6 votes

Homosexuality’s Cause Isn’t Genetics...

...but the Answer Does Lie in the Womb

As long as natural selection has been an accepted scientific theory, homosexuality has been a riddle for scientists.

By Makini Brice | Dec 11, 2012 12:44 PM EST

As long as natural selection has been an accepted scientific theory, homosexuality has been a riddle for scientists. If a person is attracted to people of the same gender, he or she cannot have biological children with their chosen partner. For most of history, before in vitro fertilization, that meant that homosexuality could not be carried out genetically. In addition, because homosexuality makes it more difficult to have biological children, researchers could not understand how it was possible that the trait would survive across genetics. However, scientists believe that they may have cracked the code, and the answer does lie slightly in genetics.

Read more at http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/13475/20121211/homosexu...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thank you for your reply.

I believe in the golden rule of treating others as you would want to be treated and, therefore, I agree with that.

That said, based on all of the above replies, I hardly think one can call it normal or expect it to be considered socially normal as, just on it's face taken objectively, it is not normal.

The word "normal" has a meaning.

Birth defects are common

but we don't call people with birth defects "defective," because there is a stinger in that word.

I'm just talking about being considerate.

I argued that being a hermaphrodite ought to be socially normal, because I would like to see people becoming more accepting. Having Down's Syndrome may not be exactly socially normal but most adults have seen enough people with Down's that they don't stop and gawk at them. Down's has been normalized.

There ought to be as much of a place in society for hermaphrodites because, as I said, there are more of them than most people are aware, and most of them that I've read or seen deeply resent having been mutilated at birth just to conform with social "norms."

In America, it's normal for a doctor to slash off someone's anatomy because it's different, but as a relativist, I would argue it's not ethically justifiable, "normal" behavior between humans.

I agree that people need to be considerate,...

...kind, sympathetic and apply the golden rule.

I've also not said anything about "defective".

I've attempted to point out, without emotion or discrimination, that it is deviant and not normal.


What is deviant? Being born a hermaphrodite?

Main Entry: 1 de·vi·ant
Function: adjective:
deviating especially from some accepted standard of behavior or morals


Yeah how dare they be born that way....

Get it together.

de·vi·ant/ˈdi vi ənt/ adjective
1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation

de·vi·ance/ˈdi vi əns/ noun
1. deviant quality or state.


deacon's picture

what you are suggesting

the creator makes mistakes,in this case
he/it/she,that the creation is in no way flawed
so therefor what has been created is somehow our fault
and we have to label it
if indeed everything was created as we are told,then the one who created the start of it,also created everything before,during and after
what you labeled deviant,and consider deviant means you are judging the creator and the creation
but who cares what the cause is for homosexuality, it is not for us
to judge what we did not create

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Agreed. My issue was with athiest evolutionist libertarians.

Your point is well taken.

If you read the thread of replies it was about going off the basis of such behavioral and physical developments arising from EVOLUTION and genetics, not from the Creator.

Do you vote up your own posts?

I think it's hilarious that each of your posts gets voted up once. Do you have a lone fan following you into these back alleys of threads?

So I guess you call people retarded, too, since retardation has both a scientific definition and a pejorative definition...the science "justifies" your insensitivity.


You think that gays have "both sets of genitals"? REALLY? Where did you get your info on gays?


No, skippy. You do understand people ARE born that way?

Some are born with both, some with neither, some with under / over development. Genitalia itself does not come in just "male" and "female." MOSTLY that way, but there is a spectrum, biologically. That physical spectrum indicates to me that an emotional / hormonal spectrum is almost certain to exist also.
Warning: biologically correct-

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Homosexuality like any other character trait

is naturally going to be affected by genetics. Some people struggle with pornography (while most that do just give in), others struggle with alcohol and/drug addiction, with others it's gluttony, others are more prone to be violent than most. That doesn't excuse what they do and according to my faith, all of those things like homosexuality are wrong, immoral, and yes, sinful. But, that doesn't mean that there isn't a correlation between those lifestyles and genes. However, that also doesn't mean a person with a tendency to do those things HAS to do those things. The same is true with homosexuality. There are many homosexuals that stopped being homosexuals, married (a woman IFAD course) and had kids. At the same time, like any addiction, most people can't turn it off. It's even harder when society tells you there's no reason to even try to turn your addiction off because that addiction defines who you are.

or perhaps they are bisexual

and they aren't addicted to sex with any particular gender at all. Perhaps they are not concerned with the sex of that person and are rather attracted to the individual. Perhaps they are just libertarians :-)

The claim that there is

a separate group of people called bisexuals is ridiculous. There's lots of people who could become so perverted and depraved that they would turn to anyone and anything for sexual gratification. Prisoners are a perfect example. I've heard of people who were perfectly normal (heterosexuals) who became addicted to pornography, which led to homosexual behavior. I'm sure at least half of people who practice homosexuality or have homosexual attractions would not have if they had lived in a different area, had different friends, different upbringing, different experiences, etc.

Trying to fit everybody into a particular sexual orientation doesn't work. What about pedophiles? Were they born that way? How about the tiny minority of sickos who are attracted to animals?

bisexuals exist

Actually from my experience there are a lot of bisexuals. I was asked to join a group once MANY years ago as the token bisexual. It was a gay-lesbian political group which had a few straight supportive people too. Back then there wasn't LGBT.... just gay or gay/lesbian...or queer. I can't tell you how many would get me alone after meetings and tell me their sexual-emotional ties to the opposite sex that they hide. Also, when straight people found out I was bi...I got much the same stories. We put people into groups so they end up choosing one side or the other when they are neither.

I find it really sad that people think it is wrong to be how you are....as long as it is consensual I have no problems with any of it.

