I am in no way convinced that the the article's claim that
"Inheritance of several such alleles produces homosexuality. Single alleles make for greater sensitivity, empathy, tendermindedness, and kindness."
is supported by any scientific evidence at all. In fact, I challenge the claim that "alleles... for sensitivity, empathy..." have been identified or, have even been shown to exist.
Further, even implying that such "alleles" are a part of the homosexual persona is, IMHO, merely an attempt to "put a pretty face on" what has been known throughout recorded history to be a filthy, perverted, abominable set of behaviours. (There is sound survival reason that virtually all normal mammalian species find the smell of its own feces to be repugnant...)
Certainly, non-genetic factors can alter development in the womb. (See "thalidomide babies".) That leaves open the possibility that some enterprising queer-lifestyle apologist may some day claim to have found a chemical reason for an in utero birth defect called "homosexuality".
Sorry, but you come across as an apologist for the sin which defies the very first divine command: "Be fruitful and multiply".
Notice the FR has a "keyword topic" on "Homosexual Agenda", which, to say the least, is not highly regarded on this forum. If you are not a supporter of that agenda, stand up and say so. Otherwise, christianhomeschoolmommaof3's prediction in #83 will likely soon come to pass...
since what I am going to say is going to misinterpreted as being an “apologist” let me clearly state my beliefs concerning homosexuality:
1) in all morally relevant factors, homosexual behavior is a choice. This is obviously so.
2) homosexual behavior is morally impermissible. or more bluntly, homosexual behavior is wrong.
3) homosexuals do not have a legal right to a state-sponsored/licensed marriage.
4) homosexual should not be allowed to adopt children.
5) kids below the age of 16 should not have any sort of sex education, obviously including learning about homosexuality.
Now most people on Free Republic would readily agree with the above, so let me also add...
5) I do not believe homosexuality is “unnatural” (Nor do I think such a consideration speaks to ethical concerns; i.e. even if homosexuality is natural, which I think it is, it still would be wrong.)
6) I am unsure if homosexual attractions are chosen or not. it strikes me as unlikely, but possible, that any sexual attraction is “chosen” in any meaningful sense.
7) homosexual should enjoy all legal rights that other people do, including freedom of association, freedom of speech and so forth.
I sure points 5, 6, and 7will get me into hot water.
Now in regards to your post, first my initial post was clearly using the study as reference point; I thought it was clear that my example came from there; I’m sorry for any confusion on this point.
Second, I, in no way, shape, or form, have argued that the “tipping point” model is true; I don’t think it is. it is, however, a possibility that is seriously being looked at in academia. Given that the comment I made first was responding to made a definitive claim (”Proving that it’s learned behavior since a genetic predisposition to homosexuality would breed itself out in one generation.-Space bar)it is besides the point whether you find the “tipping point” argument “convincing.” The “tipping point” model only needs to be plausible for my point to go through. I DO find it plausible. At this point of time, a genetic factor in homosexual attractions can neither be ruled in nor ruled out at this point in time.
Now for the rest of your post,
first your comment here, in this context, of
(There is sound survival reason that virtually all normal mammalian species find the smell of its own feces to be repugnant...)
implies all homosexual(s) (Men) have anal sex; this implication is factually wrong, a large percentage of homosexual men do not have anal sex. I don’t recall the exact number but it’s around 40% of homosexual men don’t have anal sex, in any sense. This does not have any bearing on moral questions.
Second,
this statement
“Further, even implying that such “alleles” are a part of the homosexual persona is, IMHO, merely an attempt to “put a pretty face on” what has been known throughout recorded history to be a filthy, perverted, abominable set of behaviors.”
is utterly besides the point, science is not in the business (nor should it be) of providing proscriptions for behavior or making moral judgments. Science concerns itself with descriptions of how reality is. It is an empirical question whether or not homosexuals display higher levels of say empathy; it is conceivable that they do. (I’m not aware of any study on the matter, either way.) Women, which is the point of the comparison, clearly do display higher levels of again say empathy so it’s not like the “tipping point” model is spinning in a void.
let me try to make the point this way, why homosexuality exists requires an explanation; Even if you think homosexuality is a choice through and through, a reason for why some people choose to be homosexuals and some people do not needs to be given; even if you answer the question with something like “they are rebelling against God’s will” a reason for why the rebellion is given this form of expression, over all others, needs to be given.
Now I have no solid answers to that set of questions, nor does anybody else. My point is it is an open question and people need to be careful before making definitive judgments on these matters. In short, I am suggesting caution towards the nuances of this topic be excised in such discussions as these.
how “apologist” of me.
Let me close with a question; If homosexuality did have a genetic component, what would change about the moral questions? As far as I could see, nothing.
