toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it

[voltaire]

Ktoyou always adds intelligence and witty humor to any thread.

 

[Nick M]

No, it doesnt' matter. If you were born without a left hand, that doesn't make it ok to steal with your right hand.

 

[Tico]

This statement is patently false. A "Homosexual Gene", if such exists, could be a receive gene. That would explain why a heterosexual couple with four children could easily have three straight kids, two of which are carriers and one homosexual kid.

Do not confuse genetics with evolution. Though related, they are not the synonymous.

Since homosexuals, by definition, don't reproduce genetically, at some point, a long time ago, the homo gene would have ceased to be carried.

If they choose to reproduce genetically then they prove that homosexuality is a choice.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Since homosexuals, by definition, don't reproduce genetically, at some point, a long time ago, the homo gene would have ceased to be carried.

If they choose to reproduce genetically then they prove that homosexuality is a choice.

Huh? Where did you get your understanding of genetics? If the gene determining homosexuality is x-linked it wouldn't die off as you suppose.

 

[HisServant]

Huh? Where did you get your understanding of genetics? If the gene determining homosexuality is x-linked it wouldn't die off as you suppose.

Well, the current understanding of the effects of genetic on behavior pretty much rules out genetics as being the sole determiner.

Someone might be born with a genetic makeup that may predispose them to developing into a homosexual later in their life, but it is no guarantee.

The bottom line is that the current understanding points to environment as being the biggest single determining factor in people that exhibit homosexual behavior.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, the current understanding of the effects of genetic on behavior pretty much rules out genetics as being the sole determiner.

Evidence?

Someone might be born with a genetic makeup that may predispose them to developing into a homosexual later in their life, but it is no guarantee.

Perhaps . . . perhaps not . . . but thanks for your bald assertion anyway.

The bottom line is that the current understanding points to environment as being the biggest single determining factor in people that exhibit homosexual behavior.

Evidence? I have two homosexual relatives raised in VERY heterosexual households who, to my knowledge, had NO homosexual friends. This is evidence that your unsupported assertion is not the case.

 

[godzilla]

No.

 

[eameece]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 2nd, 2012 08:41 AM

toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it okay?

It's OK anyway; just not my preference.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 2nd, 2012 08:41 AM

toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it okay?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

It happened by circumstances. The parent/people is involved in making it happen. The surrounded environment or events made it happened. God placed all that there without forcing the unregenrated to be a sodomite. He placed it all there knowing the the fag will become the sodomite. The homo did it all on his/her own. The pervert disired to remain non Elect as he is totally unable to become a believer, anyway. It's called totaly depravity as if God didn't force man to sin. They did it on thier own. Lets not try to blame it on God.

 

[HisServant]

Evidence?

Perhaps . . . perhaps not . . . but thanks for your bald assertion anyway.

Evidence? I have two homosexual relatives raised in VERY heterosexual households who, to my knowledge, had NO homosexual friends. This is evidence that your unsupported assertion is not the case.

Evidence?

How do genes influence behavior?

No single gene determines a particular behavior. Behaviors are complex traits involving multiple genes that are affected by a variety of other factors. This fact often gets overlooked in media reports hyping scientific breakthroughs on gene function, and, unfortunately, this can be very misleading to the public.

For example, a study published in 1999 claimed that overexpression of a particular gene in mice led to enhanced learning capacity. The popular press referred to this gene as "the learning gene" or the "smart gene." What the press didn't mention was that the learning enhancements observed in this study were short-term, lasting only a few hours to a few days in some cases.

Dubbing a gene as a "smart gene" gives the public a false impression of how much scientists really know about the genetics of a complex trait like intelligence. Once news of the "smart gene" reaches the public, suddenly there is talk about designer babies and the potential of genetically engineering embryos to have intelligence and other desirable traits, when in reality the path from genes to proteins to development of a particular trait is still a mystery.

With disorders, behaviors, or any physical trait, genes are just a part of the story, because a variety of genetic and environmental factors are involved in the development of any trait. Having a genetic variant doesn't necessarily mean that a particular trait will develop. The presence of certain genetic factors can enhance or repress other genetic factors. Genes are turned on and off, and other factors may be keeping a gene from being turned "on." In addition, the protein encoded by a gene can be modified in ways that can affect its ability to carry out its normal cellular function.

Genetic factors also can influence the role of certain environmental factors in the development of a particular trait. For example, a person may have a genetic variant that is know to increase his or her risk for developing emphysema from smoking, an environmental factor. If that person never smokes, then emphysema will not develop.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

As far as your example..

