nurture isnt neccessarily a CHOICE, if a girl becomes a lesbian because when she was little she was molested or brutalized by a man, thats not really a choice it's more of a subconscious mental repulsion of men.

Due to the decreasing difficulty of survival for the human race, the "survival of the fittest" principle does not apply and a genetic trait like being gay would not be eliminated from the gene pool unless it caused imminent and terminal illness preventing the human in question from reproducing. While gays don't reproduce, gay "carriers" do.
That is to say, if there is a gay gene (which we'll call A) and a straight gene (B), depending on the dominance of the gene gay vs. straight, two straight people can produce a gay person, or simply pass it along.
Let's take a mommy and daddy with the current configuration, presuming the straight gene is dominant to the gay gene
Mom(BB) Dad(AB)
The child's possibilities are
.5*AB and .5*BB, since the mother definitely provides a B and daddy has 1/2 chance of providing an A, so their child will be straight, but again carry the gay gene just like daddy
Now, if that child gets the (AB) and marries another carrier (AB)
Child(AB) Spouse(AB)
the probabilities are
.25AA, .5AB, .25 BB
their children have a 25% chance to be gay, and a 75% chance to carry at least 1 gay gene. By this method, the gay gene would not be eliminated from the populace quickly, since it has no effect on the lifespan of the individual. I think this is a simple case, and the actual genetics could be much more complicated, but this is what I learned in biology.

And Shadow-Fox, thanks for all the praise and whatnot, but it really isn't necessary. I won't turn down a good old fashioned "thanks for doing a good job" every now and then, but I don't like excessive praise or being portrayed as lofty when I haven't done anything special.

Additionally Shadow, you still have not provided citations for the 4 things I quoted in my first post of this topic.

Yes, but eventually it would be eliminated, of course, the majority of "homos" are only in it for the sex, so they end up having kids anyway because they don't care who they do it with.

Why are 'homos' only with other 'homos' then, and not girls? Every gay guy I know doesn't like women sexually. At all. Have you met any homosexuals? And I mean become friends with them.

thats REALLY prejudice... thats like saying the majority of the people on the internet are just there for porn, its total and utter speculation. Until you have proof, please don't post outrageous statements.

Also "homosexual" is a term meaning attraction to the same gender, not a whore, and i think you mean "bisexuals" are in it for the sex, which is completely not true as i know one and he is a virgin so either he isnt very smooth, or he aint in it for sex

That would require him putting aside his prejudices and like/dislike someone based on who they are, which he has demonstrated time and again he is incapable of doing.

I'm bisexual and I'm definitely not in it for sex. I'm a virgin and I'm not in any rush to have sex. There have been opportunities which I declined because it was meaningless to both parties involved, and I'm not looking for a no strings attached emotionless purely sexual relationship. Of course, Falkoner would never believe that, because according to some data that apparently only he has, it is impossible I have any desire to have a relationship with another male.

Well if gays are born with it, and dont have the right to choose, then it is the same as racism or sexism. Even if they do choose it, they still shouldnt be cast down, but it seems like there isnt really a clear cut answer on nature vs nurture. My second point though kind of proves that it isnt genetic.... In theory, but it could be a recesive gene i gues...


lol this is kind of funny, im working on a java program that you create parents based on dominant and recesive genes, so i too know the math and logic very well. It would kind of make sence that only a very small population would turn out to be gay, because only the carriers would reproduce.

Which was unrelated to the point I was making. A "subconscious mental repulsion" would still be "in the brain", and thus as "curable"/"incurable" as if it's due any other reason.
Point taken.
1. "are only in" what?
2. Need I dredge up old posts? One who is homosexual will not engage in activities which can result in offspring for purposes of sexual gratifaction - bisexuality is not homosexuality. Furthermore, citationplz for your claim.
edit: lawl church already said this.
Citations? So far as is my understanding ( which I admit is not something I am confident in ) , there's not a lot in the way of data regarding children of same-sex caretakers ( and then there's the possibility that any difference, if there is indeed any, is due to cultural views of the subject and/or the fact that these children are necessarily adopted ... ) .

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 26 2009, 4:34 am by EzDay281.

Vrael, learn to edit posts.


So were homosexuals. Citation needed @ the mother and father thing.

No it isn't.


A simple genetic trait that is inherited from one allele and is non-dominant would be excised from the population very quickly. So why do we still have people with blue eyes? Because there are dozens of spontaneous gene mutations each generation, neutral ones like this being the most common, that make sure the traits keep resurfacing, rather than dieing out.

And tell your bigoted, stupid argument to the large number of homosexuals who love their partners, and ones who don't even have sex.

We have people with blue eyes because those with the recessive gene showing continue to reproduce, spreading the recessive gene even further, this is not true with homosexuals.

I guess I shouldn't have used "sex" specifically, however the majority of bisexuals are only bisexual because they like to be in relationships, and they don't really care who it is they are in it with.
I honestly have no idea what is truly wrong with homosexuals, but as already proven, it's obviously something that is mental, and not just how they were born.

