Posted on 09/07/2014 7:07:57 PM PDT by WXRGina
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.
However, a gene that dramatically reduces one’s likelihood of having childhood would quickly become extinct. The gene would die out whether you believe in evolution as The Origin of Species (Darwin’s book) or whether you believe in simple mathematics.
Homosexual activists totally ignore the role that sexuality plays in having children and the fact that one’s genes can only be passed on if they have children. A gene determining homosexuality is fundamentally different from hair color, eye color, height, skin color, etc. If there were a gene that reduced fertility by 80% to 90%, that ancestral line would quickly die out.
According to the Hypothesis of Evolution, every detail of a living specimen must have started somewhere at some time. Life began as a single-cell organism, they say. But genetic mutation (errors) created variations. Helpful mutations survived and persisted because the variation was ‘better’ than the previous model. Unhelpful mutations cause that line to die out.
Advocates of the idea that homosexuals are just born that way cannot wrap their head around the teaching of evolution (which they subscribe to) that every detail about human beings had to start somewhere. They debate this topic as if a homosexual gene came out of nowhere. (Note that most ‘homosexual activists’ are themselves not homosexual, but simply enemies of Christianity hijacking the conversation.)
Under Evolution, if a person is actually “born” homosexual, there was a point in time in one particular geographic location on Earth when that genetic mutation first occurred in one particular individual human. There was a point in time when everyone else on Earth had the normal heterosexual plan in their DNA. But there was one (1) (count them, one) individual with a genetic mutation causing them to desire the same sex instead of the opposite sex.
Remember how Evolution supposedly works: (1) Genetic mutations occur (which are neither good nor bad, no pejorative meaning is intended). (2) Some variations are “better” in terms of survival and continue. (3) Some variations are “worse” and die out. (4) “Survival” and “better” are defined as only the individual with the mutation having more children who carry on the genetic variation across successive generations. (5) Nothing else counts but the number of offspring. In evolution, “survival” and “better” mean absolutely nothing except more children perpetuating the genetic mutation over succeeding generations. (6) The very definition of the Hypothesis of Evolution is that a genetic change which reduces the number of offspring is at a disadvantage and will eventually die out.
The extinction of a homosexuality gene would occur in only one generation were it not for some cultural factors. The very first person to have a homosexuality gene – there being one and only one individual when the genetic variation first occurred – would have no children (zero). The very definition of the gene is a lack of desire for the opposite sex. And remember this was all happening at least 2,000 to 3,000 years ago if not earlier, when we do see historical references.
However, a homosexual man or woman would – in some cultures more than others – be expected to marry and have children. So, many people having a homosexuality gene would have some offspring, not zero. But they would have far fewer offspring than heterosexuals, even in the context of a culturally-encouraged marriage.
First, the original genetic mutation would never spread very far from the one single individual who experienced the first genetic mutation for homosexual desire. The population having the gene would never grow very large to begin with.
Second, even those in an opposite-sex marriage would still have sex capable of producing offspring far less often than heterosexuals – by definition.
So it might take as long as a thousand years (20 to 25 generations) for the gene to die out. But homosexuality would be steadily decreasing in frequency and would eventually become extinct. And that ignores the fact that the gene could never become widespread to start with.
We also can’t forget that during most of human history, survival was difficult, without the luxuries we enjoy today. Child mortality was high. Suppose a heterosexual couple has four children, two of whom die before reaching child-bearing age. Then suppose a marriage including a homosexual partner motivated by social convention has two children, of whom all two die. That leaves no children to reach child-bearing age.
Also, a homosexuality gene would be concentrated in one geographic location on Earth and in the ethnic group where it started. Of course that is radically in conflict with the observable evidence. We don’t observe any such concentration.
We would also see no homosexuality at all in cultures where people were not pressured into a heterosexual marriage. Ironically, in cultures where people were free to follow their desires, homosexuals would have no offspring and the genetic line would die out almost immediately. But even when homosexuals were pressured into a heterosexual marriage they would – by definition – engage in a lower frequency of heterosexual sex.
