Natural Selection and the Genetic Basis for Homosexuality

Of course not - that's why the United States does not endorse gay marriage - we are using our brains so we don't go extinct. Thanks for establishing that!

Lol, his point went completely over your head

You have completely missed the point of my post and misrepresented my position. I clearly said that divorce does damage to families in addition too the fact homosexuality does. I never implied gay marriage causes divorce. I was trying to make sure you did not think I was pinning it all on homosexuality, which you proceeded to do anyway. Try to read my post more carefully next time.

What I actually said was that divorce, adultery, and homosexual behavior detracts from the traditional nuclear family unit - which is best situation for children -on average. You completely misunderstood.

I didn't misunderstand, my point is that gays have no impact on another nuclear family unit. If the families dad became gay, and the wife and children suffered, yes. But a lot of gays aren't going to have families and therefor aren't going to hurt anyone Perhaps you should make yourself more clear.

It is irrelevant when it was written since it is a study of the history of the fall of empires. The embrace of non committal sexuality in whatever form destroys family cohesiveness. The police departments can testify it's not always in private areas, the public park - adult bookstore - gay sex scene is common knowledge.

The rest of your post is just a straw man argument. The stock market etc. and slavery have nothing to do with the issue. They still had slaves when they collapsed.

You're implying that he was unbiased, but I doubt that is the case. Straight men are not having gay sex so I don't see how it harms family cohesiveness. "Gay sex scene" is a stereotype and I find it sad that you even mention it when you're trying to prove something. Since when does a few gays getting arrested for public indecency justify a negitive outlook on all of them? That is ridiculous. My point about the slavery was that they needed it for their empire, but we don't adopt that in this country. Not everything can be translated to a modern day culture.

Another blatant misrepresentation of my post. I didn't call them healthy families because of having male and female parents. What I actually wrote was "children are better off in healthy families with a male and female parent who are together." Healthy means no abuse, parents are loving, sane and present in the children's lives.

If you are going to quote statistics like that you need to provide evidence a "what is it..." doesn't mean much. But even if I give you that supposition because I'm inclined to agree there's a lot of dysfunction, How does that infer we should endorse and approve of it?

Of course kids with gay parents love there parents. That doesn't change the fact it erodes at the best known model for a family.

You should have said, "children are better off in families with a male and female parent who are together". We aren't talking about "no abuse, parents are loving, sane and present in the children's lives." Gays can be the same things, so in a thread talking about gays this makes no sense. It's such a widespread statistic I didn't feel the need to research it, go look if you want. "Best known model for a family" You want me to source my statistics, I ask for you to find sources for that.

No it degrades the concept of family. It is proven to be decremental to civilization.

No it doesn't, it expands the concept of family. I don't care about civilization, is it harmful to kids? No, parents and children in gay families love eachother and are satisified.

Maybe you are missing some key information. Two males don't reproduce.
In a pragamtic sense, this is the death knell for humanity.

Yes two males can't reproduce, what's your point? There would be plenty of lesbians in this make believe world.

Of course not - that's why the United States does not endorse gay marriage - we are using our brains so we don't go extinct. Thanks for establishing that!

By having brains, I mean that we aren't as simple as a math problem. A lesser species that didn't have sexual attraction, would indeed die off. Humans have brains allowing them to adjust and predict things.

I have been specific, you just insist on using straw man arguments. I'm tired of it. Humanity depends on reproduction to survive. Same sex attraction does not favor reproduction. The cold hard scientific fact is this behavior is dysfunctional.

We don't need more people in the world, only smarter ones. Again, you aren't being specific and its frustrating. How is it dysfunctional? Is it dysfunctional for gay people and kids? nope.

Again, you can try to present a case against gays but there is no truth in it, no matter how hard you'd like it to. You are biased, your version of truth is not someone elses, so don't try to force it on them.

Originally posted by AlexG141989

Of course not - that's why the United States does not endorse gay marriage - we are using our brains so we don't go extinct. Thanks for establishing that!

