Even a recessive trait that is not directly passed on, can be weeded out over time if it hinders reproduction. Because the family that passes on no “gay genes” will end up with all four children reproducing whereas the family with the gay member will only have three.
Theoretically, sure. But I don’t see what would prevent two heterozygotes from getting together and making babies. You see, it is the heterosexual heterozygotes that are the carriers of the gay genes. So it is THEIR survival and reproduction that would be the issue. If they keep on reproducing, 25% of their offspring will be homosexual homozygotes. So, even if homosexuals never pass their recessive gay genes on, the heterosexual carriers would do the job.
I’m not an expert on genetics so I’m not going to sit here and say that there isn’t some sort of genetic link to homosexuality, because I don’t know for sure.
Well, nobody knows for sure. But there are strong indications that there is a genetic component. Identical twins are genetically identical. When one is gay, there is a 50% chance that the other will be gay too. That likelyhood is much lower with fraternal twins and other siblings. So, there is almost certainly a genetic component to homosexuality. After all, it would be unthinkable that there would be not a genetic component to all sexuality.
But based on the principles of evolution it doesn’t seem that the genetic reasons behind homosexuality would be the drving force.
The driving force for what?
There was also some misunderstanding as to me wagering a moral opinion about homosexuality based on it being a genetic defect.
Honestly, roger, I don’t think that was a misunderstanding. You stated that it was a generic defect and then you stated that there was something wrong about it. Then you went on to say that it could be harmful to the individual. Perhpas you weren’t consciously aware of it, but you were making a moral judgment based on the fact that homosexuality, in your view, seems to defy some natural law which must not be broken.
I don’t like it as a personal choice, but it just so happens it that it may or may not be a genetic defect too. Either way I still, personally, don’t like it, and that is my right.
Well, it is more than your right. You have no choice but to feel the way you do. You don’t like it, fine, you don’t like it. My beef with you is that you are trying to find some kind of cosmic justification for not liking it. And our Christian fundie brethren do the same thing all the time. Let it be enough for you that you don’t like it because you have no taste for it. Nothing wrong with that. You don’t enjoy the thought of two men doing it. Fine. You don’t enjoy the sight of guys camping it up. Fine. But leave it at that. Don’t try to find some grand justification for your feelings—as if they needed justification at all! You are tying to make it sound as if you are justified in not liking homosexuality because, well, it’s just a natural defect, or, because it leads to AIDS, or, because it stems from child molestation. It’s all BS, and you must know that. I wish you would just be honest with yourself, stand up and say to the world “I don’t like gays. They gross me out.” Granted, I still think that it is utterly prejudicial to judge an entire person based on their sexual orientation, but you don’t need to justify the way you honestly feel. If that’s how you feel, that’s how you feel. No justification is necessary.
I understand some of what you guys mean about it being wrong to blame them. Whether it is a result of genetics or molestation, they still don’t have a choice in being gay.
Neither does anyone have a choice in being attracted to whomever they are attracted. Explain this to BC, would you? He might listen to you.
But I’m not Mother Teresa either, and if you are defective and doing something I don’t like, I’ll just take it at face value and tell you I don’t like you.
So you don’t like me because I have sex with a man? I think it is an awfully bigoted position to take. How can you judge the entirety of my personal worth when you are basing your evaluation on one tiny part of who I am, and a part that does not concern you in the least (since I have no intention of having sex with you, not even cyber-sex, not even if you beg :wink: ).
If you don’t like the idea of men having sex with men, don’t have sex with men. What’s it to you what I do with my penis in private? Do you see me making pronouncements on your worth as a person based on who you are sleeping with?
Your malfunction is your problem, not mine.
Now, roger, come on. I wasn’t born yesterday. You don’t dislike me because you think I have a biological malfunction. You dislike me because you find the idea of two men doing it distasteful. All of your rhetoric is a desperate and vain attempt at finding a logical justification for your personal attitude. I am telling you, you don’t need one. Nobody says you have to love gays or homosexuality. You can find the thought of two men doing it repulsive. It’s OK. You cant help it. That’s who you feel. But you are trying to make it sound as if the way you feel is the only natural way to feel - because there is something naturally - OBJECTIVELY - replusive about homosexuality.
Your subjective opinion is your subjective opinion. Quit trying to make it an objective fact.
Your gay homosexual boyfriend Rami