If homosexuality is some kind of quirk in the formation of the genes?

Question

Should the government pass a law to spend money on research to help these suffering individuals?
If there is no problem in the genetic structure, then it is a choice that they have made.
Is there an error in my summation?

Answer 1

The last lesbian I counseled claimed she was born that way. She was in her 50's by the way. Living with a 25 year old girl.

Yet by the end of that first hour she reluctantly admitted she had been married for 20 years and had four children while in that marriage.

If being gay or lesbian was a genetic defect, how was this lady able to have four non gay, non lesbian children?

The youngest of her children is now over 20 years of age.

Pastor Art

Answer 2

There are errors in your summation:

First is your reliance on Nature v Nurture. Just because an issue is not genetic, doesn't mean it isn't real. It is more likely to be a product of the hormones of the mother or the quality of the sperm of the father, not a genetic factor at all, and not a factor relating to the homosexuals themselves but their parents during the pregnancy.

Second is your assumption that homosexuality is wrong (this is just your personal or religious view) and should be 'helped' or 'cured', or that homosexuals suffer as a consequence of their homosexuality.
They suffer only because of the attitudes of others toward them. If you and your co-religionists could understand they have nothing wrong (and they don't really fancy you, so you needn't be scared) then they wouldn't suffer the effects of your hatred, fear and discrimination.

Third, it isn't a choice. If it is a choice, then you must also accept that your heterosexuality was also a choice (at some point if people choose their sexuality, you must also have chosen yours).
You know that is not the case. You are straight, you were born straight, you didn't choose it. They are gay, they are born gay, they didn't choose it.

Answer 3

specific, there are numerous. First, you assume, without foundation, that homosexuality is a unfavorable element. You even shift from 'quirk interior the genetic formation of the strategies' to 'project interior the genetic shape'. to pass from quirk to project isn't justified. Even 'quirk' is questionable. 2d, you have a hopelessly simplistic binary view of issues. issues are no longer the two with the aid of genetics or determination. Sexuality (alongside with each style of different phenotypic features) would desire to be the end results of: a million) genes 2) pre-natal ecosystem 3) submit-natal ecosystem 4) determination. there are probable different components i haven't concept-approximately. maximum probable, that's a mixture of numerous of the above. it style of feels to me that there is no good reason to even assume that each and each guy or woman's sexuality is the made of an identical share of impacts.

Answer 4

Yes, there are several.

First, you assume, without basis, that homosexuality is a negative thing. You even shift from 'quirk in the genetic formation of the brain' to 'problem in the genetic structure'. To move from quirk to problem is not justified. Even 'quirk' is questionable.

Second, you have a hopelessly simplistic binary view of things. Things are not either due to genetics or choice. Sexuality (along with all sorts of other phenotypic characteristics) may be the result of: 1) genes 2) pre-natal environment 3) post-natal environment 4) choice. There are probably other factors I haven't thought of. Most likely, it is a combination of several of the above. It seems to me that there is no good reason to even assume that every person's sexuality is the product of the same proportion of influences.

Answer 5

What?

Should we fix the fact that some people have blue eyes as a result of a quirk in their genes? Should the government pass a law to spend money on research to help these individuals?

Obviously not. There is NOTHING wrong with being homosexual. Do you also want to "cure" all the homosexual animals in nature? This is not something exclusive to humans, you know. It's simply the way they ARE. They suffer because our society does not accept them, not because there is something wrong with them.

Answer 6

The last information received was not about the cause, but from a hormone imbalance. The men are born with more female hormones than male hormones. Same as for women. This was nearly 20 years ago, so I sure the information from studies have changed quite a bit. I defiantly do not believe it is by choice, one is born that way. I have no information about the cause or if by choice concerning bisexuals, I would like to here the latest studies about that condition. My only experience of suffering that I have ever seen, was a friend, a very sweet and handsome young man who was brought up in a pentecostal church and was programed to believe that he was going to hell.This young man did everything the church insisted he do and still could not change. There is no telling the torcher this young man went through when he was told he had aids and died very young. No acceptance from family, church and his own self. Fear was his last companion, except for his Heavenly Father.

Answer 7

You are getting lots of faith affirmations from the religion of homosexual predestination, Gypsy Priest. None of it has any remote scientific foundation.

Facts:

* People change orientation. Most homosexuals (about 2/3) have had sexual intercourse. Anne Heche switched from homosexual to heterosexual. Bishop Robinson left his wife and daughters for his boyfriend.

* The identical twins of homosexuals are usually NOT homosexual (only 38%), despite identical DNA. So much for genetic determinism.

Several answers insisted that homosexuals are happy about their choice. But they have extraordinarily high rates of suicide, and they risk death daily by AIDS and a variety of other deadly STDs. Homosexual men typically have hundreds of sexual partners and usually don't even know their names.

Is that the kind of intimacy God designed us for? I think not.

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 8

Yes, the error you have made is to assume it's a genetic 'error'. It isn't. It's just a probabilistic outcome, just as it is for hermaphrodites.

Recent studies have shown that the later you are in birth order, the more likely you are to be gay. The thinking is that the mother's estrogen levels play an important role.

Answer 9

Yes, you are in error.

You may carry a gene for schizophrenia, but that does not necessarily mean you will develop schizophrenia. If you do become schizophrenic, does that mean it was a choice. Or is it the fault of your genetic makeup?

Environment plays a role, too.

Furthermore, homosexuality is not a disease. It is not detrimental to be homosexual, aside from the reduced possibility of passing on your genes. Homosexuality is no more a defect than long fingers.

You should read up a little on genetics before you go spouting nonsense like this.

EDIT: At what age in your life did you choose to be straight?
Sexuality is not a choice, just as long fingers are not a choice. You may be genetically predisposed to long fingers but your environment may prevent your fingers reaching from their full potential. Conversely, you may develop longer finger than you were genetically predisposed to, with the help of your environment.

EDIT:Don't mean to cause offense, but are you gay? Your hat screams gay biker, in my personal opinion...

Answer 10

Yes, you have made an error. You fail to take into consideration gene expression. While I do think homosexuality is biologic in origin, that does not mean it is strictly a gene or group of genes. The in-utero environment, hormone exposure, etc. most likely plays a role.