You could have asked the question in the last sentence of your post without drawing a parallel between criminal activity and homosexuality. I’m not sure why you felt the need to draw such a parallel.
The latter. But it’s not a question, it’s a statement. Do you posit that all behavioural modes, however caused, demand study & corrective treatment?
I didn’t, I drew a parallel between homosexuality and left-handedness. But it was an easy mistake to make, so I forgive you for misjudging me.
Indeed not. I posit that all behaviour modes *either do, or do not, *demand study & corrective treatment, and whether they do or do not demand such does not depend on their cause. Left-handedness does not demand study and corrective treatment. A propensity to murder does, rather urgently. It is irrelevant whether the cause is genetic or not.
Hence, supposing that it is proven that a predisposition to same-sex orientation is genetic, I don’t see why it should influence a rational person’s view of homosexuality one way or the other.
This is actually a valid point.
I know 3 people who say they were formerely gay, and now not.
I don’t think they are lying or self-deluding.
How can this happen?
Everyone who is tempted to steal is always faced with a choice. There is no temptation so great that you cannot overcome it, if you choose. If the Bible said everyone who had red hair was sinning, then this wouldn’t fit with what I know about temptation and sin, as they have no choice in the matter. Therefore, although I understand what you are saying, I still disagree in this situation. I would have to question what I believe to be true if something like a massive flood happened again, as it’s pretty clear the Bible says it won’t. So it’s like asking ‘If something that could never happened did happen, whould you then have to believe it could?’ Yes I would, but it never would.
Everyone who is tempted to steal is always faced with a choice. There is no temptation so great that you cannot overcome it, if you choose. If the Bible said everyone who had red hair was sinning, then this wouldn’t fit with what I know about temptation and sin, as they have no choice in the matter. Therefore, although I understand what you are saying, I still disagree in this situation. I would have to question what I believe to be true if something like a massive flood happened again, as it’s pretty clear the Bible says it won’t. So it’s like asking ‘If something that could never happened did happen, would you then have to believe it could?’ Yes I would, but it never would.
Svt4Him, I knew red-hairedness was a poor choice when I’d (just)posted it. Delete references to red hair and replace with, say, stammering. Concerning the temptation to steal, I agree with you, as you may know if you’ve seen my posts elsewhere.
Urendi Maleldil
I tried to convince myself of the same thing in highschool, vanilla.
In any case, the struggles of an individual person to reconcile his or her innate sexuality with the dictates of societal norms have no general relevance to the overall scientific question.
Even if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that sexual orientation is 100% genetic, there would still be people struggling with acceptance and denial; people all along the spectrum of orientation.
So though I sympathize with your friends, their personal struggles are entirely anecdotal and really outside the question at hand.
I think it’s possible that genes give people a propensity for a certain orientation, to a greater or lesser degree. These interact with a person’s environment, and their orientation is a product of the two.
Had my ex-girlffiend not been raped as a child and had a physical condition that made intercourse excruciatingly painful and not been given a stack of Andrea Dworkin and Mary Daly books by a trusted mentor and not lived in a town with a strong GLBT community, it’s possible that her propensity to find women sexually attractive wouldn’t have expressed itself.
Much later, she married a man (and judging from my correspondence with her, she certainly finds men attractive now). That doesn’t mean she wasn’t lesbian at one time; nor does it mean that her genes had nothing to do with her orientation. It just means that any genetic component of her sexuality was far more complex than simply forcing her into one of three categories (straight, gay, bi) for all her life.
And of course her experience is different from that of some people. There are some people who spend their whole lives in one category or another, who are always straight or always gay or always bi. It may be that the genetic elements of their orientation are expressed far more strongly, or that they are expressed in a more static fashion, or something like that.
The existence of people whose orientation genuinely changes cannot be discounted. Nor can we use their existence to discount the idea that sexual orientation may have a genetic component.
Daniel
Not to sound completely sophomoric, but there seems to be a relatively obvious logical antagonist to the idea that homosexuality is genetically pre-disposed.
