Proof that homosexuality is a matter of conditioning.

Qoeleth · #1 Apr 12, '12, 4:13 pm

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.

SonCatcher · #2 Apr 12, '12, 5:00 pm

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.

AngryAtheist8 · #3 Apr 12, '12, 7:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonCatcher

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.

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).

theblindlead · #4 Apr 12, '12, 10:28 pm

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

Arizona Mike · #5 Apr 13, '12, 2:52 pm

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.

jeffspot · #6 Apr 23, '12, 5:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arizona Mike

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.

NICE - I love thought provoking hypothetical questions like this.

mitex · #7 Apr 23, '12, 5:15 pm

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?

**edwest2** · #8 Apr 23, '12, 5:21 pm

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 · #9 Apr 23, '12, 5:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

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

Me?

SonCatcher · #10 Apr 24, '12, 10:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitex

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

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

Me?

It may have been directed at the OP or one of the other posters.

Charlemagne II · #11 Apr 24, '12, 12:55 pm

Try this!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/tim...m_medium=email

johnnyjones · #12 Apr 24, '12, 1:18 pm

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.

1AugustSon7 · #13 Apr 27, '12, 10:14 am

Arguing from Darwin? *shivers* the Eugenicists did that and we have Planned Parenthood as a result.

jeffspot · #14 Apr 23, '12, 5:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitex

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?

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.

Rustie317 · #15 May 2, '12, 10:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitex

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?

You don't have to have diabetes to understand where it comes from. NARTH actually agrees with you. You did not choose the lifestyle. It never said you had to have a "broken childhood or a dominant mother. Something happened early in your childhood to cause a "detachment" issue with one of your parents (depends on your situation). The way your child mind decided to cope with this is to identify with the oposite gender and just like heterosexuals, you develop an attraction for your imagined oposite gender which happens to be the same as your natural one. Then as you got older, this caused homosexual tendencies when left untreated, led to you identifying with the social group "gay" for support. If some are successfully turning back to their original sexuality, isn't this cause for celebration as hope for you so you don't have to continue in "this existence"?