Since this section supports homosexuals, I thought this was the place to get the best answer....If people are born gay, meaning there is truly a homosexual gene, how does the homosexual gene survive since homosexuals do not reproduce? I am not in any way trying to start an argument or even a debate. Just a question that needs an answer....
an honest question....
- Thread starter JoshuaC77
- Start date
This is a topic that we probably can't talk about very much. because of CF rules. (It's possible that moderators may consider this posting an attempt to promote homosexuality, though it certainly is not. Genetics doesn't determine ethics. E.g. we are probably going to find that there are genes that dispose people to certain types of criminal action. That doesn't mean that the actions are OK. We need to find ways to help such people overcome the dispositions.)
It seems to be true that most people don't decide to become gay. But that doesn't mean there's a specific gay gene. Sexuality is complex, and is likely the result of a combination of things: genetics, how you are raised, and other experience.
Furthermore, the genetic component probably isn't a single gene that is present only in gays. It's likely more than one, and they are likely present in many people. In some they may be recessive and not expressed at all. And in other combinations, the genes could well have other effects.
Let me give you a model, which is way oversimplified. So I'm not saying this is really true, but something more complex that's similar could be. Suppose having a small number of gay people makes the group as a whole do better, e.g. because having a few people disposed to adopting children whose parents have died is useful, or because having a few people who are celibate allows them to concentrate on functions useful to the community that are harder for people with families. And suppose the genes involved are present in many people but recessive in non-gay people. It could still give groups carrying those gene an advantage over those who don't.
Second possibility: The individual genes in other combinations, or with other early childhood situations, have effects other than gayness, and those effects are helpful. E.g. suppose the genes promote male bonding and sisterhood, but in some situations also tend to promote homosexuality. The overall effects could be helpful. Again, the point isn't the gay people themselves have children, but just that populations carrying those genes are more likely to do well.
But don't focus too much on genetics. As we learn more, it's almost certain that we'll find that being gay isn't just one thing with a single cause, and that genetics is only part of the picture.
It seems to be true that most people don't decide to become gay. But that doesn't mean there's a specific gay gene. Sexuality is complex, and is likely the result of a combination of things: genetics, how you are raised, and other experience.
Furthermore, the genetic component probably isn't a single gene that is present only in gays. It's likely more than one, and they are likely present in many people. In some they may be recessive and not expressed at all. And in other combinations, the genes could well have other effects.
Let me give you a model, which is way oversimplified. So I'm not saying this is really true, but something more complex that's similar could be. Suppose having a small number of gay people makes the group as a whole do better, e.g. because having a few people disposed to adopting children whose parents have died is useful, or because having a few people who are celibate allows them to concentrate on functions useful to the community that are harder for people with families. And suppose the genes involved are present in many people but recessive in non-gay people. It could still give groups carrying those gene an advantage over those who don't.
Second possibility: The individual genes in other combinations, or with other early childhood situations, have effects other than gayness, and those effects are helpful. E.g. suppose the genes promote male bonding and sisterhood, but in some situations also tend to promote homosexuality. The overall effects could be helpful. Again, the point isn't the gay people themselves have children, but just that populations carrying those genes are more likely to do well.
But don't focus too much on genetics. As we learn more, it's almost certain that we'll find that being gay isn't just one thing with a single cause, and that genetics is only part of the picture.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You could ask this question, I think, in the Physical & Life Sciences sub-forum down in the area that is open to non-Christians. (WWMC has always allowed non-Christians to post. It is the exception in this portion of the board).
IANA-Biologist: I recall someone who was discussing this elsewhere saying that there is a correlation between fertility of mothers and mothers having a gay son. That is, those genetic factors that enable a woman to be especially fertile are expressed in the male as homosexuality. IOW, it is a natural by-product of a genetic line being successful. The individual may not choose to procreate (and it should be noted that they still can), but the genetic line has been propagated whether or not the individual's genetics have.
I haven't heard whether there is a dominate theory with respect to female homosexuality. I did, however, see a news report (PBS?) interviewing a scientist of some sort noting that female's sexual preferences are naturally more flexible than a male's.
But, I don't know.
IANA-Biologist: I recall someone who was discussing this elsewhere saying that there is a correlation between fertility of mothers and mothers having a gay son. That is, those genetic factors that enable a woman to be especially fertile are expressed in the male as homosexuality. IOW, it is a natural by-product of a genetic line being successful. The individual may not choose to procreate (and it should be noted that they still can), but the genetic line has been propagated whether or not the individual's genetics have.
