Posted on 07/09/2015 6:47:42 AM PDT by Moseley
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at barbwire.com ...
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.
Finding the gene would wreck the Gay Movement. You would be able to test people for homosexuality. What are they going to do if gay people keep failing the test? It would prove that the behavior is a choice.
Sorry, never got around to posting this at FR originally, but it is now in the news again.
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.
Read more at http://barbwire.com/2014/09/05/homosexuality-genetic-cause/
How do they answer this issue? Dr. James Dobson made a similar observation and it makes too much sense not to be true.
Good point....
It’s amazing how many people don’t realize they’re gay until they go to prison.
Take a really good look at Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Picture her as someone’s mother. Then you can begin to understand how a homosexual evolves into being.
Myself, I’m of the part-genetic, part cultural persuasion.
Rather than argue over the relative contribution of those factors, I’d like to point out that a lot of research has gone into trying to find genes that code for intelligence, with minimal success—it seems to be due to the outcome of the combination of a number of genes.
It isn’t inconceivable that a predisposition to homosexuality might be genetic, although there’s clearly a lot of acculturation going on in most cases (otherwise, why all the promotion?).
If homosexuality were carried by a gene, it could be detected by amniocentesis, and parents who do not want a homosexual child could make an appointment with planned parenthood.
That would pose a very difficult dilemma for liberals, would it not?
Excepting smart people like their kind, leftists view humans as a pox on the planet which ought to be reduced to the historical levels of about a half billion people which the planet supported prior to the invention of capitalism.
A few of the more the more enlightened leftists will tell you that thanks to improving technologies (which, of course, had nothing to do with the rise of capitalism) means the planet can now support two or perhaps even four times the historical level of half a billion.
I know this for a fact because when I was a young journalism major in college, I frequented coffee houses and other leftist hangouts and posed as one of them. They are quite honest in speaking openly about their intentions when they believe they are only speaking among their own kind.
I’m of the opinion that gestational conditions contribute.
Ping for reference.
I would offer an former network administrator at the University where I worked and suffered from her.
6 foot or so and 2x mass of a typical lady. Needed some dental. Had a fat and dumb kid and was on 2nd marriage at the time.
I couldn’t imagine having to come home to that. Being a certified leftist wacko didn’t help.
LOL, so true.
I think homosexuality is a selfish deviant obsessive compulsive behavior. Those traits can be changed if one wants to change them. The operative word here is “wants”.
I believe it’s nurture over nature.......or quite often early molestation by a male relative. Sorry, but the statistics would likely bear me out. I would like to know what is the percentage of gay men who had no father figure in their upbringing. I doubt gay men would participate in such a study though.
“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Why? What’s your theory?
What are they going to do if gay people keep failing the test?
quite simply, they would just ban the test, as they are trying to ban conversion therapy...
there...problem solved...
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.