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.
Promoting homosexuality and abortion is a form of biological warfare to eventually kill a nation.
But never-mind! Liberals can't be bothered with facts in their feel-good emotional world of Rube Goldberg theoretical constructs.
From “Global Warming” to “Homosexual Marriage” liberals love to talk among themselves about how superior and Utopian they are, while branding their philosophical and political opponents sub-humans.
By thus labeling those with whom they don't agree, they are not bound by any ethical requirement to respectfully listen to them.
Genetics usually isn’t discussed. The liberal argument is that homosexuals are born that way.
If general evolutionary beliefs were also true.
This is a stunningly clarifying statement. It deserves elaboration.
It does put two liberal sacred cows head to head.
Pure mental disorder, just buried as such to promote the destruction of the family and American culture.
There’s a silver lining in every cloud.
It is spiritual. Do not permit modern materialism to get you arguing over how many devils are on the head of a pin when the question ought to be should the devils even be there.
I read an article that was based on research publish for peer review. Not a debatable point like the post above. He had scientific evidence that during early stages of pregnancy that a protein was responsible for same sex attraction. I cannot remember specific details but something in mothers protects the baby from this happening.
I personally do not believe there is a homosexuality gene but the author’s science is flawed.
The home gene may require that the gene be carried on both the mother and the father’s genes for it to be expressed. This would mean that a man carrying the gene but not expressing the gene (not being homosexual) could pass it on to his offspring
Also there are many genes that we all carry that are not expressed unless some outside stimulus activates the gene. One theory on homosexuality is that the amount of male hormone in the mother’s blood at a specific point in the pregnancy alters the fetal brain in such as to cause homosexuality.
Regardless of what is the causation of homosexuality the science of the article is flawed.
Please explain the adaptive purpose that would typically necessitate the cessation of your genetic line?
Actually, I’ve hypothesized previously that a genetic defect of this variety would be natures response to “cull the herd” and basically reduce the numbers of the species with such a genetic anomaly.
The premise of this article isn’t necessarily false, but simply fails to expand upon the possible reasons on why such a genetic defect would manifest itself if it exists, IMO.
Because suicidal tendency doesn't prohibit reproduction prior to the act?
First I've heard of a suicide gene, by the way. When did that come out?
I do not necessarily agree.
The issue here is not just tolerance (which we have had in abundance) but celebration.
No-one celebrates retardation. It is a defect to be pittied, not paraded. Likewise homosexuality, sin or not.
Homos strain any patience I have when they throw their SEXuality in my face and the faces of children, who should not even be asking about normal hetero sex relations, but the parading of homos to society forces the issue. That is 1 of my biggest problems with these people.
Provide proof of such allegations to back up such a claim, and yes, I’ve heard of these speculations many times.
If we are bound and determined to debate genetics, yet another analogy is that of the sickle cell. It confers resistance to malaria.
Sin has roots in events that are pre-conception. We should be very careful. There are genes for susceptibility to alcohol abuse. We do not tell such people that it is just fine to get soused.
Sorry about the remnant of a previous post there.
Think of it more like down syndrome, a mental disorder of the mind. Basically a birth defect.
Some people say “God made them that way” or believe in Plato’s soul-mate hypothesis. Many people have challenged the “it’s genetic” argument by questioning how a gay gene could reproduce successfully......but some of us still wonder how SAME-sex marriage can be about “diversity” & different/opposite sex marriage can be considered square, straight/strait-jacketed. Surely, terms such as “gay” & “straight” are biased & Orwellian—as if saying it’s not a choice, but making moral judgments, anyway. If we all were “born that way”, then why use terms such as “gay” & “straight”—as if it is a choice? It’s beyond mere euphemism & into propaganda. Are all homosexuals happy & lighthearted? No! Are all heterosexuals straight-laced, uptight or strait-jacketed? No!
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.