I haven't heard whether there is a dominate theory with respect to female homosexuality. I did, however, see a news report (PBS?) interviewing a scientist of some sort noting that female's sexual preferences are naturally more flexible than a male's.
But, I don't know.
Upvote
0
There is no single gay gene that is passed on. While science still doesn't know the exact causes, it's believed to be due to hormonal changes in pre-natal development. The gay brain is a bit different than the straight brain (a gay man has one hemisphere slightly larger than the other for example and matches closer to a straight woman's brain). And in twin studies, if one twin is gay, the other has a 50% chance of being gay too.
I would also like to point out, many gays do reproduce. Gays are not sterile. They may not be able to currently reproduce with their same-sex partner, but many gays marry the opposite sex to fit in with society, or go through a surrogate.
Upvote
0
Fenny the Fox
Well-Known Member
- Apr 21, 2009
- 4,147
- 315
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Not to say there is a "gay gene" or genes. This is purely hypothetical and about genetics in general.
Presence of a gene or set of genes that may code for a trait is not the end all of genetics. One can posses a gene or set of genes that are NEVER expressed, without intervention of a sort - hormonal signals, chemical signals otherwise, etc. Such genes have been found to play a part in formation of cancer cells and tumors, for instance.
Genes can also be represented as recessive genes, in that they require a certain set of genes present to be expressed (often a combination of same-coding genes from parents), and this is the case in many fatal genetic conditions. And some can even "skip" individuals (they are present but not expressed for some reason) but appear further down the family lineage.
Genes may also be expressed differently in different individuals - due environmental and other factors that are not related to "birth", but "nurture".
**One hypothesis for male homosexual attraction is that a set of genes may be expressed in the male to code for physical changes in brain chemistry leading to sexual attraction to other males; while in the female they can code for increased fertility and birth rate. If this is the case, the gene would be passed on via the female, and not need to be passed on via the male.
Due to these factors even genes that lead to the person being unable to pass it on (such as in many genetic conditions that are prevalent - for instance: Cystic Fibrosis) can be passed on regardless.
Just a few thoughts on the subject.
Presence of a gene or set of genes that may code for a trait is not the end all of genetics. One can posses a gene or set of genes that are NEVER expressed, without intervention of a sort - hormonal signals, chemical signals otherwise, etc. Such genes have been found to play a part in formation of cancer cells and tumors, for instance.
Genes can also be represented as recessive genes, in that they require a certain set of genes present to be expressed (often a combination of same-coding genes from parents), and this is the case in many fatal genetic conditions. And some can even "skip" individuals (they are present but not expressed for some reason) but appear further down the family lineage.
Genes may also be expressed differently in different individuals - due environmental and other factors that are not related to "birth", but "nurture".
**One hypothesis for male homosexual attraction is that a set of genes may be expressed in the male to code for physical changes in brain chemistry leading to sexual attraction to other males; while in the female they can code for increased fertility and birth rate. If this is the case, the gene would be passed on via the female, and not need to be passed on via the male.
Due to these factors even genes that lead to the person being unable to pass it on (such as in many genetic conditions that are prevalent - for instance: Cystic Fibrosis) can be passed on regardless.
Just a few thoughts on the subject.
Upvote
0
CGL1023
citizen of heaven
- Jul 8, 2011
- 1,340
- 267
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I want to say with full sensitivity on a delicate issue, I am taught that Satan perverts God's perfect creation of a person, right in the womb. Another way to say it is homosexuality comes about thru a generational curse. In view of this, there would seem to be no reason to look for a homosexual gene. There could be a tendency to attribute the imperfect creation to God. God, however, creates with perfection and God's ways are perfect.
Full disclosure, I had a younger brother who had been practicing the gay life style since 1983 til he died in 2007. He was delivered thru the efforts of a Four Square pastor. That deliverance seemed complete though he had massive baggage that it takes time to replace with positive thoughts and behavior. I have no doubt that he was saved and will be in heaven.
There is a chance these comments could be taken wrong. I, like you, will not argue on the subject. I just offer it and will say no more on the subject though the subject is huge.
Upvote
0
I'm gay and have four children
A lot of homosexual Christians choose to live a heterosexual life due to their own convictions or pressure from other Christians at a crucial point in their life.
Gay =/= infertile.
