Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course, this presumes that the genes for boosting fertility and the genes for inducing homosexuality do not overlap. Given the complex nature of human sexuality and human fertility, I would be surprised if they could be boiled down to a single gene each.
(emphasis mine)
Well, you said a single gene. What you are talking about now is a combination of genes causing a particular phenotype.
Listen Mr. Philisophical. That's my business, not yours. What I decide for my own life and why I decide it are completely irrelavent to the topic that I've been discussing with you- which right now is whether or not homosexuality is natural, not if it being natural or unnatural makes it moral. I've claimed that we cannot know one way or the other without more evidence, and that it's both nature and nurture. That's all there is to it, and you've yet to refute me.Indeed it does. Thank you.
Ah, I see, OK.
Some questions: would you consider your celibacy to be unnatural?
Do you consider the unnatural to be immoral?
not quite... its probably more similar to the sickle cell anaemia gene... when one reinforces the recessive from two heterozygous parents, the homozygous offspring display sickle cell anaemia (homosexuality), but in the case of the heterozygous carriers, you receive an immunity to malaria (increased female fertility)Actually, that just means that the gene that causes homosexuality, if there were such a thing, is located close to a gene on the chromosomal map responsible for increased female fertility.
In other words, the two genes are located close to each other and therefore, hard to separate during chromosomal cross-linking recombination. It's just piggy backing on a useful gene. The same could be said of any gene located within the same area as a gene whose phenotype causes an increase in its allele frequency in a population over time.
not quite... its probably more similar to the sickle cell anaemia gene... when one reinforces the recessive from two heterozygous parents, the homozygous offspring display sickle cell anaemia (homosexuality), but in the case of the heterozygous carriers, you receive an immunity to malaria (increased female fertility)
Listen Mr. Philisophical. That's my business, not yours.
It is information that is off topic to the discussion I've been having with him....it was information you shared though, and I didn't get the impression wiccan was being rude in the questions that were being asked. I think a simple "we're getting into an uncomfortable area here." would have done the trick.
tulc(no need to take offense)
Back in the day, my 'sacrifice' would have been to help others procreate (or more specifically, to help others with my own altruistic genes).
By sacrificing myself out of the gene pool, I help encourage the proliferation of my tribe, and my species.
actually... there is significant evidence suggesting that homosexuality is a recessive trait linked to a gene that INCREASES fertility in female carriers... if correct, then, homosexuality actually INCREASES the ability to pass on genetic material.
Sorry, just one more of those times you should, you know... research stuff
how can this fertility be in a male same-sex couple then? How can fertility be increased with no prospect of it being realised? Homosexually rather than increase the ability to pass on genetic material, compleley destroys the chance to pass it on. It is the very opposite of what you have said.actually... there is significant evidence suggesting that homosexuality is a recessive trait linked to a gene that INCREASES fertility in female carriers... if correct, then, homosexuality actually INCREASES the ability to pass on genetic material
My genes, no. But I help pass on the genes of those individuals with my genes. Unique mutations in me will be lost, but my genome will go on.If you don't have children, you don't pass on your genes.
On that note, the following is evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality:How does your "significant evidence" work since we can't even prove homosexual is genetic at all.
In the rare instances these articles cites information, it does so incorrectly (for instance, monozygotic twins are not genetically identicle; after birth, environmental effects alter which genes are active).
This article argues against homosexuality being caused soley by genetics, not that there is no genetic component. My stance is that homosexuality is caused by a mix of genetic and environmental factors.
[/quote]
a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.
The evidence for the Xq28 marker is therefore preliminary and has yet to be fully proved or disproved
This extreme skewing may influence male sexual orientation through the fraternal birth order effect. The connections discovered, however, would explain only 20% of the cases studied, indicating that this might not be the sole genetic factor determining sexual orientation.
The conclusion, that sexual attraction, whether same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, operates similarly on a biological level, does not mean that there is necessarily a biological cause for homosexuality.
