Posted on 09/07/2014 7:07:57 PM PDT by WXRGina
I read a similar article to the included here some months ago. Perhaps it is not in the genetic code. However, I think there may be only a small percentage of those who choose’ homosexuality, derived from atypical life experiences. It would seem logical that if not genetic then the premise of an in womb development is logical. Which means it is preventable or curable someday medically during fetal development.
Genetic modifications that respond to hormones in the womb may explain the development of homosexuality.
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb
How often does someone mention a mustache or facial hair on a woman, or an adam’s apple on a woman as a sign of them being a “butch” lesbian?
How often does someone make a comment about a man's face perhaps looking a bit feminine?
It is not hard to find Freepers who use PHYSICAL characteristics (Which are obviously, and by definition, hereditary) to call someone “gay”.
There is no gay gene. That much is certain.
There may be however, conditions pre-birth that cause this defect in the unborn child’s brain. This will then be exacerbated or ‘activated’ by life experience (see the link between children who are sexually abused and then become homosexual).
I just find it very unfortunate that the perversion has been politicized and turned into some kind of ‘Civil Rights campaign’ because while we may find a way to prevent other disorders, this one’s cure may be hindered by activists.
I’m guessing here, not a geneticist but intuitively:
Homosexuality could be simply the the combination of various genes, in which case, it would still be genetic, just not a specific gene, and would not be selected out of the species.
As a very silly example, if the color Blue has sex with the color Green, the resulting child might be a Yellow. Even if Yellow can not ‘breed’ and make colors for children, Yellow would still consistently appear in the Color species.
It could be a defect in some gene, like the genes responsible for attraction. Obviously trying to mate with the same gender indicates a defect of some sort.
I was merely pointing out that the article is flawed science.
Every human being is born with desires and tendencies that must be curbed if that person is to live peacefully with his fellow humans. We all have desires to sin and we must daily fight those desires. Homosexuals are no different.
A person can be ‘born homosexual’ without it being due to a genetic cause. Children are born damaged all the time because of behaviors of the mother at critical points in pregnancy.
That's the one this debate always causes me to think about. It's my understanding that quite a few things can go wrong during that nine month gestation period.
Physical defects such as club feet or a hair lip, or hermaphradites, and others, and even some problems of brain development. Are there genes for those defects, or are they developmental problems of the fetus?
I'm not certain, but I think the nine month gestation period is a possibility for various developmental problems, but it never seems to be mentioned in the gay debate one way or the other.
You wrote: “Pure mental disorder, just buried as such to promote the destruction of the family and American culture.”
A clarification:
If a young man believes that he is really a dog and should have been born a German Shepard and that his body has betrayed him and goes about eating Purina Puppy Chow, crawling on all fours and barking even a liberal will say he is delusional and send him for treatment
If a young man says that he is really a girl and should have been born woman and goes about wearing a dress and panties, while wearing Max Faxtor rouge a liberal says he is “Gay” and can’t help it.
The two issues amount to the same thing and may have many of the same causes but are treated differently.
This is exactly what I say. It is a defect.
No one in his right mind would choose this. Why ever would women mess with each other? How? How is there any physical pleasure involved? Nothing fits together at all. It makes no sense whatsoever.
The problem with the “gay gene would die out” theory is it assumes that no “gay” would have any children, ever.
That assumes that due to a “gay” inclination, a “gay” person would not go ahead and marry/and/or/at-least/have children, in spite of that “gay” inclination - for social reasons (peer & family pressure) and any other reason.
Yet that assumption is contrary to what has been reported by sociologists & the “gay” community for quite a long time - that in fact a sizable number of “gays” in the past DID (and some still do) marry and bare children out of the social pressures to do so.
That also is no proof that there IS a “gay” gene, but it proves that even if there was a “gay” gene, it would not have died out (at least not entirely) as “gays” would still make up some portion of the child bearing population, in spite of their “gay” preference.
And even more telling, genetically, is IF there was (A BIG IF as there is no proof pf a “gay” gene) a “gay” gene that was only “activated” when some other gene was also present, making a condition where the “gay” gene could be carried, & not always expressed but passed on.
I do not think there is any proof of a “gay” gene. But the theory that it would “die out” is in error and is not a proof that there is not one.
A “suicide” gene does not prevent procreation with the opposite sex - genius.
By your asinine response, my guess is that you desperately want to avoid taking responsibility for your choices in life.
Gays often cite the claim that it is genetic or something they are born with as the last word on the subject, but there are many other conditions about which the same claim could be made which are nonetheless universally considered to be undesirable: genetic defects, alcoholism, pederasty, certain kinds of psychological illness, etc.
I believe the current thinking is that homosexuality has a biological cause, though not a genetic cause. The theory goes that at a crucial point in fetal development, some pre-borns get the proper dosage of hormones and develop normal sexuality, and some don’t and end up homosexual. Once again, I don’t think the jury is in on this yet.
Although it sounds very logical it is not so simple many detrimental genes only express in th of what appear to be two unaffected individuals.
Additionally many persons who express themselves as homosexual will also have children biologically has the desire to have children is not solely linkd to heterosexual persons. This is not to say that we are cast by our genetics into preordained choices.
There is the possibility that pure homosexuality as a brain disorder is more common today than 50 years ago as a result of hormonal contraception.
Then again, we may see more of it because of simple tolerance of it. A hundred years ago, a man with mild homosexual impulses would bury the impulses and become a wonderfully sensitive husband. (Dennis Prager has discussed several times on his show how the rise of homosexuality contributes to the lack of good men as husbands, even if it is just taking 1% of the guys off the market). Now he “comes out of the closet” at 16 and has a series of homosexual liaisons.
Whether we have more tolerance because the incidence is higher or a higher incidence because it is more tolerated, I don’t know.
Let’s hold off on the blame the mother going on here.
Not all defects are simply the problem of gestation. Some happen inherently at conception, or even from faulty sperm. It is not always our fault.
Just trying to clarify that before too many more posts come out like these.
In general one example is thalidomide. It produces non-genetic but still congenital birth defects.
As to specifically homosexuality? I have no idea if it is genetic, non-genetic but congenital, post birth mental defect or a choice. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a combination from all of those and more. I was just refuting the author's erroneous assertion that all birth defects must have genetic causes.
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.