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.
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.
Ping for reference.
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”.
“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.”
That's the money line right there.
Natural selection isn't PC.
While, as the article argues, is it quite evident that homosexuality cannot be a monogenetic trait -- it would have long ago died out had it been -- this does not prove it cannot be inborn. First, non-adaptive polygenetic traits can survive if each of the genes for them is itself part of the genetic signature for some other, adaptive, trait. Second, there is the little understood realm of epigenetics. Homosexuality could arise from some "insult" suffered in utero (e.g. exposure to some chemical, perhaps elevated levels of some hormone) and be "from birth" without being genetic in basis.
The problem is that a behavior tendency being inborn does not somehow make the behavior moral. Psychopathy seems to be inborn, but we do not therefore decide that the behavior of psychopaths -- lying, cheating, stealing and murder -- is morally neutral or to be "celebrated". No more would an inborn tendency toward the commission of buggery make buggery morally neutral or something to be "celebrated". It is in the realm of moral reasoning that the left fails on this (though their actual devotion to their shibboleth of neo-Darwinism is dubious in this matter, too, since somehow they devote a great deal of effort to defending the Darwinian dead-ends of homoeroticism and "transgenderism").
80% were molested as children.
What else do we need to know?
Humans are more complicated than are animals. Factors that contribute to homosexuality include:
1) Genetic malfunction. Homosexuals have a much higher rate of other genetic flaws and birth defects, with both physical and psychological consequences.
2) About halfway through fetal gestation, male fetuses secrete a small amount of testosterone that travels to their brain and tells it is a “male” brain. If it is not received, for whatever reason, including chemical interference, the brain is by default female. This has been extensively studied since the 1960s. This is enough, in *animals*, to determine their mating behavior and sexuality.
But importantly, it is *not* enough to do so in humans.
In humans, it will help determine sexual identity, sometimes androgyny, and can result in more effeminate males and more masculine females. But it does *not* determine their sexuality.
3) Hormones in adolescence and adulthood. Males do have a small amount of the female hormone estrogen; and females do have a small amount of the male hormone testosterone. And while varying levels of these and others will result in significant “secondary sex characteristics”, they do not include sexuality. (With the exception that females with more testosterone than normal tend to be somewhat more sexual and enjoy sex more.)
4) “Nurture”. The people who raise children have considerable influence into their sexuality, sexual behavior, social behavior, and sexual expectations, as does other formative influences such as peers and schooling.
The negative side of this, which is quite influential, is sexual abuse, which has clearly been shown to result in abusive behavior by children, as well as sexual confusion. Pornography figures into this as well.
Likewise, “sexual experimentation” is often used as an excuse by a sexually experienced person to abuse those who are less experienced, and can be used to persuade others that their sexuality is something it is not.
It is a mental illness. Any other explanation is pure bull!
There’s one theory where there could be a genetic basis for homosexuality. Assuming there’s multiple alleles involved, it’s possible that carriers of some of the alleles get a reproductive advantage that compensates the disadvantage of a homosexual pheontype. Suppose that female carriers of the male homosexuality genes wanted to have sex with males more than the average - and hence had more than the average number of children. It is possible that that could compensate they’re male children having no offspring.
The interesting thing about this is that in the modern world because of birth control the amount of sex has been strongly decoupled from fertility rates. This means that the homosexual genes should leave the population as the base comment argues...
Homo mutation (male and female) is 99.99% caused by molestation.