From all I’ve come to understand about evolution, wouldn’t the genetic trait to become gay weed itself out? Wouldn’t those people who are gay, be less likely to procreate, (not counting the recent advent of artificial insemination, egg harvesting, sperm donation, etc…) and as such, not pass on this genetic trait?
The idea that its a general spontaneous mutation of the gene in early developement is also pretty hard to believe. That one gene, or group of genes, out of billions would be pre-disposed to mutation in a certain way in such a large number of people seems statistically impossible.
I completely accept the fact that I may be wrong. I have nothing against GLBT’s, but to me it just doesn’t seem feasible to believe that homosexuality is influenced by genetics. Does anyone have some info that could contradict my logic?
Besides, how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of sterile insects that are born every day? Surely sterility should be “selected out” more than anything else.
The evolutionary tangent is also addressed in this thread.
Two options which argue to the contrary immediately spring to mind: such a gene could be recessive, meaning it is only expressed if an individual possesses both recessive alleles. Indivudals who are heterozygous mate “normally”, thereby passing on the gene. Another option is for it to be a spontaneous, yet common, mutation during sperm or egg production.
I don’t articularly hate homosexuals, but perhaps I’m one of the “Homophobes” mentioned.
I don’t think anyone should have homosexual relations. And no, it doesn’t matter whether its genetic or not.
Everyone who is tempted to be left-handed is always faced with a choice. There is no temptation so great that you cannot overcome it, if you choose.
At one time Scripture was used to justify forcing children to not be left-handed. After all, God put all the good things on His right hand and all the bad things on His left hand, so the left hand must be inherently evil and sinful, right?
Wow Dogface, that’s a bit of a reach in order for that to be applicable. And if you want me to take the bait, then yes, being left handed is sinful, as Eve was left handed, and Adam was standing on he left side, so if she was right handed, she couldn’t have passed the fruit to him, therefore not only is it sinful, it’s the reason sin entered the world, therefore we should also rid the world of left handed people, and it’ll solve all our problems.
Or maybe it’s genetic, in which case I stand by what was said. I think that was the purpose of the OP, but lets not worry about that, I have some left handed people to get after.
Ah, but if it is a genetic TENDENCY to left-handedness, does it not mean that left-handers must be brow-beaten and punished until they repent?
Left-handers can be force to become right-handed. Messes 'em up for life, but it can be done.
Lots of genes, even genes that kill their recipient as an infant, stay in a population for too many reasons to dwell upon here. Just do a google on ‘Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium’ and keep reading 'till yer head hurts.
**
Most genes arise from mutations that occured exactly once. A lot of which genes stick around and which don’t is based on chance and natural selection. There is a thing called the Founder Effect, which is why so many of th Amish have 6 fingers (really).
Also, genes can have a detrimental effect on an individual (and from an evolutionary point of view, there is NO effect more detrimental than not passing on any genetic material at all by being homosexual) and still have a positive effect on the population. e.g., the sterile drones of hive insects.
If you think about it, a society with homosexuals, who are making art, weapons, tools, and fighting for their civilization BUT NOT competing for a limited pool of females, is better off than a society where everybody is fighting over women, since it is an axiom of ecology that competition negatively affects both competitiors.
(you want a cite? read The Illiad)
Homosexuals contribute to society through other means than procreation; therefore I believe a society with homos would outcompete one without. Not that I am a cultural determinist or anything.
But hey, some people don’t even believe in natural selection through differential reproduction of offspring, so I’m sure my argument has once again Wearied the Knowning and Irked the Unteachable.
10-4. ** 'possum ** out.
I think this is a bit of a red herring, as there is also a tendency to hold our breath when we are under water, so should we punish people for it? There is a tendency for children to learn to walk, do they have to repent?
If left-handedness is sinful, then whether or not it is genetic would be irrelevant to you, as far as I understand what you have said. You would still cast out the left-handed for daring to be born sinners.
Care to elaborate?