I don't understand how homosexuality exists to the extent society says it does

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 27
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
So, apperantly, 16% of Gen Z people are LGBT and this is significently higher than prior generations.

The argument for justifying this is that gay people were oppressed long ago and this caused people to be in the closect about it.

I think there is some truth to this, but if I were to ask, "Is homosexuality genetic?", most people woujld answer, "Yes".

How can this be the case?  If straight people have sex, they produce a bunch of straight babies.  Gay people don't reproduce, so I don't know how they are able to spread their genes to make homosexuality genetic.

I think the only other way homosexuality can be popped up is by mutations.  However, there are 30,000 genes in the human genome, with an average of 60 mutations.

If the homosexuality gene was mutated the average number of times, this means .2% of the population is gay.  Since this gene never reproduces if you get it, this means that due to evolution, the probability of being gay is probably much less than what it would be if homosexuality was an average mutation given the tens of thousands of years of evolution that has happened where the gay genes died out due to not reproducing and the straight genes carried on.

If homosexuality exists and is purely genetic, this means that less than .2% of the US population is gay.  Instead, we are observing many more gay people in Gen Z.  I therefore think that most people who think they are gay think they are gay because of a few thoughts about men sexually, but I think it's an illusion.

Either that, or the homosexuality gene will in time be replaced by the straight gene.
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
You are actually asking 3 different questions here and the most pertinent to your confusion is that you think genetics are absolute.

A classic example to clear up some of your confusion regarding dominant vs recessive alleles is specifically ginger-haired people. Ginger hair gene is recessive, meaning it only can be present in the child if both parents have the gene and both parents can have no ginger hair but both must have the gene either dominant or recessive. More interestingly, Ginger hair is the only hair colour where both parents can have it and the child won't.

Being homosexual is not at all down to one gene, making the situation more complex on top of what you already didn't understand about alleles being dominant or recessive. Homosexuality, in the genetic component, is to do with a few things. Firstly the apex of a homosexual male is probably one who is both very feminine and very attracted to masculine-looking people (these are entirely separate genes, which is the core issue with assuming all gays must act femme and all lesbians must act macho).

The genes that lead to your masculinity or femininity are more to do with behaviour of you as a person and what you're driven to than your actual sexuality but in terms of the personality, not looks, you'll be attracted to there is influence here. The 'dominant' (not always the top) in a male gay relationship (if this dynamic is present) is actually quite often masculine in significant ways and the 'submissive' (if this dynamic is present) in a lesbian relationship is quite often feminine in significant ways. This isn't sexist, it's a reality of what masculinity and feminity are. Masculine personalities, whether they have a penis or vagina, are driven to compete and assert themselves (not necessarily lead), while feminine personality are driven to nurture and support others (nurturing is helping them grow, supporting is encouraging them). In this age of 2021 we are reaching a stage where it's becoming taboo to admit what separates the masculine from the feminine but I don't agree that's a positive thing to do.

You see, instead of doing that, we need to begin to fully appreciate and understand that there are masculine women and feminine men and that this is a separate set of genes and environmental factors than what leads to which body-type and appearance they're drawn to sexually.

What I am trying to tell you is that the reason you are confused is firstly you think genes are absolute in what's passed down and secondly that different genes and environmental factors are involved in determining which gender one ends up more sexually drawn to on top of personality-wise drawn to. 
#3
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
It's not genetic.

