How come gays are born defective?

[myron myron]

Fred,

I would appreciate if you would kindly favor me with responsive answers to the following:

1) Do you believe all homosexuals are alike (a) in their sexuality and (b) apart from their sexuality?

2) How should society treat homosexuals (e.g., imprison, segregate, accept, tolerate, discriminate against, sterilize, euthanize, surgically mutilate, section in psychiatric wards, etc.)?

3) If "gays are born defective" in terms of natural selection and "survival of the fittest," why hasn't natural selection eradicated or even lessened the occurrence of this "defective trait" from the human gene pool over the course of more than 2,500 years of recorded history?

4) If homosexuality is not genetic but learned, why is it that parents of a homosexual have heterosexual offspring of like age (even twins) and gender?

If any question is unclear to you, please let me know and I will clarify or rephrase.

[The Colonel]

Fred,

I know this is directed at Fred, but I have my own things to say here.

I would appreciate if you would kindly favor me with responsive answers to the following:

1) Do you believe all homosexuals are alike (a) in their sexuality and (b) apart from their sexuality?

I am not completely certain what you are referring to here.

2) How should society treat homosexuals (e.g., imprison, segregate, accept, tolerate, discriminate against, sterilize, euthanize, surgically mutilate, section in psychiatric wards, etc.)?

Accept and tolerate. There are no grounds whatsoever to do any of the other options, or anything similar. I doubt Fred could produce grounds either, and if he could, they most likely would be very stupid.

3) If "gays are born defective" in terms of natural selection and "survival of the fittest," why hasn't natural selection eradicated or even lessened the occurrence of this "defective trait" from the human gene pool over the course of more than 2,500 years of recorded history?

Quite so. Because it is not "defective".

4) If homosexuality is not genetic but learned, why is it that parents of a homosexual have heterosexual offspring of like age (even twins) and gender?

Exactly. While I do not wish to presume the sexual orientation of my 13 year old or my 6 year old, my eldest is very much heterosexual and was brought up identically with his homosexual 16 year old brother. Therefore, he learned nothing that could "make him that way".

If any question is unclear to you, please let me know and I will clarify or rephrase.

Please clarify Q1.

[myron myron]

My questions directed to Fred incorporate tendentious comments posted by Fred in this and other threads about homosexuals.

My intentions in posing those questions to Fred are as follows:

1) to elicit Fred's perceptions of homosexuals as individuals;

2) to elicit Fred's position on how society should treat homosexuals given Fred's stated views that they are "defective" as people;

3) to challenge Fred to reconcile his statement that "gays are born defective" in terms of natural selection and "survival of the fittest" with the fact that gays have not been "naturally selected" out of the gene pool or decreased in numbers over more than 2,500 years; and,

4) to challenge Fred to reconcile his statements that homosexuality is learned rather than inherited (which contradict his "gays are born defective" position) in light of the fact that the same parents who have a homosexual child also may have heterosexual children of the same gender and even the same age.

My ultimate purpose is to conform in my mind mind whether Fred has serious views, however disturbing they may be, or if he is just tugging everyone's chain to get his jollies. I already decided which it is; I just want to confirm I am right.

[The Colonel]

In many ways I have done the same throughout many different threads. Nevertheless, even if you show him his position is untrue, he will still continue to post the same weeks after. Thus, I have my own opinions on what Fred really is.

You did not clarify Question 1, can you please do so?

[myron myron]

Question 1 arises from my personal aversion to generalizing about entire groups comprising millions (or billions) of people.

In his countless threads and posts about homosexuals, Fred paints them all with broad brush strokes: "gays are this way"; gays are that way."

What I am trying to ascertain in question 1 is whether Fred actually believes all gays behave the same in expressing their sexuality and whether Fred believes all gays behave the same in contexts unrelated to their sexuality. Based on his answers, I would have followed up with other questions.

To be honest, I feel a bit stupid for wasting my time in addressing Fred on this subject in a serious manner.

[The Colonel]

Question 1 arises from my personal aversion to generalizing about entire groups comprising millions (or billions) of people.

In his countless threads and posts about homosexuals, Fred paints them all with broad brush strokes: "gays are this way"; gays are that way."

What I am trying to ascertain in question 1 is whether Fred actually believes all gays behave the same in expressing their sexuality

This is obviously no. You have the "queens" who tend to get the rest of the gay population a bad name by being very flamboyant, those that are camp to various degrees, and those that you would not guess were gay at all.

and whether Fred believes all gays behave the same in contexts unrelated to their sexuality.