Lol, his point went completely over your head

Which is why I'm done looking at this thread, lol. It is too bad gays didn't reproduce more often. The intelligence of society would probably rise a few points.


[edit on 19-10-2008 by ghaleon12]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by ghaleon12

I clearly said that divorce does damage to families in addition too the fact homosexuality does.

But EXACTLY how does homosexuality cause damage to families? You have not answered that.

What I actually said was that divorce, adultery, and homosexual behavior detracts from the traditional nuclear family unit - which is best situation for children -on average. You completely misunderstood.

Again, how does homosexual behavior detract people from traditional nuclear family unit?

The rest of your post is just a straw man argument. The stock market etc. and slavery have nothing to do with the issue. They still had slaves when they collapsed.

No it is not a strawman argument. I completely understood his point. Homosexuality causing damage to families make as much sense as it causing the stock market to plummet. Are homosexuals magicians? Do they have powerful hold over our lives and marriages?

Of course kids with gay parents love there parents. That doesn't change the fact it erodes at the best known model for a family.

What? You keep saying that it erodes the traditional family unit. Please explain how. Give us links. Anything.

Your statement that if everyone was a homosexual it would result in the extinction of humanity is false.

Maybe you are missing some key information. Two males don't reproduce.
In a pragmatic sense, this is the death knell for humanity.

Sorry, but that is wrong. Homosexuals who reproduce are not unheard of.

If we were talking about frogs or something, then yes, it would destroy the species.

Now your getting the point I was making. This thread is about the evolutionary paradigm...

HELLO???

It is all about balance. Homosexuality could be to keep the population under control. Of course if all males are unable to reproduce then they will face extinction. But that hasn't happened, has it?

Of course not - that's why the United States does not endorse gay marriage - we are using our brains so we don't go extinct. Thanks for establishing that!

Whether or not there are laws passed against homosexual lifestyle or marriage, some people are still homosexual and have gay relationships.
Do you see any threat of extinction right now (heck, ever)? The homosexual-heterosexual ratio is low, so there's nothing to worry about.

I have been specific, you just insist on using straw man arguments. I'm tired of it. Humanity depends on reproduction to survive. Same sex attraction does not favor reproduction. The cold hard scientific fact is this behavior is dysfunctional.

Who cares if it's dysfunctional? Does it hurt you, me or anyone else? You keep saying that it hurts families. You have yet to explain how.

Homosexual is very natural. Gay people are very happy (no pun intended).

Of course humans should be concerned about each other. That's not the topic This is not a thread about your emotional feelings for homosexuals. It is also not about religion or morality.

You are trying to push the idea that homosexuality is abnormal on evolutionary basis. Again, it could benefit us as whole since it keep population from going out of control.

We have nothing to worry about.

Originally posted by AlexG141989

Of course not - that's why the United States does not endorse gay marriage - we are using our brains so we don't go extinct. Thanks for establishing that!

Lol, his point went completely over your head

No I got his point, it's called sarcasm, since he insisted upon twisting every thing I wrote and burning strawmen, I had a little fun and returned the favor for a change. I'm not interested in wasting my time with such posters anymore.

Just to clarify on the marriage issue. In the sense of this thread's actual topic - same sex marriage has no reproductive benefit to humanity. Obviously that is a dysfunction in terms of survival benefit. Why certain posters find that an enigma is quite perplexing.

The government takes a view on behavior that is largely of a scientific and sociological nature. The government has 3 options when legislating behavior. Prohibit it, Permit it, or Endorse it. Is it of benefit like hard work? - then endorse it with incentives. If it is harmful like theft - prohibit it. If it is questionable only permit or tolerate it.

The government endorses marriage by giving tax incentives because traditional nuclear family structures raising children with the ideal of male and female parents is beneficial for the country. We do not prohibit Gay marriage, we permit it. Gays have wedding ceremonies every day in America. They also adopt children. What they are asking for is government endorsement. That's going too far. It has no survival benefit to humanity in a scientific sense. Permissiveness is plenty tolerant enough.

