Voting for Liberty vs Conservatism

[Kevin_B]

That’s not what you said at all. You said

“That is a silly statement, If homosexuality was the genetic code, it would have died out years ago, because homosexual couples don’t reproduce”

The implication being that any change in the genetic code which keeps people from reproducing will die out.

 

[starshiptrooper]

That’s not what you said at all. You said

“That is a silly statement, If homosexuality was the genetic code, it would have died out years ago, because homosexual couples don’t reproduce”

The implication being that any change in the genetic code which keeps people from reproducing will die out.

There is a possibility that I am forgetting something I said, but I don’t see how my statements concerning homsexuality, and the genetic code contradict each other. Let me try to more clearly restate my point of view on this issue.

Let’s go back to the origin of man, before the mutations that caused Tay-Sachs or homsexuality were introduced.

Now, a human couple has a child with Tay-Sachs, he dies. Another human couple has that child but he manages to live and have children with someone who does not have a Tay-Sachs gene, now the gene can be passed down.

Now, a couple has a child with a mutation that causes the gay gene, he is not attracted to women and does not have kids. This gene is not passed down.

 

[JHow]

Tay sachs has an incidence of about one in three hundred twenty thousand births in the general population. Homosexuality seems to run about 2 three 3 percent (politics has long prevented any accuracy in this figure). To suggest that homosexuality has anything like the genetics of tay sachs strains credulity.

 

[Kevin_B]

There is a possibility that I am forgetting something I said, but I don’t see how my statements concerning homsexuality, and the genetic code contradict each other. Let me try to more clearly restate my point of view on this issue.

Let’s go back to the origin of man, before the mutations that caused Tay-Sachs or homsexuality were introduced.

Now, a human couple has a child with Tay-Sachs, he dies. Another human couple has that child but he manages to live and have children with someone who does not have a Tay-Sachs gene, now the gene can be passed down.

Now, a couple has a child with a mutation that causes the gay gene, he is not attracted to women and does not have kids. This gene is not passed down.

That’s not how genetics works at all. The reason homosexuality can get passed on even though it is detrimental to reproduction it’s because many heterosexual people could carry the recessive gene.

Or, it could be similar to autism and caused by conditions in the womb rather than genetics.

Tay sachs has an incidence of about one in three hundred twenty thousand births in the general population. Homosexuality seems to run about 2 three 3 percent (politics has long prevented any accuracy in this figure). To suggest that homosexuality has anything like the genetics of tay sachs strains credulity.

All I said was that both tay-sachs and homosexuality are detrimental to reproduction. How does that strain credulity?

 

[studychristian]

I am conservative but not a Republican, I lean bother economically and socially conservative. I vote for those who I would see as the best possible leaders.