Again, the answer has to be no.

Based on his answers, I would have followed up with other questions.

To be honest, I feel a bit stupid for wasting my time in addressing Fred on this subject in a serious manner.

I doubt Fred will reply and if he does, it will not be with meaningful answers. I am still waiting for him to reply to one very basic question that I asked a long time ago on this very thread.

[mogadishu]

To be honest, I feel a bit stupid for wasting my time in addressing Fred on this subject in a serious manner.

+2000

[The Colonel]

Where is Fred?

[Cambridge]

To be honest, I feel a bit stupid for wasting my time in addressing Fred on this subject in a serious manner.

+2000

I agree. I like myron’s analytical points (strange source for this recommendation, eh?). Wassup, hairy-back?

[noodles]

1) Do you believe all homosexuals are alike (a) in their sexuality and (b) apart from their sexuality?

Not at all. That would make us robots

[Fred75]

Fred,

I know this is directed at Fred, but I have my own things to say here.

I would appreciate if you would kindly favor me with responsive answers to the following:

1) Do you believe all homosexuals are alike (a) in their sexuality and (b) apart from their sexuality?

I am not completely certain what you are referring to here.

Ditto

2) How should society treat homosexuals (e.g., imprison, segregate, accept, tolerate, discriminate against, sterilize, euthanize, surgically mutilate, section in psychiatric wards, etc.)?
In the same JUST manner as we treat man BORN to love children or a goat when HE acts upon that innate desire.

Accept and tolerate. There are no grounds whatsoever to do any of the other options, or anything similar. I doubt Fred could produce grounds either, and if he could, they most likely would be very stupid.
Sexually transmitted disease and the fact that blood banks find their blood unfit to take just like they refuse crack ho's.

3) If "gays are born defective" in terms of natural selection and "survival of the fittest," why hasn't natural selection eradicated or even lessened the occurrence of this "defective trait" from the human gene pool over the course of more than 2,500 years of recorded history?

Quite so. Because it is not "defective".
Because genetic defects always occur. Just like other birth defects.
Let's face it... if they were not defective... why where they born with a heterosexual set of reproductive organs?


4) If homosexuality is not genetic but learned, why is it that parents of a homosexual have heterosexual offspring of like age (even twins) and gender? Because others/friends/relatives/liberal television/schools can seduce them into trying it.

Exactly. While I do not wish to presume the sexual orientation of my 13 year old or my 6 year old, my eldest is very much heterosexual and was brought up identically with his homosexual 16 year old brother. Therefore, he learned nothing that could "make him that way".

Who RAISED and TAUGHT him that homosexuality was immoral/sin/spread disease?

If any question is unclear to you, please let me know and I will clarify or rephrase.

Please clarify Q1.

My answers are BLUE.

[Fred75]

My questions directed to Fred incorporate tendentious comments posted by Fred in this and other threads about homosexuals.

My intentions in posing those questions to Fred are as follows:

1) to elicit Fred's perceptions of homosexuals as individuals;

2) to elicit Fred's position on how society should treat homosexuals given Fred's stated views that they are "defective" as people;

3) to challenge Fred to reconcile his statement that "gays are born defective" in terms of natural selection and "survival of the fittest" with the fact that gays have not been "naturally selected" out of the gene pool or decreased in numbers over more than 2,500 years; and,

4) to challenge Fred to reconcile his statements that homosexuality is learned rather than inherited (which contradict his "gays are born defective" position) in light of the fact that the same parents who have a homosexual child also may have heterosexual children of the same gender and even the same age.

My ultimate purpose is to conform in my mind mind whether Fred has serious views, however disturbing they may be, or if he is just tugging everyone's chain to get his jollies. I already decided which it is; I just want to confirm I am right.

We treat them JUSTLY as we do those that are innately born to love children and farm animals.

[Gibbous Moon]

In order for natural selection to work two things have to happen.

Firstly, there has to a replicator. Something that is capable of being replicated usually but always perfectly. If replication were perfect there would be no variation for nature to select against. This the genotype.

Secondly, the variations produced must have an impact on the ability of the replicator to be replicated. They must increase (or decrease) the replicators chance of being copied. This is the phenotype.


Genes are the replicators. The get themselves copied (with occasional mutations) and through their effect on the development of the embryo they produce a body that interacts with the environment successfully or not. Success determined by whether that underpin become more common or not and not success as determined by whether the individual actually has offspring themselves or not.