I know a gay guy from a philosophers cafe I used to attend in high school. We're still friends, and we've talked about this topic a few times, so I'll give what opinions I can recall.

As to the nature of being gay, he told me that at first he wanted a girlfriend because he knew he should want one, and because he thought girls were pretty. Eventually, over the course of his high school years he realized he was more physically attracted to other guys, and he decided to be open about it. The key point is that he told me he never wanted to be gay, nobody he knew wanted him to be gay, and the few girls he did date gave him nothing but good impressions of the female sex, and in fact he has way more female friends than I do, at this point. He really didn't see anything that would have made him have those feelings, and I'm inclined to agree.

Anyways, since having kids is socially acceptable, and since humans are by nature social creatures, it follows that even gay people will have sex in order to procreate. In addition to this, it is known that gay is not a single trait, nor can it yet be determined by genes whether or not someone is a homosexual. It's a brain thing, and as such, very difficult to attribute to something that would get ironed out by evolution. Even in primitive societies, a man who did not have sex with women was almost unheard of, and it is easy to understand why they would have sex with a woman to make children. So, even if it is a removable trait, there's no reason that it would have been removed.

In terms of philosophy, we should step away from an evolutionary standpoint and look at things differently. Most of the sex heterosexuals have is hedonistic in nature, in fact, most of us don't have kids, so 100% of the sex we have is hedonistic in nature until we do so. The statistic is that the average human has sex about 4500 times in their life, but that the average north american parent has 2.3 kids, that's something like 99.95%. By that regard, saying that gays should not have the ability to engage in hedonistic sex is laughable at best, considering that if we have heterosexual sex for enjoyment, they should have what they enjoy the most, just as often and with as much impunity as we do. Humankind has developed past the point of animal tendencies, yet sex remains, for all of us, as a necessity in order to be satisfied with life (in most cases, by psychology) As such, since we want sex without children in order to keep ourselves satisfied, there is no reason to say that some minorities should be excluded from that. The only passable argumens I've heard against homosexuality are religious in nature, and are invalid unless the princibles of an ancient book and the misinterpretations of countless religious people are held to be undeniably true premises.

So is Alzheimers mental. It's genetic.

Thank you for proving the point. If it's recessive, people will keep having it and reproduce. Not to mention some people reproduce before realising that they're gay because they're trying to go with the societal norm.

These all require citation.

These still require citation:

Or red hair. The gene isn't necessarily excised "very quickly," rather it depends on the combination of mating pairs. The probability of being a carrier is quite high if at least 1 parent is a carrier, 50% (based on the direct representation presented earlier of an AA and AB parent, though in reality something like this might not be dependant on a single gene), so the gene likely wouldn't be excised "very quickly" but rather over many many generations.

Lol. Not quite

Several of my points are hypothesis that from what I've seen in life are true, and therefore I am not going to provide citations for them, and I am currently proving the last one. On the first one, please try to name two people who had homosexual parents(through adoption) who turned out successful(not like celebrity success, as in they actually contributed something useful to the human race).


No, I did not just prove your point, you honestly don't seem to get what I am saying and I have no idea why. If straight up homosexuality was genetic it must be a recessive gene, as the majority of people are straight, if it is a recessive gene, then it would die out very quickly as those who have the recessive gene twice do not reproduce, like more recessive genes, so eventually it would die out. It is nothing like alzheimers, as people with alzheimers will reproduce.

Falkoner, if you intentionally fail to provide citations then I am going to intentionally enforce the "Sources and Evidence" rule as well as the "Posts judged to be of a low quality may be deleted at the moderators discretion" rule. I call this fair warning.

"Not to mention some people reproduce before realising that they're gay because they're trying to go with the societal norm."

Some gay people will reproduce, some won't, some people with blue eyes will reproduce, some won't. It's less common to. Oh, look at that.

I'm not understanding why it was deleted aside from being short but if it was genetic there are a number of ways why it wouldn't disappear, for example many mutations in genes occur, one could easily provide the gene without parents having it. As i stated before it was deleted 'artificial insemination' is used by quite a few gay people to have genetic children well not cheating on their lovers.

Some gay people want biological children... My friend said that she was basically a "huge favor" from one of her mom's close friends.
Not to mention sperm banks and such.

Just because something is dominant doesnt nessesarily means it occurs the most in a population. A cleft chin is dominant over no cleft (http://www.uni.edu/walsh/genetics.html) but i can definalty tell you that most people do not have a cleft chin. (I was running my gene program all night at a science convention and only about 5 out of 40 who tried had a cleft chin)

I think its kind of a dumb argument about if the trait would still be in the population, obviusly, if homosecuality is decided by genetics, it IS still being spread. But who really knows for sure on the true cause, but i stongly believe that proof or disproof of genetic involvement would decide the argument about fair treatment for many people.

That statement itself is biased. Not everyone thinks the same way about the same environment, whether the environment itself is overall considered by most to be good or bad.

Rather than hating all men, the girl may just keep it in perspective and only hate that man. In some cases, the girl may not think it is either good or bad, but just a normal thing or that she deserves it for some reason. It could even be that the girl is a masochist and even likes it to some degree.