Is homosexualtiy a birth defect?

Question

You probably clicked on this just dying to call me a bigot. I am simply looking for understanding. Please do not think i dislike gay people i just have questions thats all

OK so any reasonable person knows that homosexuality is NOT a choice and that it is born into. That is established. However since (until very very recently with embryonic research) homosexuals will typically not reproduce because they arent attracted to the opposite sex. In evolutionary terms this could not be an advantage. Would it be fair to call homosexuality a birth defect in the same league as things like :

Male pattern baldness
A lazy eye
Third nipple

Obviously the IMPLICATIONS societally are much different but really they shouldn't be. Why can't we just look at homosexuality like baldness and is it OK to charaterize it in this way.

Answer 1

I'd say it's more in the ball park of blue eyes vs. brown eyes, dark skin vs. light skin, tall vs short: natural evolutionary variations for what may be obscure survival strategies for the species.
You kind of answered your own question: "Homosexuals"(which is probably a normal population that is more attracted to the same sex than the others) don't reproduce, so they are a consistently recurring variation in every human population on earth.

Why? because Nature "hedges its bets." In primate populations, homosexual behavior relieves social pressure among males caused by competition over access to females since there is usually one greedy dominant male who wants his DNA to be predominant.
I like the term "variation" better than "defect". Spinabifida is a birth defect: many children never survive it.

***I wonder if believing in {demons} is a "birth defect"?

Answer 2

NO it's not a birth defect...and as far as evolutionary terms, homosexuality in no way threatens that. 1 in 10 people being gay is in no way a threat to the population of the earth. The species would and is still growing and surviving. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, so there's no defect, it's natural as far as I'm concerned. I work fine.

Answer 3

Nothing you list is what I'd call a defect, just normal variation.

Here's one way that an inheritable characteristic can be passed on even if those who have it never have children:
a condition might be caused by a recessive gene, one that is expressed only in individuals who inherited two copies of it, one from each parent. Like blue eyes.

I'm not saying that homosexuality is caused by a recessive gene -- it's more complicated than that, and the experts haven't even figured it out yet. I'm just saying that there are ways traits can continue in a population even when the affected individuals don't reproduce.

Rather than "birth defect", it might be more accurate to say "inherited trait". And that might not even be correct, because sexual orientation might be caused by conditions in the womb rather than by genetics. We don't know.

In any case, it's harmless and way too common to be considered a defect.

Answer 4

Homosexuality, and I say this as a gay man, is an aberration that appears in various species. I wouldn't call it a "defect", as I'm sure you know how people get caught up in semantics.

In evolutionary terms it can be undesirable, but is useful in controlling population levels, particularly considering how we as humans have been so stringent in attempts to wipe out disease and other natural causes of illness and death.

The fact remains that once you go down the "defect" road then you open the floodgates for the bigots. It's all the justification they need.
Considering that it doesn't hamper the individuals ability to contribute to society, apart from adding to the population, it's a little unfair to class it as such.

Answer 5

Your understanding of evolutionary biology is overly simplistic. Evolutionary pressure affects populations, not individuals. If species (lots of other mammals have gay members) or societies that have homosexuals thrive for whatever reason, then the homosexuality, if it is genetic, will persist. It doesn't matter if the homosexuals reproduce themselves.

Male pattern baldness is not a "birth defect," and neither are all lazy eyes. To be honest, you really don't know what the hell you are talking about in this question at all.

Answer 6

But asking the question and using the term 'defect' DOES imply your bias against homosexuality. Why not see this as something different such as being left handed or having a dispostion for languages?
A defect indicates something is WRONG with a person. Being gay has no impact on our species. Some argue 'they can't reproduce', but obviously that is a wrong assumption. They have families. They are still capable of reproducing though not by what some who spoute 'family values' will dictate.
This also implies it should be fixed. I don't see them as being defective, wrong, or anything other than a valued part of modern society.

Answer 7

i'm uncertain of the respond, yet I purely prefer you to understand that this could be an excellent question and that i completely understand what you try to declare. human beings study those questions and without delay anticipate that the asker would desire to be prejudiced and ignorant, bit you made it sparkling that it somewhat isn't the case. you in addition to mght made it sparkling which you do not intend for the information "illness" to be insulting, besides the actual incontrovertible fact that I imagione it must be stressful for some to think of in any different case. As for the 1st reaction, that individual is a moron. do not pay them any innovations. All they study became "illness" and that they have been given pissed. additionally, you're making a stable component with the help of announcing homosexuality isn't in prefer of procreation, and subsequently, the continuance of the human race... this is a robust reason it ought to o.k. be considered a illness.

Answer 8

I wouldn't be comfortable with it because if it's considered a birth defect then that implies that it could be cured. If it seems it can be cured then scoundrels will claim to have the cure. Then when we pray for healing and the gay man stays gay we can condemn him for his lack of faith as well as his gayness and speculate that his lack of faith may be why he's gay in the first place.

If I must compare gays to other people it's better to think of it like race. The individual has no choice and society shouldn't treat them as it has.


Blessed Be!

Answer 9

You have quite a good questioning. Unfortunately, it's such a sensitive and exploding subject, that no thourough scientific research has been made.

Think about the consequences: the proof of a defunct would be disastrous for the homosexual community, they would not only be demonised for the way they live, but they would be attacked to be freaks of nature too.

And if there is proof that it's NOT a defunct, then no religious or moral zealot would accept the answer and the research would be cast aside.

Answer 10

I think that it could be described that way. It may seem a little harsh, but I am Bi and a Christian, and I think that it's just evidence that we are born with certain things that give evidence of the 'sin nature' that we all carry. There would be no birth defects unless there was a sin nature in us, in my opinion.

With that I can do a lot:
1) Tell the Fundies that they need to stop making stupid arguments against certain groups: Preach the Gospel for once.
2) There is no #2. Number one says it all.

We are saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And that means that we all are just as bad as anyone else. We are saved through trusting Him, as He promised.