Just to be clear my definition of bisexual is having sexual attractions towards either/both genders. That doesn't mean at the same time...although it could!

The fact that two males or two females

canot reproduce is proof that homosexual attractions are a deviation from nature. Just because some people have an urge to go something consensual doesn't make what they do in line with the Law of Nature and the Law of Nature's God.

I am glad you are all knowing

The fact is there are people born that cannot procreate. Yet nature still born them. Now there are others that have no desire to procreate and nature born them. I fail to see why you care what other people do when it doesn't hurt you. Maybe you don't understand that other people don't believe in your god.

Here's the difference.

Two young, healthy, non-sterile individuals of the opposite sex CAN procreate if they so choose. Two young, healthy, non-sterile individuals of the same sex CANNOT procreate. Clearly heterosexual relationships are normal and serve a natural purpose other than the obvious emotional and physical benefits that come out of it. Noone questions the normalcy or nature of a heterosexual relationship between two people who either can't have children or choose not to because of the fact that everyone knows that kind of relationship is what keeps humanity ticking.

there is no danger of humans not recreating themselves enough

You fail to realize that some people have a "higher" calling than procreation! I use higher in jest because I don't really think any calling is higher than another. Everyone has a part to play. Is celibacy unnatural too? Humans are community based - it takes a village, a tribe. Just because 2 people (of same sex) in the tribe choose to sleep together has no bearing on anything. The world will not end and maybe just maybe they have something to offer the tribe, something important. And you won't know because you are too busy dissing them.

I addressed the reason why celibacy is not

considered perverse by anyone in the above comment.

I'm sure people who practice other forms of deviant sexuality such as pedophilia or bestiality have something to offer society as well.

But, I don't see any reason to keep arguing about it. You've obviously made up your mind there's nothing uncomely or unnatural in a man abandoning the natural use of the woman and lusting after other men or women abandoning the natural use of the man and lusting after other women.

ok I didn't address

your "pedophilia or bestiality" comment the last time but since you brought it up again I will now. I do not consider those to be consensual. So, I would not put them into the same conversation. You however choose to group them together. So, I guess you would just as soon throw homosexuals and presumably bisexuals into jail as well? Just curious. Certainly when I was young many states did have laws on the books for that. They still might as well as deviant heterosexual behaviors. I say get govt out of the bedroom of consenting adults!

And you talked about a man and woman who didn't want to have children which is not the same as being celibate. On the other hand I probably should have also mentioned those who don't have sexual desires. Do they exist? Is it natural?

If natural to you is procreation I fail to see how people who aren't at least trying to procreate are natural. Sure if they fail that is different. But that still doesn't make homosexuals unnatural. Many of them have even "procreated" so they can have children. I would argue that adding other fun desirous behaviors is perfectly natural. Why not? People do a lot of things that are not "necessary" for survival of the species yet they add to the joy of living. And that in itself might be necessary for the survival of our species

Have fun!

There probably are some people

who don't have sexual desires. I'm sure there's some medical definition for it as well. That can't be put into the same category with homosexuality since most homosexuals aren't that way because of any kind of known, physical disease.

I see we're finally making progress toward common ground.

"I would argue that adding other fun desirous behaviors is perfectly natural. Why not?"

Here I agree. You don't have to be procreating to enjoy sex. In fact, I would assume that most of the time when married couples do it, they're not doing it with the intention of having a baby. But, that pretty much sums up homosexuals and "bisexuals" (although they're really just overly promiscuous heterosexuals). They do it to have fun, not because that's "who they are." Maybe that's what they've become through classic conditioning in their pursuit to "have fun."


I don't think they are overly promiscuous. But anyway, I am sure we will continue this discussion on a new thread in the future! There is bound to be some limit on the number of replies eventually.

It's completely irrelevant whether or not people believe

that nature has a God or not. That doesn't change the way Nature's God set Nature in motion.

You seem to be under the impression that just because something isn't hurting someone or someone else, that person should not have an opinion on that something. If I see someone making out with an animal, I'm not going to just think, "Oh, well, to each his own. I guess that's just how that person chooses to show his love to his pet." Just because incest and polygamy don't affect you doesn't mean you're a terrible, meddling person if you happen to express your opinion about those that partake in those practices.

at least we agree on something

you have every right to convince me I am a heathen or whatever. Light some candles for me! As far as legislation goes, I suggest we agree on a live and let live attitude because otherwise I will go after you as well!! I think this is why we were not set up as a democracy.

The Character Trait of Self-Righteous Judgemental Christians

Is to me a genetic flaw in that they have an inborn need to be natural born assholes.


Maybe you should reread my comment.

Christians aren't the only people who would agree with what I wrote.

jrd3820's picture

I like that you can admit straight people are just as perverse

I actually disagree with you, but at least you see that the problem is not just with one sexual orientation. Straight people can be just as perverse. That being said, is anyone else sex life our business as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult?

In a way it's none of our business.

But, if my neighbors are living in incest, I'm not going to condone it and if I get a chance to talk to them, I'm going to try to share with them that God considers what they're doing to be wrong. If they come to see that then I would try to help them see that through Christ they can be forgiven and in God's eyes it would be just as if they never sinned.

If they don't want to hear it, thete's nothing I can do but, love them and pray for them that they'll have a change of heart. But, I'm certainly not going to support any political initiative to give their perverse behavior an equal footing in marriage laws and protected minority status.

God seemed pretty ok with incest when

Lot shagged his two daughters. Just sayin'.

Pray tell where in the world do you get the idea

God was okay with it? Just because He didn't strike Lot's daughters dead before they lay with Lot? God didn't approve of Abram and Hagar conceiving a son, but, He didn't strike Hagar dead before she got in bed with her mistress' husband.