Gene Tierney
Don't know about the lesbian genes but she was gorgeous enough probably to convert a few.
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.
Of course, it helps that media, public school administrators, universities, the legal profession, etc ... are all heavily promoting the “gay lifestyle,” and exposing children to it a ever decreasing ages levels, so to indoctrinate and trap them into the behavior. Sort of along this line: “How do you know your not gay ... There was a time in world history when those individuals who corrupted the youth of a culture were immediately put to death. Hint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
I have known several who were born with both male and female sex organs. This is how I see homosexuality, as a birth defect.
The tenth value was generated by a very poor study in a very long time ago by a man named Kinsey (1948) More recent studies generally place the upper boundary at 4 and the more likely boundary at 2 to 3 percent
You said it best. We all have desires and urges that we must suppress. That is TRUE! But if someone is truly happy living with same sex partner and not trying to bother anyone else, I would leave them alone!
There is no "blame the mother" involved. What were once commonly called "birth defects" - physical, mental and behavioral - have been around forever, and we still don't know the cause of all of them.
Some might recall that the old March of Dimes annual fundraisers at first were to fight polio. After polio vaccines practially eliminated that in the developed world, the March of Dimes continued raising money, but to fight birth defects once polio was under control.
Whether some common birth defects, or other problems are genetic, or developmental is still not known.
There is no such predisposition that necessitates a conscious mind to make such a decision. A defective genome that predisposes an individual to behave in such a manner that would make the propagation of it’s genetic line is a possibility, but not one that must be dictated by an intelligent guiding hand.
In the end, such a hypothesis (mine) is idle speculation, and really has nothing to back it up.
What is “claimed” and what is “actual” are two different things.
I still prefer they keep it all hidden. We have enough sexual sin without their very visible presence in public bringing up the whole subject to children, who frankly should not even countenance any of it until maybe 10. No real desire until 13.
Even worse if they are allowed to raise children. Bad for those children, yes, but blatantly brings up the sex subject to other children when it needn’t be there.
How is then that, in every instance of research done to date, the correlation of same-sex attraction among identical twins never exceeds 11 percent?
If homosexuality were a genetic trait, then both individuals in a set of identical twins would possess the inclination to the same degree and without exception - since they share the same DNA. Yet that is hardly the case, even in the most biased research.
It is not directed at you, just the last post mentioning gestational disturbances i.e., something the mother did. It may not be intentional but the number of posts mentioning that without any mention of the many other causes of defects implies, mother (woman) did something bad. Yes, I am a bit sensitive after many years on FR. Just trying to ensure other causes get mention.
Then how is it that such attraction is not 100 percent identifiable in identical twins? They both share the same DNA, the same womb, the same placenta, the same maternal blood and protein exposure ... and yet the correlation of homosexual attraction among identical twins has never - in any research thus far - exceeded 11 percent ... and even that degree of correlation is at the margins and not typical.
Gene Tierney
Don't know about the lesbian genes but she was gorgeous enough probably to convert a few.
Interesting that you would select thalidomide as an example. Most of the afflicted were born in Japan after WW2 and the atomic bombs were used as the primary “excuse” in those cases, or at least that is what I have learned, and that information may be in error I will admit. In any case, such a correlation was determined very quickly and the man made compound was taken out of use for pregnant women.
While there is also a distinct possibility that, chemically and a result of man made compounds, such a cause has not been located to date, and homosexuality has been with humanity from the beginning it seems. That reality makes me believe that perhaps it is simply a learned behavior that is easily acquired or perhaps a common defect of the most complex organ known to man (our brain(.
Interesting speculations, and I still reserve the right to ask any homosexual advocate that if there is a genetic defect or chemical reason for homosexual behavior that could be cured by medicinal therapy or genetic therapy, would they be an advocate for such a “cure”?
The article is not necessarily flawed science. It is more a statement that despite speculation, no gene associated with homosexuality has ever been found. A scientific proof would require that the gene be produced(you can not prove a negative hypothesis of existence.) Could the action of several genes or gene defects produce homosexual behavior? Perhaps, but that is speculation, and runs afoul of the general evolutionary principle that in the long run genetic outcomes that reduce successful reproduction are eventually removed from the pool. The argument that a homosexual gene combination might exits to ‘solve’ some other existential problem is literally a solution in search of a problem; possible I suppose, but not a very strong argument. In my opinion, homosexuality is much more likely a function of the wide innate range of human emotional response, or is derived from conditioning.
The point is not all born problems are “genetic”, as ininherited traits. Many are accidental mutations, or defective gametes themselves.
My post was not intended as support for the existence of a homosexual gene. I do not know if one exists or not. My post was intended to point out the flaw in the reasoning committed by the author. That line of reasoning would apply to other genetic defects that inhibited reproduction. Since other such genetic defects are well documented, and less controversial, it is clear that the premise of the article is false.
Again, the low correlation of homosexual attraction among identical twins does not support your argument. It has yet to exceed 11 percent, which makes it statistically insignificant.
if what you argue were true, then in every set of identical twins, where one twin expresses same sex attraction, then the other must also express the same attraction to the same degree. Since this is not the case, then your argument cannot be valid.
Explain identical twins.
You did not read the article in its entirety, did you? The author discusses this point.
Dennis Prager
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.php
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.