European Court of Human Rights Punishes France for Refusing Gay Adoption

Remove all ads!

I really don't want to play devil's advocate, but no, there is not a plethora of scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, most psychiatrists consider such an assertion absolutely ludicrous. From a genetic standpoint, this idea also holds no water. Gay people, as a rule, do not reproduce. Genes that don't get passed on eventually die out, so even if there were a "gay gene", it would have long since died out. I say this not to argue that there absolutely isn't such a gene...merely that the case has not been made. Not by a longshot.

What boggles my mind is the fact that so many in the gay community want to see homosexuality classified as a genetic trait. If gayness were a genetic trait, at least on the genetic level it would actually be seen as a defect. How on earth could classifying homosexuality as a genetic defect which could possibly be detected for and "corrected" through gene therapy and the like possibly help the gay community?

 

When the other obivous choice is a mental defect I have no trouble understanding why a genetic defect would be preferable.

 

Homosexuality is not considered al defect by the mental health community. If relegated to genetics, homosexuality becomes a defect to be diagnosed, treated, and prevented.

 

Well either it's a lifestyle choice, a genetic defect or trait or a mental defect or trait. Of course homosexuality is not considered a mental defect by the mental health community since it's not harmful. However I'm under the impression that psychological connections to the causes homosexuality have not as of yet been disproven. I doubt homosexuality is some magical trait that some of us have and some of us don't for no apparent reason. There is some cause behind it and if it's not biological or social it has to be psychological or a combination of these. If not then there must be some fourth dimension I'm missing.

 

Not entirely true

I linked to this one a few months back, and although I personally don't think there was enough data in the survey, there is a possible genetic reasoning. The same exists in some species in the animal kingdom. (Again, I have linked to it previously)

Besides which, the same charge can be levelled at any number of genetic diseases that prevent children from growing up or people from reproducing, - simply put it could (not to say it is, but it could!) be linked to a recesive gene.

 

My use of the term "genetic" may have been somewhat awry, I was more intending to put across the fact that it is inbuilt and unchangeable. I don't give two figs what anybody puts forward as an argument against what I have just said because I am living proof. I have tried repeatedly throughout my adult life to somehow change my sexuality on the chance that I might one day be able to have children, and I can tell you it doesn't work. I have known I was gay from a very young age, I came out when I was 14 and spent 5 years trying to "go straight" as it were and no matter how many attempts you make to find a girl attractive you simply cannot force it. Your psychiatrists can try to explain my sexuality as much as they damn well please, and quite frankly, they're talking bs. I had a "normal" upbringing with both mother and father figures and a family with brothers and sisters who are all straight. I wasn't abused, or neglected or made to feel inadequate, my parents didn't try and force me into theatre or any of those crappy excuses that councillors try to impose on you. I'm just gay. Through and through, unchangeably and inexplicably. So yeah, most psychiatrists would find such assertions ludicrous, because they're psychiatrists and not geneticists, and they know FA about it.

Secondly, your argument about gay people not reproducing is unfortunately rather a naive standpoint. How many Downs' Syndrome people do you know who reproduce? Try claiming THAT isn't a genetic disorder. And yet there are no fewer Downs' sufferers today than there have ever been. You're confusing the words "genetic" and "hereditory". Not all genetic disorders are developed because a matching pair of chromosomes are disfunctional. Except ginger people. (jk)

Finally (seriously, I'll shut up in a minute ) your question, why would gay people want to be labelled as genetically incorrect somehow? They wouldn't. It's not very flattering, but most gay people are far too touchy about such things anyway. Quite frankly, whether we want to be labelled as such or not doesn't change science. Obviously it's something slightly amiss, we're designed from top to toe purely for reproduction and we don't do it... wouldn't you say that's slightly broken? I realise this is probably quite a controversial thing to say, but hey, I'm just that kinda guy

Oh, and just one more thing... here, and here and here are just a few articles all explaining ways that homosexuality may be genetic, and related closely with the fecundity of the generation's women. I particularly like the article about the fruit flies...

Go on, just one more...

 

Actually, psychiatrists do not consider homosexuality a disorder in any way, shape or form. They aren't trying to explain it away and they aren't saying it is a problem that needs to be corrected. They aren't arguing it is a simple matter of choice, the result of mental abuse, or any other such "BS", as you call it. They, in addition to rank and file geneticists, simply argue that the notion of a "gay gene" is absurd.

I've known a few couples with Down Syndrome that have had (perfectly normal) kids. Down syndrome does not include "unattracted to the opposite sex" on it's list of symptoms, so your argument here is just a distraction. On top of that, while a genetic disorder, there is no Down Syndrome gene. Down syndrome is a chromosomal abnormality characterized by the presence of an extra copy of genetic material on the 21st chromosome. If you are trying to argue that homosexuality is a chromosomal abnormality or a frequently occurring mutation rather than a genetic trait, knock yourself out, but I don't see how that's going to help your cause any.

You are also mischaracterizing my argument. I stated that as a rule (in other words, usually), gay people don't reproduce. This is absolutely true. The vast majority of gay people do not reproduce. I wasn't saying that homosexuals never reproduce...merely that it is rare.

 

I do wish people could argue without both misquoting and taking thigs out of context. Firstly, I never at any point said there was a single "gay gene." Ever. Seriously, read back all you want and check. I said it was "genetic" which is a completely different statement altogether. It's almost proven beyond all reasonable doubt that there are specific genes and areas of the DNA strand that are associated with homosexuality. Which all my quoted scientists agree.

