I don't claim to know much about politics. Neither do I claim knowledge of science. And it certainly beats me how a scientific question became political. But the following is a fallacy I've been thinking about for quite some time that -- while I don't claim it to be profound -- has been bothering me: If homosexuality is genetic, then why does homosexuality exist? I mean, those who are homosexual have a huge disadvantage in passing their gay genes to the next generation, so wouldn't after a few generations homosexuality completely disappear? Wouldn't evolution destroy the gay gene?

Yes. Its okay that you are a homosexual.

Recessive genes.

At 5/13/09 11:50 PM, D3NTATUS wrote: Recessive genes.

But when recessive genes cause a negative impact on reproduction rate, that recessive gene gets eliminated. Furthermore, because the gay gene would cause a practically zero reproduction rate, the gay gene should have been eliminated a long time ago. Lr2 evolution 101.

Gays can have kids... in fact, many are raising families...
It's not a genetic hinderance at all...

They just choose to raise the kids in a loving family with their partner... who so happens to be the same sex.
Gays do have many options in how they want a family.

At 5/13/09 11:56 PM, fli wrote: Gays can have kids... in fact, many are raising families...
It's not a genetic hinderance at all...

But much more often than not, the kids are not their kids by blood. Certainly gays reproduce offspring at a much lower rate than heterosexuals, no?

At 5/13/09 11:52 PM, EmoNarc wrote: But when recessive genes cause a negative impact on reproduction rate, that recessive gene gets eliminated.

Not necessarily. It can remain hidden in genealogies for ages, only coming out when paired with another gene. Also, not every trait is controlled by a single trait. It's more often than not that homosexuality, if indeed controlled by genetics, is the result of multiple genetic factors, not just a "gay gene." It is also possible that homosexuality is a combination of hormones, genes, and upbringing.

At 5/13/09 11:56 PM, fli wrote: Gays can have kids... in fact, many are raising families...
It's not a genetic hinderance at all...

They just choose to raise the kids in a loving family with their partner... who so happens to be the same sex.
Gays do have many options in how they want a family.

Adoption doesn't pass genes, you know.

At 5/14/09 12:07 AM, dySWN wrote: Adoption doesn't pass genes, you know.

Adoption isn't the only option.
And there are other situations.
Sometimes gays experiment and have kids before finding out that they're gay...
Sometimes gays set up a situation where they ask somebody to donate their genetic information...
Then there are their are surrogates.

How would you know if you had a baby and you were homosexuals

At 5/14/09 12:15 AM, Creek wrote: How would you know if you had a baby and you were homosexuals

Well, if you're a lesbian, it's pretty damn obvious.

If you're a gay man, you'll know when baby mama comes looking for that check every month.

Ain't life grand and simple?

At 5/13/09 11:25 PM, EmoNarc wrote: so wouldn't after a few generations homosexuality completely disappear? Wouldn't evolution destroy the gay gene?

Problem is that evolution doesn't happen, people and other creatures can "adapt" and homosexuality may as well be a damged piece of DNA or something similar, but that doesn't mean it goes beyond human capability to control and overcome.

For example, it is obviously in our DNA/genes or whatever to tell us when we're hungry, that doesn't mean we will automaticly eat when food is placed before us.
And hell, theres most definetly a gene that decides what color our hair is but that doesn't mean we're going to like it, could a gene dictate what color you like? ...............

Anyway, homosexuality is ultimatly a choice, there may be something in the DNA that can suggest it, but evidently we can go against it....

At 5/14/09 12:29 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Problem is that evolution doesn't happen, people and other creatures can "adapt" and homosexuality may as well be a damged piece of DNA or something similar, but that doesn't mean it goes beyond human capability to control and overcome.

Cue the religious guy trying to sound like he knows what the hell he's talking about vs. the mountain of evidence that says he doesn't. Also, why does homosexuality need to be "overcome" why is it so "wrong" or "bad"? Oh, don't use God. That's the only thing, you can't use God as your excuse.

For example, it is obviously in our DNA/genes or whatever to tell us when we're hungry, that doesn't mean we will automaticly eat when food is placed before us.