As far as the real topic of the thread, the scientific study presented was very interesting. I have always speculated myself that they could not help being attracted that way. But that study is not conclusive by any means. Even the scientist in the study believes it is a combination of genetic and psychological factors.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Just to clarify on the marriage issue. In the sense of this thread's actual topic - same sex marriage has no reproductive benefit to humanity. Obviously that is a dysfunction in terms of survival benefit. Why certain posters find that an enigma is quite perplexing.

No, we got your point. Individually it doesn't make sense. As a whole, it doesn't affect anything. There has never been a threat, ever. If there is, cite an example.

The government takes a view on behavior that is largely of a scientific and sociological nature. The government has 3 options when legislating behavior. Prohibit it, Permit it, or Endorse it. Is it of benefit like hard work? - then endorse it with incentives. If it is harmful like theft - prohibit it. If it is questionable only permit or tolerate it.

It does not matter whether the government endorse it or not. The fact is: there WILL ALWAYS be homosexuals. Period. The government can not stop human nature.

The government endorses marriage by giving tax incentives because traditional nuclear family structures raising children with the ideal of male and female parents is beneficial for the country.

Right. NOTHING to do with homosexuals. They do not "erode" family structures.
Someone explained to me why he thinks that gay marriages should not be permitted because of tax reasons. We are already in deep debt as it is. That is the only thing that actually made sense to me. None of the religious, ethics, morality, evolutionary crap.

We do not prohibit Gay marriage, we permit it. Gays have wedding ceremonies every day in America. They also adopt children. What they are asking for is government endorsement. That's going too far. It has no survival benefit to humanity in a scientific sense. Permissiveness is plenty tolerant enough.

For tax reasons, I do agree with you. But that is only as far as I will go. However, I will support gay marriages no matter what, because it is what they want.

As far as the real topic of the thread, the scientific study presented was very interesting. I have always speculated myself that they could not help being attracted that way. But that study is not conclusive by any means. Even the scientist in the study believes it is a combination of genetic and psychological factors.

So what? The cause of homosexuality could be any of these. The point remains: they CAN NOT help it. It is not a choice. It does not affect anyone. It does not threaten extinction. It does NOTHING. It is just pleasure between same sexes.

So what? The cause of homosexuality could be any of these. The point remains: they CAN NOT help it. It is not a choice. It does not affect anyone. It does not threaten extinction. It does NOTHING. It is just pleasure between same sexes.

Exactly, why do people fear it so much??? Homosexuality really does no harm to society, and the only people that think it does are the religious. That's saying something. I hate to bring up religion so much but it's true, religion is the only reason that homosexuality is as controversial as it is. This absolutely should not even be an issue.

reply to post by Deaf Alien

No, we got your point. Individually it doesn't make sense. As a whole, it doesn't affect anything. There has never been a threat, ever. If there is, cite an example.

Natural selection by definition favors traits that favor reproduction. Homosexuals do not reproduce. That is considered harmful in evolutionary terms. Why is that so hard to understand?

Are you just trying to change the topic as well? I'm done with addressing off topic posts. If you guys want to discuss morality start your own thread and stop derailing this one.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Natural selection by definition favors traits that favor reproduction. Homosexuals do not reproduce. That is considered harmful in evolutionary terms. Why is that so hard to understand?

We do not know the exact reason for homosexuality.
Individually, being unable to reproduce is of course harmful. A small community with high percentage of homosexuals will face danger, of course.
Now, as a whole, homosexuality does not present danger, because the ratio is so low.

Are you just trying to change the topic as well? I'm done with addressing off topic posts. If you guys want to discuss morality start your own thread and stop derailing this one.

How did I try to change the topic? Where did I say anything about morality?

