What's your view on "gay rights"

I know most of you out there are going to scream "homophobic" at me but it is my belief that homosexuality is a choice and can not be genetic. Here is my reasoning:

1. If you accept evolution as true, a homosexual gene would be inconsistent with evolution. Homosexuals reproduce at a much lower rate than straight individuals but consume the same amount af scarse assets in a society. Development of a "straight" gene would be perfectly consistent with evolution. A "gay" gene provides a lower chance of survival of the society and could not develop, under evolutionary theory.
Two problems with this. One is the presence of recessive genes. The other is the fact that for many centuries homosexuality was considered taboo and many homosexuals did their best to pretend heterosexuality. What better way than to get married and have kids?

That said I'm not sure it's "genetic." One thing I'm almost sure of is that isn't a conscious choice because many of the homosexual people I've known spent a long, long, tough time trying to deny what they were, without success. Personally, I think a lot of things contribute to the emergence of homosexuality in an individual - genetics may play a part but I highly doubt there's any one "gay gene." That'd be too simple.

I usually reserve the term homophobe for people who openly dislike homosexuals but then again, I myself am heterosexual and not as qualified to comment on the term as someone who is more directly affected by it.
 
Werbung:
Two problems with this. One is the presence of recessive genes. The other is the fact that for many centuries homosexuality was considered taboo and many homosexuals did their best to pretend heterosexuality. What better way than to get married and have kids?

That said I'm not sure it's "genetic." One thing I'm almost sure of is that isn't a conscious choice because many of the homosexual people I've known spent a long, long, tough time trying to deny what they were, without success. Personally, I think a lot of things contribute to the emergence of homosexuality in an individual - genetics may play a part but I highly doubt there's any one "gay gene." That'd be too simple.

I usually reserve the term homophobe for people who openly dislike homosexuals but then again, I myself am heterosexual and not as qualified to comment on the term as someone who is more directly affected by it.



An answer to this question is offered HERE by Gavrilets and Rice in a paper that appeared in Proceedings of the Royal Society. They provide a population genetic analysis that explains why, in theory, a gene predisposing an individual to homosexual behaviour would spread in a population, and that predicts its widespread occurrence in humans and other sexually reproducing species.
 
An answer to this question is offered HERE by Gavrilets and Rice in a paper that appeared in Proceedings of the Royal Society. They provide a population genetic analysis that explains why, in theory, a gene predisposing an individual to homosexual behaviour would spread in a population, and that predicts its widespread occurrence in humans and other sexually reproducing species.

That's some good stuff. I don't understand a lot of the mumbo-jumbo but the message is clear enough. Thank you.
 
I know most of you out there are going to scream "homophobic" at me but it is my belief that homosexuality is a choice and can not be genetic. Here is my reasoning:
1. If you accept evolution as true, a homosexual gene would be inconsistent with evolution. Homosexuals reproduce at a much lower rate than straight individuals but consume the same amount af scarse assets in a society. Development of a "straight" gene would be perfectly consistent with evolution. A "gay" gene provides a lower chance of survival of the society and could not develop, under evolutionary theory.

Not necessarily - survival of the fittest - particularly in a social species where all members might not need to reproduce in order for the family group as a whole to be sucessful - is rarely so linear or black and white. It might benifit the group as a whole to have come non-reproducing members in the group as "aunts" and "uncles" to care for the young while the parents and other adults are foraging.

Or, as another example - take social species where only one male/female mate...selective homosexuality or bisexuality could be a social relief valve that keeps the group together and limits fighting.

2. Because gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights, the "gay" gene would diminish in numbers with each successive generation and would soon virtually disappear. Example: assume generation 1 contains 10% homosexual individuals and 90% straights. If the homosexuals reporduce at half the rate of straights (and the actual rate is probably much lower than this) the compostion of generation 2 would be 5% homosexual and 95% straight. Generation 3= 2.5% homo and 97.5% straight. Do the math for 6 or 8 generations. The percentage of people professing homosexuality in our society is not declining, so there can not be a "gay" gene. It is a choice.
I know the next argument: why do we have any recessive traits at all? Shouldn't all recessive traits disappear in a few geberations? My father had wavy hair which is a recessive trait for an Anglo male. But wavy hair does not result in a lower birth rate. So wavy hair is passed on to each successive generation at the same rate as non-wavy hair.
I know my belief is not PC but it is based on dispassionate scientific assessment.

Actually - I don't give a fig about PC. It's stupid. But just because something is "PC" doesn't make it bad science. Genetics is complicated and very often not a case of simple reseccisives and dominants.

