Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[invest07]

To pocketfullofshells

I agree that modern man has interfered with the natural selections aspects of the theory of evolution. It may be that with humans, natural slecetion disappeared with civilization. But if homo behavior were genetic, the lower birth rate would have reduced it's frequency in society to a bare minimal percentage. If you buy all this eveolution crap, humans have been around looking about like we do now for over 1,000 generations. Even a small reduction each generation for better than a 1000 generations shrinks the geen pool very thin.

In species other than human, there are instances of behavior that is homo in appearance. But those instances are extremely rare and are not present at all in the vast majority of species.

If you buy all the evolution crap and you believe homo behavior is genetic in nature, then you will have to admit that nature has virtually eliminated the homo gene in every other species.

There are a lot of pre dispositions that are not well understood. Some of those may well turn out to be genetic in nature but the jury is out on pre dispositions. The previous generation of my wife's family had tons of juicers. The present generation of her family has NO juicers at all. If there were a genetic predisposition for alcoholism, at least a few of my wife's cousins and siblings should be raving juicers, like their parents were.

So far the Human Genome project has identified somewhere around 25,000 genes and none of them are the magic homo gene.

While it is possible that there will be a future definitive study linking homo behavior to certain genes, until that study has been verified I will continue to beleive that homosexuality is a behavior and not a predestination.

I'm curious about one thing. Do you accept the concept of political correctness?

My experiebnce has been that those who accept PC also desperately want there to be a homo gene. Those, like me, that say "Hell No" to any and all aspects of PC, seem to have less difficulty sorting out emotion from reality. We have less problem accepting a fact as truth even though that truth might be offensive to one of the groups protected by PC.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: To pocketfullofshells

I agree that modern man has interfered with the natural selections aspects of the theory of evolution. It may be that with humans, natural slecetion disappeared with civilization. But if homo behavior were genetic, the lower birth rate would have reduced it's frequency in society to a bare minimal percentage. If you buy all this eveolution crap, humans have been around looking about like we do now for over 1,000 generations. Even a small reduction each generation for better than a 1000 generations shrinks the geen pool very thin.

In species other than human, there are instances of behavior that is homo in appearance. But those instances are extremely rare and are not present at all in the vast majority of species.

If you buy all the evolution crap and you believe homo behavior is genetic in nature, then you will have to admit that nature has virtually eliminated the homo gene in every other species.

There are a lot of pre dispositions that are not well understood. Some of those may well turn out to be genetic in nature but the jury is out on pre dispositions. The previous generation of my wife's family had tons of juicers. The present generation of her family has NO juicers at all. If there were a genetic predisposition for alcoholism, at least a few of my wife's cousins and siblings should be raving juicers, like their parents were.

So far the Human Genome project has identified somewhere around 25,000 genes and none of them are the magic homo gene.

While it is possible that there will be a future definitive study linking homo behavior to certain genes, until that study has been verified I will continue to beleive that homosexuality is a behavior and not a predestination.

I'm curious about one thing. Do you accept the concept of political correctness?

My experiebnce has been that those who accept PC also desperately want there to be a homo gene. Those, like me, that say "Hell No" to any and all aspects of PC, seem to have less difficulty sorting out emotion from reality. We have less problem accepting a fact as truth even though that truth might be offensive to one of the groups protected by PC.

yes I "buy" evolution...you know like 99% of science...and somehow I find the , a powerful god snaped his fingers and we are all here now theory a little like beliving the stork brings babies to.

 

[invest07]

pocketfull of sumpin

Science can't prove the existence of God and can't disprove the existence either. So, in the eyes of science, the existence or nonexistence of God is beyond the scope of science (at least as we know science so far).

Therefore science can't prove or disprove that God did not just snap his fingers and the earth came into existence.

Many of you Darwinistas and God deniers love to hide behind your religion of science. But most of what you call "evidence" is nothing more than interpretation of data. There is a huge difference between evidence and interpretation of data.

Fossils are evidence. The location and depth where they were found are evidence. The climate conditions at the site and the amount of material found are evidence. What you choose to believe from those fossils is your interpretation of the evidence.

