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.
” Being ‘born’ homosexual is a medical impossibility unless there is a specific gene causing it.”
What a moron.
Being born ANYTHING isn’t medically impossible even if it isn’t in the genes. Sheesh. Where has this idiot been since epigenetics has been a serious field of study??
Quite honestly, there may be many conditions beginning in utero, due to exposure there.
The first few lines show a dramatic misunderstanding of genetics. A gay gene, if it existed and I dont believe it does, would not quickly burn out if it was recessive. In fact if it existed it being recessive would be the most likely explanation for its existence. Not to mention a lot of homosexuals try and pretend to be straight, including having a wife and children. So yeah I dont wish to read this article when it starts with a breathtakingly bad statement.
Not news.
Again I am not arguing for the existence of a homo gene but merely that the author’s argument is bad science.
Not all homosexuals started out that way, many got sucked into it...
...A suicide gene has been identified. How come that hasn’t died out?....
Exactly, a weak point on the authors part.
Jonathon Moseley
“Jonathon Moseley is a co-host with the “Conservative Commandos Radio Show,” on-line Editor for the American Uncensored News Network’s website (AUN-TV), and a member of the Northern Virginia Tea Party. He has worked and volunteered in political campaigns since 1984, including serving as Campaign Manager in 2008 for Christine O’Donnell’s nomination contest running against Joe Biden for U.S. Senate. Moseley studied Physics at Hampshire College, earned a degree in Finance from the University of Florida and a law degree from George Mason University in Virginia. Moseley’s day job is as a Virginia attorney working as in-house counsel for a company shipping jewelry.”
I agree with you that who would choose to be gay? Its a crappy lifestyle and generally an unhappy way to live.
This guy Mosely is about as competent on the subject of genetics as I am on the subject of cold fusion. The guy is an attorney for a shipping company for God’s sake. Why is anybody even listening to him? I’m still laughing.
The choice to be attracted toward the same sex or gender is based upon what is intellectually acceptable. Period!
The chemistry of attraction is based upon the masculine vs feminine aspect of the psyche or consciousness, irregardless of gender.
Even in same sex relationships, one partner is dominant masculine and one is dominant feminine. The problem is that opposites of dominant consciousness attract, not opposites of gender.
If it is not intellectually acceptable for a person who’s dominant aspect of consciousness is opposite their gender to enter a same sex relationship, they will merely find a person of the opposite gender who has also shifted and enter a relationship with them.
Thus a straight feminine man will enter a relationship with a masculine female. It’s been this way forever.
The Rosie the Riveters or dominant females tend to develop more masculine psyches. In a single parent household the child often develops a co-dependency with the single parent and then develops as the compliment of the strong parent personality rather than developing their own pre-disposition. I’ve even noticed delayed puberty in children in these situations.
I work with many gays and lesbians to help them resolve psychological issues. I’ve even presented to gay and lesbian groups. I explain to them what causes the “chemistry” and even demonstrate why in front of the group. I do not judge them, but help them to understand themselves.
Body chemistry is a function of the epigenetic influence of consciousness. This is also why placebos work.
Everything I have stated is easy to demonstrate in a controlled scientific setting. It really is much simpler than people make it out to be.
Unfortunately, the idiot doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It is VERY possible for a gene that causes an inability to have offspring to perpetuate itself. Hence, inherited diseases. First and most simply, most genes are variably expressed. That is, they have a greater or lesser effect due to other conditions and combinations with other genes.
Genes may also prevent reproduction when homozygous (both sets of sets of DNA contain the certain gene), but be beneficial when heterozygous (only one set of DNA has the gene). The beneficial condition may only occur sporadically; for instance the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia when homozygous helps prevent malaria when heterozygous.
The genes may also help relatives who share the gene but do not express it survive.
The simplest way to demonstrate that homosexuality has no genetic cause is the simple fact that it does not run in families. In a purely genetic trait, a homosexual’s brother would be 50% likely to be homosexual, and an identical twin brother would be certain to be homosexual. Instead, we see only slightly elevated rates of homosexuality among the siblings of homosexuals, in a pattern more suggestive of environmental factors, or at least environmental triggers.
The general evolutionary principle does not apply to the misexpression of genes because misexpression is not carried forward in the genes.
Hermaphroditism is an example of this.
Hermaphrodite’s genes are perfectly normal however during fetal development their bodies do not develop correctly and they can not reproduce.
Yet hermaphrodites continue to occur in the population as they have throughout history.
But I still assert that the arguments made be the author are bad science. Perhaps he can make other arguments to support his assertions that are valid I don’t know.
It may be that some environmental factor could trigger a gene that normally would do some other function or do nothing at all malfunctions to express as homosexual desire.
I do think that some but not all homosexuals are born that way. There are simply too many reports of children expressing homosexual proclivity at a very early age to discount the occurrences.
take out a patent ... i think you've just discovered the latest and greatest hate crime
Most homosexuals are not born that way. They just get sucked into it.
bkmk
Have you ever really gotten to know any gays? The males are usually very feminine and the females are usually very masculine. They are born that way, but they could still choose not to live that way. They could remain celibate, like many heterosexuals are after they have been married many decades. I think the only thing that really bothers me about heteros complaining about gays, is that so many heteros have had premarital sex, extramarital sex, or divorces, etc. That is all the same kind of sin
And the transvestite gene (you know the one that commands people who are born naked to dress in the clothing of the opposite sex in that culture) and the BDSM gene (the one that says construct torture devices and safe words "because 'NO' doesn't really mean 'no'").
Consult a Planned Parenthood guidance counselor if there are still any questions.
Assimilation is what makes them talk that way just as "valley teen" speak or "ebonics" is attained through cultural conditioning.
There are men in heterosexual relationships who go full bore flamboyant in gestures and voice when they make the "switch".
ping
But seriously: Every homosexual I have ever known who has been candid has revealed that he was molested as a child by an older man.
EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
This is the real way they are created: by molestation.
Ooooooh! That’s cold.
but I agree.
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.