A strong opposition to the genetic explanation is the Darwinian paradox; in fact a genetic factor that reduces reproductive success should progressively disappear from the population. The authors here argue genetic factors could partially explain male homosexuality, and propose a paradox solution:
Males that were artificially given the female version of the gene became more passive and turned their sexual attention to other males.
Nevertheless, this is evidence of a genetic root for sexuality. Yes, it isn't conclusive proof that human homosexuality is soley genetic, but it's evidence nonetheless.a related gene exists in human beings, although there is no evidence yet that the human gene has an effect on sexual preference.
So strictly speaking, the NIH flies are not homosexual but bisexual . And the gene produces no unusual behavior when transplanted into females: the scientists have produced no lesbian fruit flies.
To quote the rest of the paragraph:The evidence for the Xq28 marker is therefore preliminary and has yet to be fully proved or disproved
I don't see the problem with this one.This extreme skewing may influence male sexual orientation through the fraternal birth order effect. The connections discovered, however, would explain only 20% of the cases studied, indicating that this might not be the sole genetic factor determining sexual orientation.
Nevertheless, it is compelling indeed when coupled with the other evidence.The conclusion, that sexual attraction, whether same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, operates similarly on a biological level, does not mean that there is necessarily a biological cause for homosexuality.
Again, I fail to see the problem. Evolutionary theory allows for the development of homosexuality, as paradoxical as it first appears (it is almost identicle to the evolution of altruism, and analogous to the evolution of sexuality itself).A strong opposition to the genetic explanation is the Darwinian paradox; in fact a genetic factor that reduces reproductive success should progressively disappear from the population. The authors here argue genetic factors could partially explain male homosexuality, and propose a paradox solution:
Which is entirely contradictory to what one would expect if there were no genetic causes for homosexuality.Males that were artificially given the female version of the gene became more passive and turned their sexual attention to other males.
...
In fact the last link seemed to be to a discussion forum where they talked about male fruit flies being given a female gene which caused them to behave, unsuprisingly enough, like females.
Perhaps you haven't realised: this is science. Science doesn't deal with proofs and certainties outside of mathematics. We think Atomic Theory is correct, but it may just be invisible magic gnomes.Not exactly proven or conclusive is it. Full of could's and may's and proposition's.
In the rare instances these articles cites information, it does so incorrectly (for instance, monozygotic twins are not genetically identicle; after birth, environmental effects alter which genes are active).
anti-gay? No I am not partisan and biased like you, I am going to take whichever I judge to be right, and I have given one link which is fairly neutral.And quite frankly, I'm going to take the word of the Royal Society over explicitly anti-gay websites (assualt on Gay American indeed).
In all fairness, this is a thread on the morality of homosexuality. What do you expect to be discussed other than the morality of homosexuality?
I think the OP wanted to draw out another debate on Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, the 'unnatural' argument, etc; the OP wanted to debate the trite arguments.But in fact this is just evidence as to whether there is anything inate or not. Whilst I am still open about this many here are not because their whole argument is based on it being fact. Even so the thread asks is homosexuality wrong which is a moral question. The Christian answer is no, because some Christians are homosexual in having same-sex attraction whether nature or nurtured.
Hi Wiccan_Child,
Having reconsidered what I wrote and I am not quite sure it is entirely correct.
"anti-gay? No I am not partisan and biased like you " I think I am partisan and biased, towards the Christian view.
just felt I needed to address thatthanks Wiccan_Child
According to one's personal moral code, of course. If you ascribe to the code of your god(s), then discuss that.The morality of Homosexality ? according to whom ?
The Flesh or the Spirit ?
I do not.If you are truly a follower of Jesus Christ you should be aware there is now no condemnation of a person who is a Christian and homosexual.
That is of course provided you do actualy believe the word of God....
Quite.If you wish to be disposed towards the Flesh.... then you do not walk after the Spirit at all.....he knows his sheep and his sheep know him.
The Church and self righteouse zealots have been trying to correct the Flesh for centuries....the reason why the always fail miserably is because they walk after the Flesh....instead of walking after the Spirit.
Peace
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?