Look, you are right about the survival of communities where population is low and the homosexuality percentage is high. Of course they will face danger of extinction.
HOWEVER, this is not the case. So, why worry about it?

reply to post by Deaf Alien


My question was why would the gene survive in Darwinian terms. It really should not. The facts prove is harmful behavior. It is not just a religious or moral matter as you guys misrepresent it to be. You are just wrong. The behavior is probably more harmful to the homosexuals themselves than anyone else. For that reason as well evolutionary processes should have eradicated it.

I really didn't want to go this route... but you guys keep pressing on it's not harmful. I cited sociological studies and the natural selection paradigm. But since you insist on pressing it as completely innocent and benign...

If you believe it is not harmful. Read this:

For example, one 1982 study mentioned in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal.1 And a 1997 New England Journal of Medicine study again drew attention to the "strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact."2 (The reason for the connection is that the lining of the anus, as opposed to the much thicker lining of the vagina, is only a single cell in thickness, tears easily, and thus is an easy point of entry for viruses and bacteria. Just as repeatedly assaulting lung tissue with cigarette smoke increases one's lung cancer risk, repeatedly damaging the anus and rectum increases one's anal cancer risk. Anal sex frequently results in damage to the anus and rectum. Too, this helps explain why AIDS is spread so easily in the homosexual community. However, even when there are not any tears in the anal lining, there is still a high risk for HIV infection because certain cells in its mucous lining [M-cells and Langerhans cells] can be infected and will then carry HIV deeper into one's body.)

Another study found that: 1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about one-third of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) "a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population."3

www.home60515.com...

Click the link, the list goes on and on....


This thread is in evolutionary terms. Any behavior that promotes disease like this, makes no sense in a Darwinian paradigm.

For example, one 1982 study mentioned in the Journal of the American

Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal.1 And a 1997 New England Journal of Medicine study again drew attention to the "strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact."2 (The reason for the connection is that the lining of the anus, as opposed to the much thicker lining of the vagina, is only a single cell in thickness, tears easily, and thus is an easy point of entry for viruses and bacteria. Just as repeatedly assaulting lung tissue with cigarette smoke increases one's lung cancer risk, repeatedly damaging the anus and rectum increases one's anal cancer risk. Anal sex frequently results in damage to the anus and rectum. Too, this helps explain why AIDS is spread so easily in the homosexual community. However, even when there are not any tears in the anal lining, there is still a high risk for HIV infection because certain cells in its mucous lining [M-cells and Langerhans cells] can be infected and will then carry HIV deeper into one's body.)

Soo??? by this logic heterosexual sex should also not be accepted because there is a chance heteros can be infected with AIDS, or any of the diseases mentioned in this article.

Really, homosexual sex is about as harmful to gays as heterosexual sex is to heterosexuals....

Originally posted by AlexG141989

Soo??? by this logic heterosexual sex should also not be accepted because there is a chance heteros can be infected with AIDS, or any of the diseases mentioned in this article.

What do you mean soooo? No one has suggested we do not tolerate their sex. So stop using strawman arguments. The sodomy laws were appealed. They can have all the sex they want. See you guys keep attempting to drag the topic to morality etc.

You and a few others insited it was not harmful. The evidence says otherwise.

Really, homosexual sex is about as harmful to gays as heterosexual sex is to heterosexuals....

Novel idea: actually read the data before commenting. The difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals with STDs is in the proportions. It is a huge difference. It is very unfortunate, but you can not rationally make the claim this is not harmful behavior.

Do these words mean anything to you?

"as high as 50 times normal."

" 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual;" 80% out of all patients!

"about one-third of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses;" 1/3 of all.

If you honestly consider the mechanics of it is is not a healthy practice, there's no way around that. You seem blinded by politically correct sentimentality. I do not like it either it is highly unfortunate for the people involved. It is very unfair for them. But not liking it or feeling like it is unfair does not change reality.

BigWhammy you are nothing but guilty of making moral innuendos in your posts.

Subsequently you are just as guilty of going off-topic, and therefore derailing, as much as you are accusing other members of.