Survival of the fittest by natural selection means that those most fitted (best adapted) to the environment survive. Survival of the fittest works at the level of genes (not individuals – who are merely carriers of genes, or species – which are merely groups of individuals with similar genes).

Therefore the fact that homosexuality in humans exists means either one of two things. Either there is a gene (or a group of genes) for homosexuality and that those genes continue to be passed on and are therefore fit (adapted) to their environment or there is no gene for homosexuality and it’s learned or random behaviour.

Conversely, those replicators that are persistent must have a degree of fitness. By definition, if they have consistently made it into the next generation they must have some adaptive advantage.

My personal view is that genes that work well with genes that code for homosexuality gain a Dutch Uncle benefit. Of ten offspring with similar genes (say for blue eyes) one will tend not to have offspring themselves and will pour resources into supporting blue eyed nieces and thus crowd out resources from their brown eyed rivals.

Or you could argue that you get a better expression of the phenotype for some useful specialisms when you combine the genotype for that specialism with the genotype for homosexuality. It’s a special case of the Dutch Uncle and I don’t buy it myself.

GM

[myron myron]

My questions directed to Fred incorporate tendentious comments posted by Fred in this and other threads about homosexuals.

My intentions in posing those questions to Fred are as follows:

1) to elicit Fred's perceptions of homosexuals as individuals;

2) to elicit Fred's position on how society should treat homosexuals given Fred's stated views that they are "defective" as people;

3) to challenge Fred to reconcile his statement that "gays are born defective" in terms of natural selection and "survival of the fittest" with the fact that gays have not been "naturally selected" out of the gene pool or decreased in numbers over more than 2,500 years; and,

4) to challenge Fred to reconcile his statements that homosexuality is learned rather than inherited (which contradict his "gays are born defective" position) in light of the fact that the same parents who have a homosexual child also may have heterosexual children of the same gender and even the same age.

My ultimate purpose is to conform in my mind mind whether Fred has serious views, however disturbing they may be, or if he is just tugging everyone's chain to get his jollies. I already decided which it is; I just want to confirm I am right.

We treat them JUSTLY as we do those that are innately born to love children and farm animals.

I have a friend called Karen. We grew up together.

Karen's parents were first generation Irish Catholics who got married young and had 6 kids.

Her father was the model family man: worked hard, started his own business, provided for his family, spent time with his kids, put all his kids through college, went to church regularly and donated to the church. He was dignified, reserved and respected by all.

Karen was the youngest of the siblings and the last to get married, at age 24.

A few months after Karen was married, her father came out. Her parents subsequently divorced.

Karen’s father was in his mid to late 50s when he came out.

How do you reconcile Karen's father with your conception of gay men?

Should Karen’s father be treated ”JUSTLY as we do those that are innately born to love children and farm animals”?

[Fred75]

My questions directed to Fred incorporate tendentious comments posted by Fred in this and other threads about homosexuals.

My intentions in posing those questions to Fred are as follows:

1) to elicit Fred's perceptions of homosexuals as individuals;

2) to elicit Fred's position on how society should treat homosexuals given Fred's stated views that they are "defective" as people;

3) to challenge Fred to reconcile his statement that "gays are born defective" in terms of natural selection and "survival of the fittest" with the fact that gays have not been "naturally selected" out of the gene pool or decreased in numbers over more than 2,500 years; and,

4) to challenge Fred to reconcile his statements that homosexuality is learned rather than inherited (which contradict his "gays are born defective" position) in light of the fact that the same parents who have a homosexual child also may have heterosexual children of the same gender and even the same age.

My ultimate purpose is to conform in my mind mind whether Fred has serious views, however disturbing they may be, or if he is just tugging everyone's chain to get his jollies. I already decided which it is; I just want to confirm I am right.

We treat them JUSTLY as we do those that are innately born to love children and farm animals.

I have a friend called Karen. We grew up together.

Karen's parents were first generation Irish Catholics who got married young and had 6 kids.

Her father was the model family man: worked hard, started his own business, provided for his family, spent time with his kids, put all his kids through college, went to church regularly and donated to the church. He was dignified, reserved and respected by all.

Karen was the youngest of the siblings and the last to get married, at age 24.

A few months after Karen was married, her father came out. Her parents subsequently divorced.

Karen’s father was in his mid to late 50s when he came out.

How do you reconcile Karen's father with your conception of gay men?

Should Karen’s father be treated ”JUSTLY as we do those that are innately born to love children and farm animals”?

Well... thinking about something is not illegal.
The ACT is.

And I feel sorry for karens family... His lies caused a lot of pain.