This may or may not have anything to do with their behavior.. environment could mean exposure to a compound that causes a gene to turn on or off at a specific point in development, etc. behavior that a particular person is exposed to is only a small part of the environmental equation...

Science is what it is, not what you want it to be.. and our current understanding of genetics and its impact on behavior pretty much discounts the discovery of a 'gay' gene.

Here is synopsis of homosexual related gene studies.

http://omim.org/entry/306995

All they have come up is a probability based on certain factors.

 

[Silent Hunter]

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

. . . "in reality the path from genes to proteins to development of a particular trait is still a mystery".

In reality . . . your "evidence" . . . is pure conjecture.

As far as your example..

This may or may not have anything to do with their behavior.. environment could mean exposure to a compound that causes a gene to turn on or off at a specific point in development, etc. behavior that a particular person is exposed to is only a small part of the environmental equation...

Science is what it is, not what you want it to be.. and our current understanding of genetics and its impact on behavior pretty much discounts the discovery of a 'gay' gene.

Here is synopsis of homosexual related gene studies.

http://omim.org/entry/306995

All they have come up is a probability based on certain factors.

Except for you assertion, your answer is basically . . . :idunno:.

I thought as much.

 

[Silent Hunter]

opcorn:

 

[Sherman]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 2nd, 2012 08:41 AM

toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it okay?

No. Every person has his Achillies heel, so to speak whether it is genetic or not. Some claim addictive behavior may have a genetic basis, but that does not make giving into addiction OK. There are those that say criminal behavior is genetic, and it is still not condoned. What if homosexuality were genetic. It would still not be OK. Giving in to weaknesses is a cop out. We now have a society of enablers that try to make dysfunctional behavior the norm instead of correcting it.

 

[Aletheia]

Oh, well, of course, if it's genetic that certainly makes it okay. I mean, tolerance is a virtue, isn't it? We have to accept everyone for their actions if their genes made them do it.:vomit:

It is not okay to be a fag, or a dyke, or any other manner of queer, and it never will be.

My genes made me right handed, white, male and brunette [or is that only girls?]. And God made us male and female, and He made male and female to pair up; not any other way. End of story.

 

[Silent Hunter]

. . . God made us male and female, and He made male and female to pair up; not any other way. End of story.

You mean even if he/she/it is the ultimate cause, through genetics, of someone being homosexual? :liberals:

Do you think it right to cause a person to act a certain way then punish them because they did what you made them do? (See the book of Exodus . . . specifically the actions of Pharaoh.) :idunno:

 

[HisServant]

. . . "in reality the path from genes to proteins to development of a particular trait is still a mystery".

In reality . . . your "evidence" . . . is pure conjecture.

Except for you assertion, your answer is basically . . . :idunno:.

I thought as much.

You do realize that the mystery part is not genetic... right?

 

[Aletheia]

You mean even if he/she/it is the ultimate cause, through genetics, of someone being homosexual? :liberals:

Well, aren't you just a little moron.

Do you think it right to cause a person to act a certain way then punish them because they did what you made them do? (See the book of Exodus . . . specifically the actions of Pharaoh.) :idunno:

Do you know just how stupid you are?

God did not create people to be queer. Being queer is not genetic. And God did not actively harden Pharaoh's heart, rather his heart was hardened because of his disdain for God which came about as a result of his seeing absolute, undeniable proof that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was not a myth. And people like you claim you would accept God if you saw something similar. Pharaoh is proof positive that people don't open their hearts to God in the wake of signs and wonders.:nono:

 

[Aletheia]

It happened by circumstances. The parent/people is involved in making it happen. The surrounded environment or events made it happened. God placed all that there without forcing the unregenrated to be a sodomite. He placed it all there knowing the the fag will become the sodomite. The homo did it all on his/her own. The pervert disired to remain non Elect as he is totally unable to become a believer, anyway. It's called totaly depravity as if God didn't force man to sin. They did it on thier own. Lets not try to blame it on God.

:sozo:THIS IS WHY CALVINISM IS DISGUSTING!

 

[Silent Hunter]

You do realize that the mystery part is not genetic... right?

You do realize that the whole of the article you quoted was nothing but conjecture . . . right?

 

[HisServant]

You do realize that the whole of the article you quoted was nothing but conjecture . . . right?

From the smartest minds in genetics based on their inability to concretely prove that any behavior is genetically hard wired.