Ad Showing 'Homosexual' Newborn Causes Stir in Italy, page 8

Homosexuality is not a fault or a disease

reply to post by badw0lf

I'm not sure I understood the post in which you quoted me, badw0lf. I wasn't the one arguing in favour of eradicating the 'gay gene'; I was saying the opposite, that we should not attempt to eradicate it.

Down's syndrome sufferers and homosexuals are not the same. I think it is rather insensitive to the feelings of both parties, and those who love them, to compare the two. But let's not talk about that; let's explore, instead, the differences between them, which are illuminating.

First of all, Down's is a 'genetic' disease, but crucially, not in the sense that it is caused by an inherited mutation of a single gene; Down's is not usually inherited, it's random. In fact, it has nothing to do with genetic mutation at all: it is caused by the sufferer having a whole extra chromosome -- 47 instead of the usual 46.

Homosexuals do not have extra chromosomes.

Now, remember that in this sub-discussion we are asking ourselves what if homosexual orientation is mostly or wholly genetically determined. It may not be, or not entirely; environmental factors -- not parental or cultural conditioning but biochemical variations affecting foetal development -- may be the cause, as has already been discussed on this thread. That is certainly possible and a lot of studies indicate that these factors are relevant -- but right now we're sticking to the question of whether it would be wise to try to eradicate the 'gay gene' if one existed.

I am saying -- insisting, in fact -- that it is not.

There are diseases caused by deleterious mutations. Such diseases are usually quite rare, and tend to vanish over time because the mutants' reproductive success is not as high as their conspecifics' -- there are only so many loci on a strand of DNA, after all, and the competition between genes to occupy those loci is stiff. Genes that support the survival and reproduction of their carrier will tend to win over those that don't. This is what we call natural selection and it is, as I said earlier, ruthless.

A good example of a disease caused by a deleterious mutation is haemophilia, which results from the sufferer possessimg a defective gene: the factor VII gene, which occupies a locus on the X chromosome. It is a rare disease, affecting one in 10,000 men and one in 100,000,000 (yes, eight zeros) women. It is rare because male haemophiliacs are less likely to survive to reproductive age than normal people. But it survives because women, who have two copies of the X chromosome to men's one, can carry the gene and pass it on without suffering from haemophilia themselves -- the normal gene from one X chromosome compensates for the mutant gene on the other.

Yet even with this 'protection', haemophila is quite rare.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is awfully common. Estimates of prevalance range from one in 25 to one in ten males. Prevalance among females is much rarer. Note that this is just what you would expect of a gene, like the gene for haemophilia, that is carried on the X chromosome. If homosexuality is inherited, it is matrilineally inherited*. But the point is, genes as common as this are never deleterious; on the contrary, they are usually genes that promote the survival of the carrier.

The obvious conclusion is that, if there is a 'homosex gene', it is a beneficial gene, not a deleterious one, and we may eradicate it only at the risk of eradicating a large chunk of humanity -- not just the gay ones. That was my earlier point.

* * *

Let's get one thing straight, shall we? Homosexuality is not a disease or a deficiency..

Homosexuals are normal people. They can even reproduce normally under the right circumstances. The only disadvantage to being homosexual is that queer folk are so hated and despised by fools and bigots. Oh, and let's not forget the cowards, people so terrified of their own 'latent' homosexuality that they bash other gay people to show the world how macho, heterosexual and Godly they are.

If only the rest of us would leave queer folk alone, they'd do just fine.

==========================================

*This may be how folk wisdom of blaming mothers for their queer sons originated. Possibly women with one copy of the 'homosex gene' exhibit certain types of behaviour towards their sons, which other people (including the good Doctor Freud) could observe. To a psychologist in the pre-molecular biology era, such behaviour would suggest that homosexuality resulted from childhood conditioning. Many people still believe this. It's not true.

[edit on 28-10-2007 by Astyanax]