Anyways.

I want to post in this thread. I have quality thought I can add. Things I can respond to. BUT I am wondering how much you are really willing to consider it?

You are a wolf in sheep's clothing on this particular topic. We all know this of course.

Considering the mass amount of toxic chemicals that are being dumped into the environment that even the fish are developing abnormally... it wouldn't surprise me to discover that homosexuals are being 'created' for many reasons: to promote the population reduction, to create more sickness, to generate more social division in society, to breakdown the family unit... the list could go on.

A lot of illnesses such as cancer are caused by these toxic chemicals which lodge in the body and are passed from mother to child, then they tell us it's "genetic" so we should simply accept that our predisposition to cancer is higher if our parents had it.... all the while they're increasing the toxic chemicals in every product that you use, the food that you eat and the water that you drink.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


What you fail to take into account is that natural selection operates on both a group and individual level. Characteristics that favor the survival of the group also tend to be passed on to succeeding generations.

In humans, we have the id and the superego, the id is concerned with personal survival, get resources, have sex, reproduce, the superego with altruism, what is good for the group, and they are often at odds with each other.

In a situation where the population is exceeding the ability of environment to sustain it, it is not beneficial to group survival to keep reproducing.

When you put rats in a crowded environment, the incidents of homosexuality increases. In terms of group survival, this makes total sense and equally so for humans.

Separated identical twin studies have proven that homosexuality has both a genetic basis and an environmental basis and they are approximately equal contributors, it is not one or the other, it is both.

Identical twins separated at birth have been studied. If one twin is homosexual, there is an approximately 50% chance the other will be.

If the cause of homosexuality were 100% genetic, then if one identical twin was homosexual, the other would be 100% of the time because they have identical genetics.

If the cause were 100% environmental, then if one twin was homosexual, the other would only have a background chance at being homosexual, that is somewhere in that disputed 3-10% range, not 50%.

I will add the commentary that I think it's sad that the debate even exists; that people can't just accept others for who they are and get along.

reply to post by annestacey


How does that chemical theory rationalize the fact homosexuality has been a part of mankind since the earliest of human civilizations?

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Clearly you don't understand it. Just because they don't reproduce doesn't mean to say their genes are bad for humanity. The very least they can be is neutral, unless gay people eat straight people's babies. Then there are the gay people who have adopted kids - the kids turn out normal, and then go on to have their own families (as kids of gay parents are not any more likely to be gay than kids with straight parents), thereby helping humanity.

Please get your head out of the hatred, Bigwhammy. I know you're not one for logic, but you have to admit you are not making the slightest bit of sense in this thread. Your bigotry is showing.

Ok so I keep seeing some of you saying they cant help it ...
If it is in fact a genetic thing or whatever ...why arent yall out to get it fixed then.Seems to me if it was something that serious and has you enslaved as in you cant help it (That is being enslaved to it then it isnt it ?) you would want to get help then so that Scientists could get to working on a cure .....(Meds or Genetic altering or something) to get you free from the slavery of the genetic default ....

Being genetic, but having no disease effect other than choosing a non conventional partner, does not equal a disease, and is actual as much of one as being wired to be left handed.
This is non issue and it is an affront to human rights that all the same rights including marriage are not accorded. As for reproduction being paramount to marriage, many marry those who for varying conditions, cannot reproduce. Marriage is a vow and commitment of love and partnership and is not tied in to any need to reproduce offspring. Anything else is religious, and we are freed from this by a separation of state and religion, and human rights standards should not reflect any form of this.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by mystiq]

If it is in fact a genetic defect then you would think that they would not want that defect to keep going down the line throughout the generations .
That is like saying it would be ok to just allow down syndrome and many other genetic defects like Cancer etc to carry on the genetic line .Would you want your children to all be defective too ?
Wouldnt you want that defect to be studied and fixed if possible ?


[edit on 20-10-2008 by Simplynoone]