Proof that homosexuality is a matter of conditioning

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoeleth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Qoeleth

Guest
Darwinian natural selection means that traits which are not conducive to survival and perpetuation of genetic material lead to extinction. Clearly, IF homosexuality were a genetic proposenity, it would be radically contrary to genetic perpetuation. Therefore, the homosexual gene (IF it exists) would very soon have been bred out of the species.

This seems to prove that homosexuality is not a genetic propoensity. Egro, it is a matter of either conditioning, choice or both. Therefore, it can be cured.
 
Actually, some evidence seem to indicate that female relatives of homosexual males are extraordinarily fertile. If that is the case, it would be a genetic advantage for those females.

I don’t know whether there was any similar correlation between heterosexual males and homosexual female relatives.
 
In studies of identical twins they’ve found that if one twin is gay, the other is much more likely to be gay than a fraternal twin or sibling. This demonstrates that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, but it is not only caused by genetics.

Also, even if it was only genetic it could still exist in a population as a recessive trait. There are many genetic traits that are very contrary to reproduction (hemophilia is a good example) but they do not have any effect if the trait is recessive and is not displayed.

The root cause of homosexuality is unknown, but evidence strongly supports the idea that it is determined by the chemical balance in the mother’s womb - if it is off balance somewhat, the kid will turn out gay. So it is partially conditioned, but not in the way I think you’re implying.
 
The church does not have a position on the origin of Homosexuality. I i personally belive can be genetic and an acquired condition. It could be passed down genetically from the sin of Adam and Eve.
 
Qoeleth said:
Darwinian natural selection means that traits which are not conducive to survival and perpetuation of genetic material lead to extinction. Clearly, IF homosexuality were a genetic proposenity, it would be radically contrary to genetic perpetuation. Therefore, the homosexual gene (IF it exists) would very soon have been bred out of the species.

This seems to prove that homosexuality is not a genetic propoensity. Egro, it is a matter of either conditioning, choice or both. Therefore, it can be cured.
Click to expand...

Gregor Mendel disagrees


put that in your pipe and smoke it
 
There was a very good interview about the causes of homosexuality (same sex attraction) on Catholic Answers Live yesterday. There is no gay gene.
 
Qoeleth said:
Darwinian natural selection means that traits which are not conducive to survival and perpetuation of genetic material lead to extinction. Clearly, IF homosexuality were a genetic proposenity, it would be radically contrary to genetic perpetuation. Therefore, the homosexual gene (IF it exists) would very soon have been bred out of the species.
This seems to prove that homosexuality is not a genetic propoensity. Egro, it is a matter of either conditioning, choice or both. Therefore, it can be cured.
Click to expand...
Your forgetting the sociological aspect.
Up until recently most homosexuals remained in the closet (and many of them got married and had kids) due to the severe cost of being outed.

Remember, before the late 20th century homosexuality was illegal in the West (and its still illegal in places like the Middle East) with harsh punishments for anyone convicted of the crime.
 
Qoeleth said:
Darwinian natural selection means that traits which are not conducive to survival and perpetuation of genetic material lead to extinction. Clearly, IF homosexuality were a genetic proposenity, it would be radically contrary to genetic perpetuation. Therefore, the homosexual gene (IF it exists) would very soon have been bred out of the species.

This seems to prove that homosexuality is not a genetic propoensity. Egro, it is a matter of either conditioning, choice or both. Therefore, it can be cured.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. What it would suggest is that the genetic propensity for homosexual behavior is not for homosexuality qua homosexuality, but simply for the desire to have lots of sex with men. Obviously this is a trait that would be genetically advantageous for women, even if not advantageous for men. If the advantage for women exceeds the disadvantage for men, we would expect it to continue over time.

Moreover, there are other possibilities than “genetics, conditioning, or choice.” For instance, it may be produced by alterations in the prenatal milieu, which current evidence suggests is very likely (as younger sons are likelier to be gay than older sons, suggesting an immunological antitestosterone response in the mother interferes with sexual differentiation in her fetus).

All that said, this discussion, I never hesitate to remind people, is irrelevant to the question of the moral liceity of homosexuality.
 
SonCatcher said:
Actually, some evidence seem to indicate that female relatives of homosexual males are extraordinarily fertile. If that is the case, it would be a genetic advantage for those females.

I don’t know whether there was any similar correlation between heterosexual males and homosexual female relatives.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that women don’t have to be aroused (or attracted to their mates at all) to have sex and get pregnant. Unlike men, whose arousal is mandatory for procreative sex to occur.

