[Moseley]

Seems like it, but it might be more complex than a single gene.

But what you are missing, what everyone is missing, is that a genetic basis for homosexuality has to START somewhere. Heterosexuality is not just a random trait, but the core engine of reproduction, without which no human race exists. A variation on heterosexuality has to ARISE somehow. So there has to be something that creates an alternate version: A single genetic mutation.

There are bad things that haven’t died out—like juvenile diabetes.

But sexuality is central to reproduction, and therefore to the continuation of the trait. Again, this is what people are missing. Sexuality is not just red hair versus blonde hair. Sexuality is the core engine by which a genetic trait is passed on to a subsequent generation. Without sexuality, the trait dies out when the carrier of the gene dies.

Furthermore, the definition of homosexuality is a reduced or no desire to have reproductive sex with a member of the opposite sex. By definition, homosexuality is a lowered or no desire to engage in sex that passes the person's genes on to a subsequent generation.

It is possible for a carrier of juvenile diabetes to have lots of children. It is not possible for homosexuals to have children at the same rate as the surrounding population, because by definition homosexuality is a sharply reduced interest in sex with the opposite sex.

Even homosexuals married, due to social pressure, to a member of the opposite sex will lack interest -- by definition -- in sexual activity likely to pass their genes on to children.

And there are lots of homosexual animals out there, too.

I think those reports are about as likely to be true as man-made global warming.

Also, we need to distinguish indiscriminate stupidity from an orientation toward the same sex.

A dog will hump your leg. That doesn't mean that dogs are attracted to human legs rather than to female dogs. It just means they will hump anything.

[Ransomed]

“It is not possible for homosexuals to have children at the same rate as the surrounding population, because by definition homosexuality is a sharply reduced interest in sex with the opposite sex.”

What about all the cultures that were/are into normalized man-boy/gay type sex while keeping wives or multiple wives? We would look at them all, and rightly so, as sick. But wouldn’t they be passing any hypothetical genetic homosexual predilection on no matter what?

Freegards