If we're hungry why wouldn't we? Unless of course it's food we don't like, which hey, I guess that means that your arguing it IS a genetic thing since you're essentially saying we will not simply do something (in this case pick a sexual partner) just because the oppurtunity is there, our genetics or experiences will tell us not to if it's something we don't like. So then the genes/DNA and experiences of a gay person will tell them they aren't attracted to or interested in the opposite sex, but are in fact interested in and attracted to the same sex.

And hell, theres most definetly a gene that decides what color our hair is but that doesn't mean we're going to like it, could a gene dictate what color you like? ...............

I think perhaps you should read the bits where some people spoke about the fact that it is usually a combination of genes, upbringing, and other factors that may determine things like this. That we can't simply boil it down to "one gene makes you gay, one gene makes your hair this color" it's all a rich tapestry, and not a simple thing of "this part goes into slot a and controls this..."

Anyway, homosexuality is ultimatly a choice, there may be something in the DNA that can suggest it, but evidently we can go against it....

Not if people are actually homosexuals though. While there's the people who "stopped" being gay (and of this I'm very skeptical) how do we know they really were gay to begin with? That they weren't just experimenting or for some reason did not have their sexual preference clearly come to them at puberty like a lot of the rest of us did. Have you ever entertained gay thoughts Shaggy? I haven't, I've known from the time I was quite young that I was attracted to the opposite sex, and many many (if not most) gay people have that same experience, only it's clear knowledge their attracted to the same sex, and they then work to suppress who and what they are because people like you seem hellbent on telling them it's wrong and how to live their lives. What gives you or anyone that right? DON'T SAY GOD BECAUSE THAT'S JUST A COP OUT!

Homosexuality isn't wrong, it just goes against one of the roles of both genders which is to procreate. There's nothing wrong with it, it just hinders the natural cycle.

At 5/14/09 12:52 AM, Nosferatu-of-Worms wrote: Homosexuality isn't wrong, it just goes against one of the roles of both genders which is to procreate. There's nothing wrong with it, it just hinders the natural cycle.

Which considering we're about a billion people over the "population ceiling" for the planet, maybe it isn't such a bad thing if some people are either inclined through sexual preference, or just plain ol' decide not to have kids.

At 5/14/09 12:45 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: you seem hellbent on telling them it's wrong and how to live their lives. What gives you or anyone that right? DON'T SAY GOD BECAUSE THAT'S JUST A COP OUT!

I don't tell people how to live, and even if I did it wouldn't mean they would have to do it.....(free will XP)

What gives me the right to tell people that I think something is wrong?
Because I don't do those things.....and I'm pretty happy whereas people who do those things don't seem happy at all, not saying everyone who does bad things aren't happy at one point, gay people seem to be more angry n violent against people who aren't than happy....

So what makes me say being violent against people who aren't the exact same as you is wrong?
Well lets just say its a little voice in my head n a pain in my chest/heart.....

At 5/14/09 12:59 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: not saying everyone who does bad things aren't happy at one point, gay people seem to be more angry n violent against people who aren't than happy....

Let's play a game. For every article or video I find of a homosexual being violent and angry, you have to go find a video of a christian being violent and angry.

Hmmmm?

At 5/14/09 12:59 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: I don't tell people how to live, and even if I did it wouldn't mean they would have to do it.....(free will XP)

Seems to me if you're telling somebody their lifestyle is "wrong" it's the same as basically telling them how to live. Since by saying their current lifestyle is wrong, you would like them to live the opposite of such.

What gives me the right to tell people that I think something is wrong?
Because I don't do those things.....and I'm pretty happy whereas people who do those things don't seem happy at all, not saying everyone who does bad things aren't happy at one point, gay people seem to be more angry n violent against people who aren't than happy....

I don't notice that, Maus is one the happiest and nicest people I know (wish she'd come back). My uncles (one biological, the other his partner for those who like to keep score) was very happy in his life and relationship until the cancer fully kicked in. No violent tendencies there, how about you come up with some evidence instead of making blanket statements with nothing to back them up?

