It is a valid question even if they could not reproduce as well. That is natural selection. If, however, those who are homosexuals produce almost as well as heterosexuals, it would belie the idea that this gene, whatever it is, makes one homosexual and that homosexuality has always existed at about the same level. Indeed, this would mean that a “homosexual” could live a normal and fruitful heterosexual life, something not accepted today.
How about that young people can be misled by the power of persuasion like me? Why do we get ignored by the gay lobby so much. It’s as if we don’t exist? Those liars will get their due.
You are assuming that the only purpose of sex is for reproduction. We know from human behavior, as well as observations of behavior in apes, that such an assumption isn’t valid. Sex is often engaged in for motives of bonding, either to promote economic well-being or to increase status or simply to help ensure survival.
Why hasn’t Tay-Sachs completely died out?
You can’t separate the two completely. Sex exists for BOTH procreation AND unification.
Who is to say it won’t? First, adults onset can occur. Second, we do not know when this particular disease became manifest. It is a genetic mutation after all. Finally, the occurrence of it may be proportional to a natural selection taking place, I tried to find the rate, but the only rate I found was one in every 5000-7500 births. Is this comparable to the homosexual issue?
Are you talking about people or apes? I know of no society today that keeps homosexuals as a reserve force to produce resources for others. Interesting idea.
Epigenetic changes are chemical modifications of DNA (e.g., methylation) or modifiers of gene expression (e.g., post-translational modifications of histones that wrap around DNA). Most changes are not permanent, but how they are made/unmade is not entirely known, much less how the changes are targeted specifically. They do not change the amino acid sequence of a resulting protein — just expression (a lot, medium, little, none).
Where does it say one chooses who they’re attracted to?
So we’re in agreement.
If “fruitful” means having children, then yes. A homosexual can father children and be in a meaningful relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Not even the “gay activists” are denying that gays can have children. It’s the psychological detriment of having to live a lie and pretend. If both partners of a marriage where one is not straight are completely honest with each other and are OK, then all power to them.
Most people with SSA change to have heterosexual desires, FACT. How convenient that so many ignore this.
You asked a question about evolution: “How could a genetic disposition to be homosexual exist if there is any truth to natural selection?”
I wasn’t saying that homosexual behavior was moral. As you noted, all kinds of behavior seem natural but that, in itself, doesn’t make such behavior moral. It seems natural for males to sow their wild oats, rather than limit themselves to monogamy. However, such a natural impulse is not moral.
What study has shown this?
Check the frequency of Tay Sachs amongst Ashkenazim.
In Western society we call those people confirmed bachelors and spinsters.
And 9/11 was clearly an inside job
His source says claims 98% change during the 16-17 age period to heterosexual, but given that the frequency of SSA is higher than 2% that means more than 100% of people were gay, there is a ton of double counting in that period which is incompatible with the definition of sexuality being durable or the data is garbage.
I have posted the link many times on threads that you participated.
You understanding of math is flawed and only demonstrates your desperation to undermine any evidence that SSA is not inherent.
And what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
You are very confused. I would appreciate it if you did not make claims on my behalf. Furthermore, you cannot find one post of mine that disagrees with Catholic doctrine.