ChristianVoice08 #fundie

ChristianVoice08 #fundie youtube.com

Men are born with male organs and hormones for hetero reproduction. That is they are BORN STRAIGHT. They learn their sexual activities as they grow and do not receive them from birth or genes. Women are the same. If there were a GAY GENE, it'd never be passed on. Just accepting the EVO explanation of rocks to man, a homo gene guy would not know from God to marry a woman and would mount other men. Thereby eliminating the GGene in one generation through extinction.

50 comments

old comment by Brain_In_A_Jar

If there were a GAY GENE, it'd never be passed on.

I assume you mean because the inheriter would never breed. Quite aside from the usual total lack of consideration of bisexuality (seriously, the bisexuals are getting really pissed off that most of the world simply can't seem to remember that they exist at all), consider the following:

There are loads of heritable genetic disorders that can cause death or sterility, yet they are still propagated by reproduction. That's chiefly because genetic patterns, unlike the average fundie brain, are not straightforward binary switches. They can be recessive, they can vanish for numerous generations, they can be broken up into different components that have no effect on their own but just happen to come together now and then as particular bloodlines cross each other.

In short, you fail.

old comment by Full Metal Geneticist

1. Gay gene - Should it exist would be passed on in the female line. Also should it exist it would be quite widespread primarily due to the persecution homosexuals faced. Because they would have a "sham marriage" to protect their identities. Can't be gay if you have a wife now can you?

2. And actually we all show different levels of homosexual behaviour. True heterosexual behaviour would make enemies out of other men and make men dangerous to women. You need some level of homosexuality to form friendships with men and women without either wanting to kill or mate with. The occasional person who wants to have sex with the same gender is a small price to pay should the gene exist. We know it exists as a behavioural modification because there are "true heterosexual" men out there. We usually jail them. Because they are assholes of the highest order.

old comment by Brain_In_A_Jar

Gigaguess, I'm by no means an expert on genetics - I'd consider my knowledge of the subject, which I've acquired from mere passing interest and half-remembered facts from GCSE biology, to be rudimentary at best.

The average fundie awareness of such topics, however, doesn't even qualify as "rudimentary", being rather closer to the level of "wild guessing" since it is generally formed, like all fundie science, by trying to work backwards from a divinely revealed truth. Strictly speaking, there's nothing wrong with working backwards from an answer to find its derivation like that (I believe cryptographers refer to this as a "crib"), but when that final answer you're working from is just a comforting fairytale, rather than empirically verified reality, it usually just produces a load of horseshit.

old comment by Mrs. Antichrist

Righto, I'm still a bit skeptical about the whole "gay gene" idea (I tend to believe that our sexuality is naturally bisexual, and the end result is shaped by society as we grow up, based on the way other primates behave), but just for kicks let's take a look at the various ways that a homosexual can pass on his or her genes:

1) Being homosexuality doesn't mean that you can't have sex with someone of the opposite gender. You might be disgusted by it, but the physical act is still possible. Many homosexuals are married to an partner of the opposite sex for years before coming out of the closet.

2) Many gays use IVF to have offspring, or might donate sperm to help infertile couples.

3) If there is a "gay gene", I'd wager that it's recessive. Thus, a straight person could be a carrier of an inactive 'gay' gene. If both parents are carriers of the gene, they could have an offspring with his or her homosexual genes active.

At any rate, whether being gay is nature or nature (or even if it were a choice, which is definitely isn't), what is the harm in it? No one is getting hurt, it doesn't affect your life in any way... so why get your panties in a knot over it?

old comment by Illuminatalie

"Men are born with male organs and hormones for hetero reproduction. That is they are BORN STRAIGHT."
The rainfall today was 15mm. That is you are just a LOUDMOUTHED SHNOOK.

"They learn their sexual activities as they grow and do not receive them from birth or genes."
Well, actually, I never learned about sex when I was growing up by watching other people having it, but maybe your family is different. "One time he break cage and he get this. And then we laugh. High five!"

"If there were a GAY GENE, it'd never be passed on."
(1) Obviously false, (2) why on earth does it matter?

"Just accepting the EVO explanation of rocks to man"
The DEVO explanation of rock to man? You will never live it down .. unless you whip it!

"a homo gene guy would not know from God to marry a woman and would mount other men."
God Himself instructed you on how to have sex? So your family didn't do a good enough job demonstratin'?

"Thereby eliminating the GGene in one generation through extinction."
Extinction? Do you know what that word means either? Your fucking brain is extinct.

old comment by Steve

There are many different theories on the origin and continuation of homosexuality in the human species. Most are very interesting, and bring up a lot of questions. In fact, the question, though raised in a confrontational manner, is not a bad one (from the OP).

That being said, most of the people responding to it are lacking, hugely, in knowledge of evolution.

1) The "benefit to society" arguement. Sorry, but that is not evolution. And "read the selfish gene" is good advice, but also for the person who advised to do it. That would be an evolutionary dead end, as the people "helping" would be the ones with the gene, and those "helped" are likely to not have it. Therefor: the gene dissapears. There really is no benefit to having a non-breeding gene. Seriously.

2) Insects. Completely different situation. Those insects with non breeding members are clones. Meaning: they don't breed, but their genes do. So, the behavior makes sense genetically.

As for most of the other answers: They are (most, not all) way too simplistic, meaning you probably don't even understand the problem being posed completely.

Anyway, posters on FSTDT tend to get really self-righteous, even when they have no idea what they're talking about. Maybe we should calm that down.

ChristianVoice08 #fundie youtube.com

50 comments

Confused?