So what makes me say being violent against people who aren't the exact same as you is wrong?
Well lets just say its a little voice in my head n a pain in my chest/heart.....

I'm glad you feel that way. I do hope this applies to violence AGAINST gays also, and not just the perceived "anger and violence" they visit on others (which again I'd like to see your ass back up with something more substantial then "cause I said so). I hope something like what happened to Matthew Shepherd makes you feel just as bad as when somebody you don't like is violent against a group you do like.

You still also completely sidestepped my asking you to back up your claim that homosexuality is wrong and must be overcome. Is it cause I said you couldn't use the God cop out?

I thought you knew better than to reply to Shaggy, aview :P.

On a more serious note, if it is genetic, I don't see how it would be a hindrance to the survival of the species.

At 5/14/09 02:55 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: I thought you knew better than to reply to Shaggy, aview :P.

I just really like seeing what he comes up with next, I really do :)

On a more serious note, if it is genetic, I don't see how it would be a hindrance to the survival of the species.

Especially since it's not across the board or in significant enough numbers that it's threatening anything, and like I say, overpopulation is a problem.

'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes
American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of http://www.narth.com/
A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.
Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
However, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.

The new statement says:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation.
Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.
Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..

Byrd said the APA's documents both new and old "have strong activist overtones," but the newer document "is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f a=PAGE.view&pageId=97940

That's it folks. The APA itself has deleted the claim of a gay gene from their books, making it a psychological disorder once again as it should be. There is no reason to believe that being a faggot is genetic.

At 5/14/09 07:28 AM, jAk88 wrote:
That's it folks. The APA itself has deleted the claim of a gay gene from their books, making it a psychological disorder once again as it should be. There is no reason to believe that being a faggot is genetic.

Read your own quote.
It doesn't say that homosexuality isn't caused by genetics. It says that we don't know whether it is or not.
It also says we don't know of ANY contributing factors to homosexuality, so that means we don't know if it's a 'psychological disorder' either.

Because humans are bisexual to differing degrees, but our lame modern society thinks there are only two sexual orientations, hetero and homo. IBTP.

weither or not it's genetic is completly irrelevent. What two consenting adults do is there own damn buisness.

Everything is your personality is at least partly genetic.
Why haven't people got this yet?

At 5/13/09 11:25 PM, EmoNarc wrote: I don't claim to know much about politics. Neither do I claim knowledge of science. And it certainly beats me how a scientific question became political. But the following is a fallacy I've been thinking about for quite some time that -- while I don't claim it to be profound -- has been bothering me: If homosexuality is genetic, then why does homosexuality exist? I mean, those who are homosexual have a huge disadvantage in passing their gay genes to the next generation, so wouldn't after a few generations homosexuality completely disappear? Wouldn't evolution destroy the gay gene?

That is perhaps the only well-thought-out point that homosexuality is not genetic. The problem with that is you can have a gay gene in you and not be gay. For instance, if you have a gene that causes you to develop Parkinson's, you might not get Parkinson's you could just carry the gene. So, in theory, we could all carry the gay gene (assuming it exists) and pass it on to our children.

I am not personally sure whether or not homosexuality is genetic, I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other (not to say that there isn't any, I just never bothered to look it up).

At 5/14/09 08:52 AM, Kalle-R wrote: Because humans are bisexual to differing degrees, but our lame modern society thinks there are only two sexual orientations, hetero and homo. IBTP.

It is probably just you, and you project your dysfunction onto everyone else to make yourself seem normal when in reality you aren't. Homosexuals aren't normal and society is doing them a disservice by treating them normal.

If you remove the assumption that homosexuality is purely genetics, then the solution is clear.

At 5/14/09 06:03 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: If you remove the assumption that homosexuality is purely genetics, then the solution is clear.

....Kill?

At 5/14/09 05:51 PM, jAk88 wrote: It is probably just you, and you project your dysfunction onto everyone else to make yourself seem normal when in reality you aren't. Homosexuals aren't normal and society is doing them a disservice by treating them normal.

hes actually right; introducing the Kinsey scale.