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.
I read a similar article to the included here some months ago. Perhaps it is not in the genetic code. However, I think there may be only a small percentage of those who choose’ homosexuality, derived from atypical life experiences. It would seem logical that if not genetic then the premise of an in womb development is logical. Which means it is preventable or curable someday medically during fetal development.
Genetic modifications that respond to hormones in the womb may explain the development of homosexuality.
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb
How often does someone mention a mustache or facial hair on a woman, or an adam’s apple on a woman as a sign of them being a “butch” lesbian?
How often does someone make a comment about a man's face perhaps looking a bit feminine?
It is not hard to find Freepers who use PHYSICAL characteristics (Which are obviously, and by definition, hereditary) to call someone “gay”.
There is no gay gene. That much is certain.
There may be however, conditions pre-birth that cause this defect in the unborn child’s brain. This will then be exacerbated or ‘activated’ by life experience (see the link between children who are sexually abused and then become homosexual).
I just find it very unfortunate that the perversion has been politicized and turned into some kind of ‘Civil Rights campaign’ because while we may find a way to prevent other disorders, this one’s cure may be hindered by activists.
I’m guessing here, not a geneticist but intuitively:
Homosexuality could be simply the the combination of various genes, in which case, it would still be genetic, just not a specific gene, and would not be selected out of the species.
As a very silly example, if the color Blue has sex with the color Green, the resulting child might be a Yellow. Even if Yellow can not ‘breed’ and make colors for children, Yellow would still consistently appear in the Color species.
It could be a defect in some gene, like the genes responsible for attraction. Obviously trying to mate with the same gender indicates a defect of some sort.
I was merely pointing out that the article is flawed science.
Every human being is born with desires and tendencies that must be curbed if that person is to live peacefully with his fellow humans. We all have desires to sin and we must daily fight those desires. Homosexuals are no different.
A person can be ‘born homosexual’ without it being due to a genetic cause. Children are born damaged all the time because of behaviors of the mother at critical points in pregnancy.
That's the one this debate always causes me to think about. It's my understanding that quite a few things can go wrong during that nine month gestation period.
Physical defects such as club feet or a hair lip, or hermaphradites, and others, and even some problems of brain development. Are there genes for those defects, or are they developmental problems of the fetus?
I'm not certain, but I think the nine month gestation period is a possibility for various developmental problems, but it never seems to be mentioned in the gay debate one way or the other.
You wrote: “Pure mental disorder, just buried as such to promote the destruction of the family and American culture.”
A clarification:
If a young man believes that he is really a dog and should have been born a German Shepard and that his body has betrayed him and goes about eating Purina Puppy Chow, crawling on all fours and barking even a liberal will say he is delusional and send him for treatment
If a young man says that he is really a girl and should have been born woman and goes about wearing a dress and panties, while wearing Max Faxtor rouge a liberal says he is “Gay” and can’t help it.
The two issues amount to the same thing and may have many of the same causes but are treated differently.
This is exactly what I say. It is a defect.
No one in his right mind would choose this. Why ever would women mess with each other? How? How is there any physical pleasure involved? Nothing fits together at all. It makes no sense whatsoever.
The problem with the “gay gene would die out” theory is it assumes that no “gay” would have any children, ever.
That assumes that due to a “gay” inclination, a “gay” person would not go ahead and marry/and/or/at-least/have children, in spite of that “gay” inclination - for social reasons (peer & family pressure) and any other reason.
Yet that assumption is contrary to what has been reported by sociologists & the “gay” community for quite a long time - that in fact a sizable number of “gays” in the past DID (and some still do) marry and bare children out of the social pressures to do so.
That also is no proof that there IS a “gay” gene, but it proves that even if there was a “gay” gene, it would not have died out (at least not entirely) as “gays” would still make up some portion of the child bearing population, in spite of their “gay” preference.
And even more telling, genetically, is IF there was (A BIG IF as there is no proof pf a “gay” gene) a “gay” gene that was only “activated” when some other gene was also present, making a condition where the “gay” gene could be carried, & not always expressed but passed on.
I do not think there is any proof of a “gay” gene. But the theory that it would “die out” is in error and is not a proof that there is not one.
A “suicide” gene does not prevent procreation with the opposite sex - genius.
By your asinine response, my guess is that you desperately want to avoid taking responsibility for your choices in life.
Gays often cite the claim that it is genetic or something they are born with as the last word on the subject, but there are many other conditions about which the same claim could be made which are nonetheless universally considered to be undesirable: genetic defects, alcoholism, pederasty, certain kinds of psychological illness, etc.
I believe the current thinking is that homosexuality has a biological cause, though not a genetic cause. The theory goes that at a crucial point in fetal development, some pre-borns get the proper dosage of hormones and develop normal sexuality, and some don’t and end up homosexual. Once again, I don’t think the jury is in on this yet.
Although it sounds very logical it is not so simple many detrimental genes only express in th of what appear to be two unaffected individuals.
Additionally many persons who express themselves as homosexual will also have children biologically has the desire to have children is not solely linkd to heterosexual persons. This is not to say that we are cast by our genetics into preordained choices.
There is the possibility that pure homosexuality as a brain disorder is more common today than 50 years ago as a result of hormonal contraception.
Then again, we may see more of it because of simple tolerance of it. A hundred years ago, a man with mild homosexual impulses would bury the impulses and become a wonderfully sensitive husband. (Dennis Prager has discussed several times on his show how the rise of homosexuality contributes to the lack of good men as husbands, even if it is just taking 1% of the guys off the market). Now he “comes out of the closet” at 16 and has a series of homosexual liaisons.
Whether we have more tolerance because the incidence is higher or a higher incidence because it is more tolerated, I don’t know.
Let’s hold off on the blame the mother going on here.
Not all defects are simply the problem of gestation. Some happen inherently at conception, or even from faulty sperm. It is not always our fault.
Just trying to clarify that before too many more posts come out like these.
In general one example is thalidomide. It produces non-genetic but still congenital birth defects.
As to specifically homosexuality? I have no idea if it is genetic, non-genetic but congenital, post birth mental defect or a choice. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a combination from all of those and more. I was just refuting the author's erroneous assertion that all birth defects must have genetic causes.
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.