While the evidence will never change, your interpretation of the evidence is subject to change. No two will see the same fossil and interpret it the same way. The evidence exists. The evidence is neither true or false. The evidence just "is".

Interpretation of data may be wrong and can change. So should your particular interpretation of data prove to be false, the evidence has not changed one iota.

Here is a challenge:
Prove that God did not just snap his/her fingers and create the universe as we know it. And by proof I mean hard data evidence and not just your interpretation of data, which is not evidence.

And back to the point of the forum:
Humans have had maybe 10,000 years of some form of civilization. I agree that civilization probably has eliminated or seriously altered much of natural selection in humans. But before these last 10K years there were at least 100K years or more of non-civilization. According to the theory of evolution, (I underlined the word theory to remind you of that evolution is a theory and not a fact) natural selection and survival of the fittest was very much at work during those years and the imaginary homo gene was not eliminated, as evidenced by the stable population of homos today.

You PC'ers need to look at all the evidence and think it through. The genetic record of humans says that if a homo gene had ever existed, it would have been almost eliminated within a hundred or so generations, due to the reduced reproduction rate of homos. And, depending on whose account of human origins you chose to accept, there have been, at the bare minimum, over 1000 human generations and possibly over 100,000. Even a minute reduction in reproduction rate per generation over a period of 1000 generations almost numerically eliminates the mythical homo gene.

Face it pocketfull, there ain't no homo gene, in spite of what all your PC friends have to say. And interpretation of data ain't the same as evidence.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

science also can't prove that small mice with wings and super powers did not form the earth...or that there is not a invisable city that you cant see, smell or touch sitting in the middle of WI, and that it is full of mermaids....

What science can do , it show that Evolution is the most likely theory to be true based on facts and evidence.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: To pocketfullofshells

While it is possible that there will be a future definitive study linking homo behavior to certain genes, until that study has been verified I will continue to beleive that homosexuality is a behavior and not a predestination.

Could be. Then again maybe not.

Regardless the sexual behavior of individuals, whether influenced by genetics or not, is always a choice. I worked for a guy who was gay. He was also married and had two kids.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: To pocketfullofshells

Could be. Then again maybe not.

Regardless the sexual behavior of individuals, whether influenced by genetics or not, is always a choice. I worked for a guy who was gay. He was also married and had two kids.

how nice of him, to marry someone he was not in love with and have kids with her...its about as family values as oranged marriages.. Be with who you love and want, not who the christian church tells you to be with.

 

[invest07]

Pockety pocket

Pocket, pocket, pocket.

Calm down a little. Take a few deep breaths and don't get your panties in a wad.

You should at least read specifically what the good Dr. Who wrote. The doctor never said whether or not his straight/gay aquaintance loved his female wife. You assumed there was no love. Who didn't say anything about love.

Lots of guys love their female wives and still take bites of the apple in someone else's yard. And homo guys take just as many bites as straighties.

The reality of genetics pretty much rule out a homo gene. But maybe the strongest argument that homosexuality is a behavior comes out of our dens of incarceration. Loads of guys go in straight and decide maybe homo ain't so bad, after all. After they come out, many return to the straight life style.

Like I said, Homo behavior is a behavior that people chose.

 

[samsara15]

Re: pocketfull of sumpin

Science can't prove the existence of God and can't disprove the existence either. So, in the eyes of science, the existence or nonexistence of God is beyond the scope of science (at least as we know science so far).

Therefore science can't prove or disprove that God did not just snap his fingers and the earth came into existence.

Many of you Darwinistas and God deniers love to hide behind your religion of science. But most of what you call "evidence" is nothing more than interpretation of data. There is a huge difference between evidence and interpretation of data.

Fossils are evidence. The location and depth where they were found are evidence. The climate conditions at the site and the amount of material found are evidence. What you choose to believe from those fossils is your interpretation of the evidence.

While the evidence will never change, your interpretation of the evidence is subject to change. No two will see the same fossil and interpret it the same way. The evidence exists. The evidence is neither true or false. The evidence just "is".

