposite sex. While these kids may not technically be gay at age 8 through 10 I am pretty sure how the movie will come out. So were they born gay?...time will tell, but I’ll take bets on it now. My take is God has a plan and I need to pay closer attention to what he is trying to tell me. Hopefully, for these children they are not gay, a meaner lifestyle I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy, and they grow up to have normal lives. But like I said, I don’t think this is how the movie will end.
Minor pedantic pet peeve: this is redundant, as lesbians are homosexuals. Sometimes people make this unnecessary distinction because they think that "homo" is from the Latin root meaning "man", as in Homo sapiens, when it's actually a Greek prefix meaning "same", as in homogenized milk.
Anyway, I agree with your overall point. I think an even more fundamental point is that a genetic predisposition, even if it did exist, has no bearing on the moral rightness or wrongness of a given voluntary activity.
And of course, gay men & lesbians CAN have children together, they just claim to not enjoy it, I guess.
2 words: Anne Heche.
Case closed.
I don’t see how God can allow a baby to be born a homosexual and then condem that child to hell.
Do you think hermaphrodites are born that way, those with both male and female sex organs? We know that they are born that way.
The new embryo is neither male nor female, but sex is determined later during gestation through the introduction of hormones to the growing fetus. I think the same improper introduction of those hormones which produces the hermaphrodite also probably produces people with same sex attraction. Just something slightly askew when the sex determination takes place during fetal growth.
Just my theory on the matter. But what do you think causes the hermaphrodite?
The mistake by BOTH sides is that they see this as an either/or thing. What if some ARE born gay, and some “choose”, or are otherwise twisted into the lifestyle? Absolutists on both sides obscure what might be the truth.