Originally Posted by Beware Owner
There's proof that nobody is born gay, I don't believe it to be something they can't help. There's nothing but inconclusive assumptions and suppositions when attemption to prove it, as even gay scientists end up in frustration with their inability to prove it's an inborn trait. Animals lick their bottoms after they poop, and this can be seen in many species, can you help yourself NOT to do the same? That's the point, we don't do everything animals do, we choose to do as we will. Using "nature" as an excuse is, honestly, pretty denigrating and regressive to the human race. Last time I checked, I don't see cows driving cars or mosquitoes pooping in the toilet. If you want to be like an animal, then you should get off of your computer right now and go live in the forest. Then you'll be one with nature. Tell me, why do we call pedophiles perverts and not gays? What is the difference between their preferences?
You should try harder to read what I wrote and then try ten times harder to think rationally.
You say there is proof that nobody is born gay but fail to give any evidence for this statement. You immediately follow it, in the same sentence, by saying that you don't believe it is something they can't help. You give no evidence for that either, but clearly you think that your feelings or beliefs are more significant than any evidence or argument from evidence.
I have no interest in gay scientists trying to support what they wish to believe. Gay science is a contradiction in terms - science should seek to reduce ignorance and not to support a preconceived position. If you think about it a little you should see that this is precisely what you are doing with your unsupported claims. As far as I know, the gay scientists have tried and failed to demonstrate a genetic link to homosexual behaviour. That does not mean that there is not one. It just means that they haven't found one.
With better understanding of genetics as a whole, as opposed to the techniques of statistical gentic analysis, they should have understood that homosexual behaviour, as a non survival trait, can be of very complex origin and that normal heterosexual behaviour can be disrupted at multiple points. Blindness is a very simple exemplar of this principle. In the process by which the embryo and fetus grows the eye and its neural connections there are well over a dozen points at which a genetic failure will produce blindness. What we see is the end result but most blind people can have children with other blind people without producing blind children. This is because they are carrying different faults in a homozygous state, but, though the heterozygous faults for blindness in their children are higher than the average for the population, they are not the same faults and so do not produce blindness in that generation.
In genetic terms blindness follows a simple multiple recessive defect model. There is no evidence that homosexuality is as simple as that, but as blindness is an obvious symptom and can be followed through families and isolated groups over many generations it has been possible to determine much of its causality by what are natural breeding experiments. Homosexuality has been mainly hidden for generations and so this natural breeding experiment has not been available, quite apart from the problem that homosexuals are less likely to breed.
It is worth noting that blindness is much rarer than homosexuality and so either it is less damaging to the population and the individual or it is far more complex in its nature. This is almost certainly a far more significant idea than you realise. Mutations happen all the time and damaging mutant genes are lost by selection against them all the time. If you are blind or suffer from haemophillia you will have been far less likely to have as many children as others and so you will not pass on as many of those damaging genes. (For those who know what alleles are, I appologise, but I am trying to keep this easy for those who don't.) But those genes are recessive and so they only show their effects when an individual has two of them - one on each of the chromosome pair. So, if the frequency of the gene (not the displayed defect) in the population is 1 in 100, then the defect will only be shown in 1 in 10,000 (10,000 =100 x 100) births. Only the 2 genes in that one in 10,000 individuals will be destroyed (if we assume that the defect results in no children at all rther than just a reduced number!), and so the deselection rate is 1 in 5,000. If the defect is at a stable frequency in the population the spontaneous re-creation of the defective gene will also be 1 in 5,000. If medicine improves the survival of these individuals the frequency in the population will slowly rise until the rate of deselection once again matches the rate of spontaneous re-creation.
If we accept that 1 in 20 people are homosexual and that a simple recessive gene was the cause, then something around 2 in 9 people would be carriers. That would be easy enough to discover by statistical analysis of the genome because all homosexuals would have two copies of the gene and 4 and a bit of every 20 heterosexuals would have one copy. This is the kind of simplistic science that the homosexual scientists have started with and, surprise surprise, it hasn't worked. They then moved onto more complex models and they thought they had something but I think further work has shown they didin't.
What we then have to think about is that if as many as 1 in 20 is homosexual, and it doesnt make much difference if it is 1 in 40, the genetic model has to be wrong or homosexuals have to have been having almost as many children as heterosexuals for hundreds of generations or the rate of spontaneaous mutation of homosexualality causing genes has to be phenomonally and unbelievably high. The latter is not a viable proposition. Since human breeding success depends both on number of children produced and the number they produce in turn and so on, and that this progression through the generations is also a function of good parenting, the genetic model has to be wrong. Although there might be good homosexual parents now in our politically correct age with multiple niches for earning good money and being homosexual, for the hundreds of thousand of years before that they would have been unable to be good parents.
Things can go wrong in development from the egg not just because of genetic damage but because of developmental damage caused by environmental factors beyond the control of the genetic system. If homosexuals are doomed to homosexuality from birth or early childhood then it is the environmental factors that we should be looking at rather than genetic factors.
That brings us back to whether homosexuality is a choice. You persistently fail to understand the significance of the evidence from the animal kingdom. As I tried to point out with my examples of cows and rabbits, animals have evolved to deal with their particular problems of survival in different ways. The fact that rabbits need to eat their own excrement to gain enough nourishment from hard to digest material is part of nature. As such it is natural, but that does not mean that it is something humans should be doing and as far as I know only a very rare number of extremely disturbed individuals do so. The fact that dogs lick their bottoms is also natural. They have no other means of keeping them clean and free from infection. It is natural and essential for them but it is part of their body maintenance system and not some perverted pleasure.
Animals do what they do from instinct, and not from conscious choice except in the case of some kind of training. So if we see animals egaging in homosexual acts it is not because they think it is cool or exciting as we might suspect of humans. If we see that the great majority of animal individuals egage only in heterosexual sex but that some individuals engage almost exclusively or entirely exclusively in homosexual sex then we can think of those minority individuals as homosexuals. There are countless examples of precisely this! Since very few animal species have the ability to think to any significant extent we have to believe that this is a natural aberation and not a "choice" in any way related to what we think of as human choices. On that basis we must suspect very srongly that human homosexuality is no more a choice for humans than for animals. This is nothing to do with the idea that it is natural and therefore it is good. It is not using animals as an excuse for some kinds of human behaviour. It is simply an examination of the evidence and the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from it.