The human body is pervasively designed around sexual reproduction. Homosexual orientation is not an alternative like blue versus brown eyes. Just switching one genetic DNA sequence with another would not create a homosexual. The human design is pervasively heterosexual.
By contrast, a developmental cause for homosexuality is consistent with the very low but uniform frequency we actually see spread throughout all ethnic groups, all geographic locations, and all time periods. The evidence contradicts any genetic cause of homosexual desires.
Homosexuals are not born that way. Homosexuality results from emotional and psychological development. It is not “a choice” so much as hundreds of little choices growing up, including choosing how to react to various incidents, relationships and opportunities. Many little choices create circumstances that reinforce sexual feelings. The resulting habits – fueled by pleasure – can feel extremely powerful and seem to be beyond one’s control, as intensely as being addicted to any pleasure-inducing chemicals.
If homosexuality was genetic, it would have been bred out of the system eons ago.
If the were a gene, we could cure it.
“A homosexuality gene, if it existed, would quickly die out.”
Thats the idea. It’s natures way of saying “Do not reproduce,
you have nothing to contribute to the gene pool”.
That's what he writes in the column--sorta.
If someone ever discovered a homosexuality gene there are many parents who would abort babies that had it. That would cause liberals’ heads to explode.
The premise of the article is false. There could be an adaptive purpose to homosexuality which escapes the author. Just because the author states otherwise doesn’t make it true. In any case, it is testable, when more people have the entire genome sequenced. There may be, or there may not be, one or more genes for homosexuality. Time will tell. This author is not the final arbiter. A suicide gene has been identified. How come that hasn’t died out?
Woo-woo — where does the lesbian gene come from? same place as the sodomite gene?
BS.
Beyond that, the idea of "choice" is a dangerous and misleading one. To attribute homosexual orientation, and subsequently, sex, to choice is akin to saying that development of any addiction is a choice. It fails to account for a wealth of empirical knowledge and information about the acquisition of learned responses through instrumental conditioning, imitation, identification, and other powerful processes.
Better to recognize that the constellation of behaviors generally lumped together as "homosexuality" are multiply determined, as are most other complex social behaviors, and to eschew the simplistic binary question of "Genetic--yes or no."
Don’t confuse me with the facts, man!
Anything they can do to validate and defend it they will use. Kinda weird though. I mean, you can’t call a faggot a faggot because they say that’s hate speech, but faggots call each other faggots
There are lots of environmental causes for congenital conditions. What if the hormone balance in the mother is wrong? Not enough vitamins? Illness during pregnancy?
What suicide gene? Please be specific.
According to the compelling logic of the article,
homosexuality would be a non-beneficial mutation,
like Tay–Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews,
except that we just need to find a way to
rid their bodies of the gene before they
accidentally pass the trait onto an
offspring during one of the drug-
and sex-fueled binges.
Hey, we’re trying to save them here!
/s
Who said there needs to be a “gene”?
Homosexuality can be one of many defects, which means, yes, you ccan be born with this defect. Not something that has to pass down, but occurs in nature occassionally, for any number of reasons.
I do not know if it is “genetic” or a choice. I see no problem either way. Personally, I do not know why anyone in his RIGHT MIND would choose to be homo. See? It can be a birth issue, just like many birth defects, including maybe just fall-out from some mental issues.
Nowadays may have some exceptions, since homos are making such huge inroads they have convinced some innocent young people it is “hip” to be a defective. But outside this late insanity in society at large, I do not think anyone would choose it.
Premise is demonstrably false. Instead of thinking about a “homosexual” genetic defect, apply the same logic to other “genetic defects”.
Ask yourself this: “Are there any genetic defects which typically prevent reproduction because they are fatal?”
The answer is “Yes,” and many can be named.
So why are these genes still persistant?
Look at the muzzies, they allowed the marrying of cousins etc., and look how they went down hill into idiots.
Why are some people tall and some short, some smart and some dumb. Its genetics, same with sexuality.
well, what about the gene that makes them talk that way?;)
It's sin, period. You really CAN over-think these things, you know.
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.