Romans 1:18-27
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
#4
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
You also appear to be operating on a mainly binary definition of sexuality, where you're either gay or straight, like a light switch, that's really not how a lot of people operate. 
#5
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
So, apperantly, 16% of Gen Z people are LGBT and this is significently higher than prior generations.
  • This stat comes from an online Ipsos poll that ran for two weeks this spring
    • The poll was titled "Ipsos’ LGBT+ Pride 2021 Global Survey" so let's not be surprised that LGBT
      • So we are not polling a random selection of people, we are polling from a subset of people who would voluntarily participate in an LGBT poll.  I assume a huge portion of the population would see the title, say "I'm not gay" and skip it.  Therefore, you should expect these stats to skew heavily gay.
    • Of those 19,000 self selected participants, the 16-24 year olds:
      • 4% identified as  "transgender, non-binary, non-conforming, gender-fluid, or other than male or female when the other choices were male, female, don't know/won't say
        • That's pretty wide ranging.  Just because you think of yourself as a sexual non-conformist doesn't necessarily mean the average joe would find your sex life exotic.
      • 4% identified as gay and lesbian. 
      • 9% identify as bisexual- again, that can mean just about anything.  I've known a few women who claimed to be bisexual although they've never had sex with a woman.
        • science tells us that pretty much all women are aroused by naked women, lesbian sex and the majority of men are aroused by naked men, gay sex.
          • One recent survey got 1 in 4 men admit to watching gay porn sometimes
          • Pornhub says that 37% of users (99%male) watch some gay porn
        • So, it may also be that Gen Z is just more honest, less unintimidated by this identification than earlier gens
      • 2% identified as pansexual, omnisexual (I will just lump those in with the bi's)
      • 2% identify as asexual- in my experience, such identity tends to be more of a transitory state than an actual sexual identity
      • 1% identify as others, which deliberately provokes more questions than answer.
I think if this was just a Pew Poll of telephone interviews, all of these numbers would come way down, while almost certainly still posting higher than prior gens


The argument for justifying this is that gay people were oppressed long ago and this caused people to be in the closect about it.
Yeah but now everybody has a unique and customized sexual identity.  In fact, coming out of the closet may well be the biggest reason for creating special sexual identities without any specific sexual requirements.
I think there is some truth to this, but if I were to ask, "Is homosexuality genetic?", most people woujld answer, "Yes".
I don't know.    Since the fact seems to be that most people are aroused by both sexes, what is the determining fact that defines LGBT as specialized?

How can this be the case?  If straight people have sex, they produce a bunch of straight babies. 
Well, that's false.  The majority of gay children are the product of straight parents.
Gay people don't reproduce, so I don't know how they are able to spread their genes to make homosexuality genetic.
Lot's of gay people reproduce.  I'd say a third of the LGBT couples I know have at least one biological child.  For obvious reasons, LGBT folks are a lot less uptight about having sex with the less preferred sex than straights.  I'd venture that the overwhelming majority of LGBT have engaged in sex with the potential of pregnancy.

Some studies are finding homosexuality seems to closely related to heterosexual fecundity.  In families where women are well adapted and successful bearers of large number of children, males inheriting the same genes tend more to be gay.  This same dynamic is found to a lesser degree in highly fertile male lineages- more women born to those men tend to be lesbian.

This seems like a highly adaptive human capability if true.  You've got a family line that has for whatever reason adapted to large numbers of children- it makes perfect adaptive sense to produce some non-parental sexualities that can improve the adult:child ration in the next generation.

Even when gay people don't reproduce, we still seem to serve a role in rapid population growth capacities.

I think the only other way homosexuality can be popped up is by mutations.
Since most humans are sometimes turned on by both sexes why not simply think of bisexuality as our natural state?

I therefore think that most people who think they are gay think they are gay because of a few thoughts about men sexually, but I think it's an illusion.
To me, the solution is for straight men who have had a few thoughts about men sexually to not worry about whether they are gay but only say of gays, oh hey, I've had those thoughts too!  I bet that gay guy also thinks of women sometimes.....gee, I guess the human condition is essentially bisexual and we need not label so stringently when it really is just a question of degrees of preference. 

Either that, or the homosexuality gene will in time be replaced by the straight gene.
Considering mankind's urgent need to depopulate, I see an increased prevalence of same-sex fucking as adaptive and preferable to genocides and pandemics.
#6
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Ok so the bible says some nasty homophobic things. We already knew that. The question is why should anyone care what the bible says?
#7
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok so the bible says some nasty homophobic things.
How does that Romans passage convey an irrational fear of homosexuality?


The question is why should anyone care what the bible says?
Because when God has brought His judgment upon America to its culmination, you will understand why it has happened. Or you will at least have been warned.
#8
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
If straight people have sex, they produce a bunch of straight babies.
That's not true.

Gay people don't reproduce, [...]
That's not true.

With accurate data, your conclusions can be more accurate.