Moreover, its only in the modern world that whether or not a women considers a man physically desirable is considered a major issue. Prior to that, whether or not a man was a good provider was considered far far more important (assuming the woman was consulted at all when it came to her marriage).
 
most psych books say that it is roughly 50% genetic and 50% upbringing.

there is on such thing as a gay gene but as was state earlier the chemicals the baby receives inutero play a big role
 
If there is a genetic component of homosexuality, there could eventually be an in utero test that could be done by pregnant mothers to determine if their child is likely to be homosexual.

Many (not all) parents could elect to have an abortion in that case, out of a desire to have a greater chance to have grandchildren and continue their line, or out of other personal preferences. The radical effect of such a genetic test could be to breed homosexuality, whether dominant or recessive, out of the human species rapidly over the course of several generations.

Needless to say, I would condemn such a test specifically and abortion and eugenics in total, and I don’t believe individuals’ behavioral choices are bound by their genetics.

But this led to an interesting discussion (actually, argument) last week with a co-worker, who supports “abortion rights”: would she accept the use of such a test, and would a parent have the right to decide to abort a chid (which she argues for in most every other case) if the test came back positive and they didn’t want to have a gay child.

She argued vehemently that the test and procedure would have to be made illegal, but couldn’t come up with a logically consistent argument to support her position, based on her stated position that abortion is solely a personal choice of the mother. I asked if the same argument applied to selective sex abortions, which are common in some countries and possibly becoming more common here, but she denied that this is frequent enough to be a problem. She did say she felt uncomfortable with the idea of aborting females solely for being female, but seemed to be in a quandry as to whether “feminism” or “abortion rights” trumped each other.

Interesting question to ask your secular friends, perhaps.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
She argued vehemently that the test and procedure would have to be made illegal, but couldn’t come up with a logically consistent argument to support her position, based on her stated position that abortion is solely a personal choice of the mother. I asked if the same argument applied to selective sex abortions, which are common in some countries and possibly becoming more common here, but she denied that this is frequent enough to be a problem. She did say she felt uncomfortable with the idea of aborting females solely for being female, but seemed to be in a quandry as to whether “feminism” or “abortion rights” trumped each other.

Interesting question to ask your secular friends, perhaps.
Click to expand...
NICE - I love thought provoking hypothetical questions like this.
 
I didn’t choose it or “learn” it. I didn’t have a broken childhood or a dominant mother. It just happened.

Unless your actually a homosexual who goes through the day and life of being one; then I wouldn’t expect you to understand how it happened or came about.

NARTH can make all the theories they want. Its not a choice. Trust me; do you really think I would choose this existence?
 
Sad. Thought provoking ----- guesses? What’s the point? You’re on the internet. Do some real research. It would antagonize people a lot less.

Peace,
Ed
 
mitex said:
I didn’t choose it or “learn” it. I didn’t have a broken childhood or a dominant mother. It just happened.

Unless your actually a homosexual who goes through the day and life of being one; then I wouldn’t expect you to understand how it happened or came about.

NARTH can make all the theories they want. Its not a choice. Trust me; do you really think I would choose this existence?
Click to expand...
Here, here. I couldn’t agree more.

Although I will say I’m now at the place where I would not be too eager to explore a ‘cure’ if such a thing even existed. The ability to see beauty where others don’t isn’t something I’d want traded.
 
Very illuminating link posted above. Wallace’s investigation amplifies long held beliefs.

What if an individual is born gay? How does that change anything? I suppose the argument would be, “I’m born that way, nothing I can do about it.” But aren’t people randomly born with all types of ailments. Just like a gay person would say, ‘you don’t know how it is until you’ve had to wrestle with it’, I say the same thing about alcoholism, which I have had to treat.

Treatment is provided for all types of sicknesses. Homosexality was treated as a disorder into the late 60s. Why did it become no longer an abnormality?

My personal view is that a “no longer fight it” mentality creeped in. Some of it due to physicians who themselves had tendencies to be gay… That influence permeated the medical community. An acceptance model was then embraced. Other factors include power and influence by afluent persons who were gay or knew gay people.
 
johnnyjones said:
An acceptance model was then embraced.
Click to expand...
Frankly, that is the better one, so long as it is properly done. They should embrace their cross just like everyone else. Homosexuals have both the issue of their own sexuality and celibacy to deal with. The community has the responsibility to support their struggles with those issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top