Secondly, my argument about downs' sufferers was an example supposed to be very similar to gay people. No, not all downs' sufferers stay single and virgin all their lives, but neither do gay people. I'd say proportionally, it is a very similar number. And in light of the aforementioned presence of "gay DNA" it is comparable to a genetic disorder such as this, and I'm quite aware that Downs' is caused by an extra chromosome. My argument was purely that you don't need to have two gay parents to make a gay child in exactly the same way you don't have 2 downs' parents to make a downs' baby.

I would just *love* to know of these psychiatrists you speak of. Do they live in the mythical land where pixies fulfil your every desire?

 

You are greatly overstating both the level of proof and the level of consensus, here. The geneticists, biologists et al arguing for a genetic connection to homosexuality are mavericks. Sure, they may be right, but they are hardly mainstream at this time. Very, very little research is being conducted on the matter primarily because (rightly or wrongly) their minds are already made up.

In the US, homosexuality hasn't been classified as a mental disorder by the APA since 1973. The WHO changed its categorization back in 1992, the UK changed it in 1994, the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation in 1999, and even the Chinese Society of Psychiatry changed it in 2001. So, I guess that means that Russian Ministry of health, the UK Government, and all the members of the WHO and APA are pixies?

 

To be fair the fact that it's not considered a disorded does not equal proof that homosexuality has no psychological causes. I'm sure humans have several behavioral variations which are psychological but are not considered disorders.

Also I'd like to know what you think is the cause the homosexuality since you obviously seem to disregard biological, social and psychological factors?

 

The only currently agreed upon answer, of course! The cause of homosexuality is unknown. We have yet to find a concrete answer, and since researchers have mostly shown disinterest in pursuing this subject, we won't know for quite some time.

 

Well that's mighty convenient but doesn't that sort of make it difficult to disregard the possibility that it might be genetic?

 

Sure, it could be argued that homosexuality is a genetic mutation, but I doubt it. If the prevailing biological opinion were that there is likely to be a genetic link for homosexuality, I'd give that idea more weight, but that most assuredly is not the prevailing opinion.

To be blunt, I'm against making a genetic argument regarding homosexuality because any such genetic distinction would actually be classified as a defect. Without some really solid proof and a consensus of professionals in related fields, I'm not about to be stepping on a bandwagon that states that homosexuals are in some way defective. It boggles my mind that homosexuals would want to make such an argument; since having homosexuality be classified as a defect, whether genetic, neurological, or psychological, would once again open up the door to receiving "treatment" for their "condition". I don't want to see us sink into that quagmire again.

 

I don't know if there is some kind of language barier here or you're just choosing which words out of each sentence you want to read and ignoring the other, but I'm having no more part in a conversation where you take whatever meaning you please from my words.

 

I made the "gay gene" argument once. After you clarified your stance, I discarded that argument but continued to address both the level of proof, the level of consensus, and the ramifications of your argument [that homosexuality is genetic] actually becoming the accepted paradigm. It is true that you never once said you thought homosexuality was a defect, but I never said that you did, either. My point it that if we give it a genetic classification (be it an extra chromosome, a mutation, or a gene), homosexuality will be classified as a defect much like Down Syndrome or Klinefelter's syndrome.

 

My entire argument has been based around the fact that it is impossible to turn a gay man straight, and in the same line impossible to turn a straight man gay. It may be possible to cause someone to realise tendencies that already exist, but you cannot impress a sexuality onto anyone, regardless of how old they are. A child in a gay home could watch his/her parents loving one another (not literally) all his/her life and still make probably a considerably more informed decision about their own sexuality later on in life.

Whether or not being gay is a genetic disorder or a psychological abnormality I would gladly continue to discuss in AoDA but this is getting way

Stop trying to just argue with my points and actually hold onto a relative standpoint or you lose focus in your arguments.

 

I don't disagree with this.

Arguments are built on a series of other arguments, points, premises, or whatever else you want to call them. If an argument is built upon a faulty or contested premise, the entire argument, no matter how eloquent and logical, is going to be every inch as faulty or contested as it's premise. If I didn't point out the problem with your points, it is likely that someone who doesn't agree with your assertion that you can't turn a gay man straight or vice-versa (and they are legion) would have pointed it out instead.

 

Drew, that simply isn't true. Recessive genes are very hard to remove from a population. That's why there are dozens of genetic diseases (caused by a double recessive gene) that are still in the population. The reason for this is heterozygous viability. If it was a dominant gene, then yes, those do tend to die out very quickly. I can only think of a few, like Huntington's disease and some types of Parkinson's disease, and the only reason these are still around is because the effects of these disease don't usually manifest themselves until the person is old enough to have had children, and thus pass the genes on.

 

To make this a little more on topic, I think that there's always been too big emphasis on parenting on how the kids will turn up. So what if the parents are gay? I think that a far bigger issue is if either or both of the parents are alcoholics. Sure, they might have their adoption rights limited, but there's no limit of how many children they can have in their often miserable lives..

From parenting to genes, from genes to eugenics. Limit the options as much as you can, some people are just born unwanted. If there's a home to be had, there's hope to be had. I should think that a fairly decent home is a good thing, no matter if the parents are homosexuals. But I'd put a big question on categorizing people according to their sexual preferences. I'd question categorizing people at all for that matter.

 

Perhaps "die out" wasn't the most precise way to say it, but the trait would be a lot more rare than it currently is. It would dwindle because most double recessives in this case will not reproduce, leaving only heterozygous individuals to pass on the trait. Since heterozygous couples will first of all be rare and 25% of their children will simply not reproduce, over time the number of people carrying the hypothetical gay gene will be severely out-paced by the number of people who do not. Further, there are a lot more people who are gay than there are afflicted with Parkinson's or Huntington's disease. If homosexuality was really represented by a recessive gene, it would in all likelihood be a much greater aberration than it currently is.