Interpretation of data may be wrong and can change. So should your particular interpretation of data prove to be false, the evidence has not changed one iota.

Here is a challenge:
Prove that God did not just snap his/her fingers and create the universe as we know it. And by proof I mean hard data evidence and not just your interpretation of data, which is not evidence.

God could have created the universe ten minutes ago, including us complete with all our memories up to that point in time, but it seems like an unlikely hypothesis.

Perhaps there is no single homosexual gene, but many genetically inherited characteristics are combinations of several alles within genes, not just a single gene. Sometimes genes have several alleles that affect the phenotypes, or interact with each other.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: To pocketfullofshells

how nice of him, to marry someone he was not in love with and have kids with her...its about as family values as oranged marriages.. Be with who you love and want, not who the christian church tells you to be with.

Whether or not he loved her is irrelevant as it shows that he was able to make a choice about his actions regardless of his inclinations. He could just as easily made a choice to love her or not as love is about doing what is in a person's best interest and not about sexual attraction. I do not think her loved her but she did and she was a lot closer to the situation than I was.

Changing sexual orientation is much harder but people do do it. Not long ago I posted a wiki article that showed studies indicating that something like 30% of those who wanted to change their orientation did so.

But I don't care if people want to change their orientation or not. That is a personal decision and not mine to make. I also don't care about the decisions they make in the privacy of their bedrooms as long as it does not harm society at large. I have also stated that I do not know of any good arguments that it does harm society at large.

Now about arranged marriages. I have had some Indian friends who were in arranged marriages and they were clear that they grew to love each other in ways that were better than the typical lust-driven love of shallow America. They also had a lower rate of divorce in their culture which would be good for kids. I think it is worth noting that these Indian friends of mine were highly educated (both of them), much more equal than stereotypes would have one think, and really did treat each other with great respect and love. It was a choice to do all of those things.

 

[invest07]

Who is right on the money

Yahoo for Dr Who!!!

Your paragraph about arranged marriages supports a hypothesis that many marriage counsellors and ministers have. Briefly, a lasting and loving relationship must first be based on committment. If two are committied strongly to each other, then the warm fuzzies will follow in time.

I tied the knot 32 years ago and the knot is still tied. There have been times in our marriage when I did not feel love for my wife and I know she didn't feel love for me. But the committment we made to each other carried us through those times of no loving feelings and each time the snugglebuns stuff returned.

If you and your partner really mean "till death do us part" and actually have the backbone to carry it out, then a relationship can really last and be full of warm fuzzies and snugglebuns stuff. And the committment is much more important than the transient feelings.

 

[invest07]

To samsara15

My interest in science is a little different than others. My interest is less on the specifics and more on the philosophy of science. I think you can better understand the most likely truth if you first look at the big picture and then zoom in on the small picture.

All of our earthly science is based on 2 assumptions:

1. The physical universe is real.
2. The physical universe follows rules.

Science then is man's attempt to find out what those rules are. The basic way this is done is through the attempt to discover relationships between the components of the universe. One of my relationships to the earth is as a much smaller mass than the earth. The result of this relationship is that the earth's gravity keeps my gluteus firmly planted on my chair.

If you truly think that the world may be an illusion (ever see the movie Matrix?) then there is no reason for science. If you think there are no rules for the universe to follow then there is no reason for science.

Macro first then micro equals understanding. It is easier to interpret the specific data in front of you if you always remember the basics.

 

[numinus]

Re: To pocketfullofshells

how nice of him, to marry someone he was not in love with and have kids with her...its about as family values as oranged marriages.. Be with who you love and want, not who the christian church tells you to be with.

Equating love with sex is one of the most defective ideas to come out of western thought.

 

[samsara15]

The political role and rule of the Christian church is one of the most defective ideas that ever came out of Western thought.

 

[numinus]

The political role and rule of the Christian church is one of the most defective ideas that ever came out of Western thought.

LOL

Can you name any political association that has endured as long as the christian church? From the point of view of political science, christianity is one of the most successful, if not the most successful.

 

[samsara15]

Organized religion has done a lot of harm, over the centuries, that's for certain.