[QUOTE="RandomWinner"]
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
The men in prison say otherwisse, I personally know a some gay people aswell and some of them say they were born that way and others say it was their upbringin/some life event that made them that way.
Either way there is't any evidence to suggest that people are born gay (makes no sense from an evolutionary prespective) or they chose it. Anyoe saying otherwise are often pushing an agenda, I personally believe that it's their enviornement. In any case I do agree that they should have the same rights as everyone else, and I'm a religious person saying this.
StrifeDelivery
YES I get to prove someone wrong with INFORMATION!!!
Sorry, I've been reading a book called Genome and they cover how evolution would allow this. If a so called gay gene" were to exist, those who have it wouldn't exactly be the ones reproducing. Which makes sense. BUT!!!! If said gene has another function, like say, making a woman's breasts bigger, making her appear more fertile, the gene would prosper. The sex genes are competitive, so although the gene may not make the woman gay it can cause a malfunction (which is a HORRIBLE word choice but I digress) on the Y chromosome. Statistically, it is most common for a gay man to have a gay uncle on the mother's side because it is passed through the female blood line. This is just a theory, but this is how it would be possible from an evolutionary perspective.
So to recap (because I'm bad at explaining things) it does make evolutionary sense if the gay gene" nets her a better mate because she appears more fertile (which is proven to be what straight men are attracted to). Thus, the gay gene is passed through the female bloodline for generations. I can't explain lesbians though (although I'm sure there's an explanation).
I'm fairly confident its a biological thing.
EDIT: I will say the important thing is that they have the same rights as everyone else, and we agree on that.
Boom, right here, read the same book.
Umm...no, just because you read some book doesn't mean anything. First off there wouldn't be homosexuals if it was genetic, I happento know identical twins and one is gay but the other isn't. Identitical means they look the same and share the same exact dna and genetic structure, but only ONE is gay Also the goal of a species is to pass on it's genes, of course we humans are quite different and don't have as much a need for that anymore. But there couldn't be a gay gene because it wouldn't have survived early human evolution.
Also animals don't mate for pleasure, they do so soley to reproduce. Sometimes they do mount the same sex but that's an act of dominance and not sexual pleasure, dogs do it to each other all the time. Of course though there isn't enough evidence to suggest either way, but you can believe whatever you want just like I do. I was just showing how the genetic argument is very flawed.
Log in to comment