A good quote is: Genetics loads the gun, and environment pulls the trigger. This is particularly true for polygenetic traits.

It's quite possible that any or all of the following genetic factors could be involved:

A simple recessives (unlikely) that would indicate silent carriers.
Multiple genes influencing trait that only show up when a certain threshold is breached.
A common mutation(s) - that easily occurs (such as that for Cystic Fibrosis)
Any of the above in conjunction with certain environmental factors that set it off - such as prenatal environments.

One thing is clear though - many people are bisexual at some point in our lives (as are many other social animals) and then go on to become heterosexual. To me this says homosexual tendancies are normal.

A very tiny number become strictly homosexual - and so much so that even though they go through "ex-gay" types of programs, they admit they still long for same sex relations, and they are aroused by the same sex biochemically and in brain studies. The only thing that changes is the outward appearance of the behavior. To me that says this is not a "choice".

Homosexuality is a choice and not genetic.

See what I said above.

And gays now have exactly the same marital rights as any straight: to marry a member of the opposite gender.

That is disengenius and the same sort of logic could be used to argue against interacial marriage.

Arguably, they have more rights than straights because they are protected by PC and hate crime laws.
And before you paint me with the broad homophobic brush, you should know that I am a volunteer to the AIDS community, bringing home services to final stage patients who are no longer able to leave their homes. I've seen them deteriorate and die and it is not a pretty sight. It is also not a sight for the faint at heart.
And, as final disclaimer, I have studied all aspects of evolutionary theory for 20+ years. I do not believe evolution is a viable explantion for origins.

As I said - I don't give a fig for PC and no, I'm not going to paint you homophobe. But let me add my own disclaimer - I am no youngster and evolution and genetics and animal behavior have been a long standing area of study for me.

As for gay marriage - my thought is why not? But I think it is wiser to push for civil unions and give them all the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples. I believe in equality. Society as a whole may not be ready for gay marriage beyond that yet. Give them time.

It hurts no one - ever thought of that?
 
I'm curious. Do you remember the day you decided to be straight? Thought it out, considered the options, the problems, etc. Did you decide to be straight because of your religious beliefs? You didn't want to upset your parents? Thought it would be best to go with the majority?
These are all stupid questions. And they are stupid when implied about gays and lesbians too.
 
You might mention the concept of brevity to your cut and paste bud as well to avoid sounding completely hypocritical.
I'm new to this site, Mr. Palerider, and I noted that you have invested a bit of time and energy in this thread. Would you mind telling me please, what is your interest in the subject? Do you object to gay marriage from basically a religious perspective or a libertarian one, or is it something else entirely? You seem to have well constructed--almost polished--arguments, like you've discussed this subject with others before. Would you mind giving me a little more perspective on "where you're coming from" (if you will forgive the cliche)?
 
I believe homosexuals have just as mutch rights as any straight man or woman to marry....
They are no more less of a human being as any one on this planet~
 
I consider myself to be pretty religious (Catholic), but I don't think gay folks are sinners anymore than Christians and Jews that eat pork and shellfish. Ha ha ha! Also, I'd really like to know how two guys/gals getting married is supposed to hurt the sanctity of marriage. That's the biggest crock of s*** ever! If gays marry eachother, all of a sudden all of the religious-right couples will file for divorce? Yeah right! Why are we so obsessed with who each of us is 'laying the pipe' with? We have no business to stop two consenting people from being together and being married. How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't marry your fiance because they personally thought the idea of sleeping with her is disgusting? Wouldn't go over well would it? None of their business, right? The State discriminates against gays when it does not recognize their love and union (i.e. marriage). Also, to Invest07: I don't know about there not being a gay gene. I'm a straight male (yes, Kelly is a guy's name too) and I love, I mean I ABSOLUTELY LOVE womens. I cannot help it and I couldn't possibly choose otherwise. Therefore, I would have to give gay folks the benefit of the doubt about whether they have a choice about being gay. I really don't think they choose their feelings. Plus, how would you know anyway...unless you're gay! Wooooooooooo. Just joking! Seriously though, if we're not gay, how can we possibly know whether a gay person chooses to be gay???
 
Werbung:
What is marriage anyway to a non-religious person?

Marriage is not a religious matter anymore. To be legally married you need a license from the government. You can get married in a church but until you get that license from the government it (marriage) isn't legal. When the government took over that from the church they shouldn't be playing favourites with who can marry who based upon religious preferences.
 
Back
Top