A lot of homosexual Christians choose to live a heterosexual life due to their own convictions or pressure from other Christians at a crucial point in their life.
Gay =/= infertile.
Upvote
0
If homosexuality was much more unexcepted in past decades, wouldn't it seem logical that there would be more homosexuals, since there hidding in marriages, and having sex with woman as their cover......thus more children born with this gay gene........yet we find with more acceptance of homosexuality and the high rate of coming out and not hiding in false marriages, making babies, and simply living their lives as gay, with same sex partners, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude, the more homosexuality is excepted, the sooner it will die off. being that its in the genes, and if they are not forced into hiding and faking their life with women, over time homosexuality would simply die off...........but is this what we see in society today, Isn't homosexuality growing in higher numbers today then in the past when it was looked down upon and had them in hiding
Upvote
0
and according to Jase these kids will not carry the gay gene, so again with acceptence and allowing homosexuals to come out and live their lives freely and openly, Its simply a fact of nature and mathmatics in the long run gay people would become extinct
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I didn't realize your gay, but that does answer some questions I had about this forumI'm gay and have four children
A lot of homosexual Christians choose to live a heterosexual life due to their own convictions or pressure from other Christians at a crucial point in their life.
Gay =/= infertile.
Upvote
0
We've already told you there is no single "gay gene". I personally believe the bisexuality and homosexuality rate is higher than current statistics would indicate, but due to societal stigma most people hide it, however, sexual orientation numbers have been relatively consistent for all of human history.
Why would homosexuality die off? There will ALWAYS be a subset of the human population that is born with non-heterosexual orientations.
We already told you it's not a single gay gene. Why are you so hooked on this gene thing and gays dying off? Sexual orientation is likely far more influenced by hormones in the womb than by a gene that is either on or off. The fact that gay brains are biologically structured different than straight brains indicates there is a complex pre-natal development element to orientation.
And no, homosexuality is not growing in numbers. It may be more apparent now, due to higher acceptance among society, but that doesn't make more people gay. It just makes more people willing to admit they are gay.
Upvote
0
Ok! so there is no gay gene, gayness is then not passed genitically down through offspring....I got it!
Upvote
0
There's no gay gene, in the sense that there is a single gene which is present only in gays and is the sole cause of being gay.
However there are likely genetic characteristics that in some combinations predispose one to being gay. The only way that gays not having children would stop it is if the genes were only being passed on by closeted gays. That model seems unlikely. The earlier responses to your question assumed that genes which might in some situations predispose one to be gay are present in and passed on by non-gays. It's also likely that people with a predisposition to being gay will continue having biological children in substantial numbers for a variety of reasons mentioned previously.
[FYI, in reference to a different posting, in our church almost all of the leaders who want gays to be accepted are not gays themselves. Of course I can't be 100% sure of any one person, but in context it's pretty clear that they are concerned about friends and relatives, not themselves.]
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
AgapeGrace
Saved by Gracee
I'm gay and have four children
A lot of homosexual Christians choose to live a heterosexual life due to their own convictions or pressure from other Christians at a crucial point in their life.
Gay =/= infertile.
Sorry, I don't understand. Are you married to a man or a woman? Please pardon my misunderstanding.
Upvote
0
AgapeGrace
Saved by Gracee
I'm married to a man
Ok
sorry to have had to ask you that I'm a bit slow lol <3 hope your living a happy life like that, it seems like you are God bless.
Upvote
0
FMX
I am open to all, subject to none.
- Jun 11, 2011
- 177
- 3
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
....hang on a minute, I once made an account here where my first post was a thread about homosexuality. It got deleted and the mod told me that it must never be brought up and that it must never be supported in any way shape or form. He deleted my thread and when I went to log back in I couldn't get into the site. Was my account deleted?
He said it was according to the forum rules.
He said it was according to the forum rules.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This discussion does not violate the rules. It is not about whether homosexuality is allowable or not.
It not permitted anywhere in CF to defend homosexuality as OK. (This may not be obvious from the rules, but the term "promote" as used in CF rules includes stating that something is acceptable.) In the liberal forum, it is also not permitted to criticize homosexuality, because this forum's statement of faith specifically says that it is OK.
As far as I can tell, it is permitted to identify oneself as gay, identify one's church as accepting gays, and to discuss the conflicts over homosexuality which are currently occurring in many denominations, as long as you don't actually state that homosexuality is OK.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