#9
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Because when God has brought His judgment upon America to its culmination, you will understand why it has happened. Or you will at least have been warned.
This is not a reason to believe to believe in the bible before it happens. When the evidence is in is the time to believe not before. Why anyone should care about what the bible says now? Like what evidence is there that the bible is more than a fable?
How does that Romans passage convey an irrational fear of homosexuality?
Any fear of homosexuality is irrational and the authors of the bible seem really scared that two penises might accidentally rub together.
#10
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
There is so much going on in this opening statement that it, ugh. It's becoming more acceptable to be all kinds of things it has nothing to do with just being gay there's more than one letter in lgbtq. Being bisexual is coming way more prevalent and that's because it's becoming more open and acceptable to be that way. I've met several people openly will tell you that they're asexual nobody would have ever even discussed that before. They just said I don't feel like dating and now when you ask they will say because I'm asexual and don't want to be with anybody. The numbers are increasing because people are able to openly say this is what I am without repercussions. And straight people produce gay people all the time. And gay people can have children. So can trans people and so can queer people.
#11
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
There is so much going on in this opening statement that it, ugh. It's becoming more acceptable to be all kinds of things it has nothing to do with just being gay there's more than one letter in lgbtq. Being bisexual is coming way more prevalent and that's because it's becoming more open and acceptable to be that way. I've met several people openly will tell you that they're asexual nobody would have ever even discussed that before. They just said I don't feel like dating and now when you ask they will say because I'm asexual and don't want to be with anybody. The numbers are increasing because people are able to openly say this is what I am without repercussions. And straight people produce gay people all the time. And gay people can have children. So can trans people and so can queer people.
Very well stated
#12
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

3+3=God's score on the Professional God's Quality Control Exam.
#13
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@RationalMadman
Your #2 is about as clear and concise a conclusion as I've ever read. Well done.
#14
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It's not genetic.
What does quoting Romans have to do with your introductory statement, which is overly simplistic. Paul isn't talking about genetics, so tying Paul to your claim accomplishes nothing. Behavior is not pure genetics only, anyway, so, again, tying them together is a misstep. Not to mention that you ignore the full capability that genes engage variance over a lifetime; they do not remain constant, even when disease is not a factor. Look into just the effect of telomere degradation, a natural effect, and that effect on gene stability, in all aspects of human anatomy and behavior, not just sexual activity. And if you're going to start citing God, consider that it is all of his design... including allowance gene variation at any time in pre- and post-natal consequence.

But it's not genetic? Tell it to the designer.

By the way, as for"God's Word," let's just remember that God, himself, wrote not one jot or tittle of it, and, therefore, any claim of "infallibility" is through a broken window. That's why he is always available to help interpretation, as needed, but it doesn't come without asking. Just sayin'
#15
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
This is not a reason to believe to believe in the bible before it happens. When the evidence is in is the time to believe not before. Why anyone should care about what the bible says now? Like what evidence is there that the bible is more than a fable?
I did not ask you to believe the Bible. Nor do I expect you to recognize the judgment now. I am telling you that we are under judgment, and that judgment is laid out in Romans 1.

Think of it like a tornado siren. It acts as a warning for something that you may or may not believe will happen. But when you ignore the siren and get caught off guard by a tornado, you will then have all the evidence you need of what just happened. You also won't be able to say you weren't warned.

I am telling you that the rise in homosexuality is part of God's judgment. And without a nationwide repentance, America will fall. So if you find yourself looking around at the rubble in the aftermath of the coming judgment, you will then realize why it happened.

  • "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:28-32)
#16
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@949havoc
What does quoting Romans have to do with your introductory statement, which is overly simplistic.
Homosexuality is not a ultimately a genetic issue. It is a sin issue. Our genes do not force us to engage in sexual acts. Paul is saying that when people "suppress the truth in unrighteousness," God gives them over to their lusts and degrading passions. My point was that the rise in homosexuality can be attributed to God's judgment on America for "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" based on this text.

Obviously, this is dependent upon a correct interpretation of the text and a correct application to our situation. But you have not provided any alternate interpretation of the text. If God has informed you of a different meaning of this section in Romans 1, I would be happy to hear it.


#17
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I did not ask you to believe the Bible. 
Then you have no argument. Your entire argument hinges upon something that we agree, at least for the sake of this argument, is not compelling.
#18
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Then you have no argument. Your entire argument hinges upon something that we agree, at least for the sake of this argument, is not compelling.
I was not intending to make a compelling argument. I am simply saying that the rise in homosexuality is not a genetic issue. It is a sign of God's judgment, and unless we see a nationwide repentance, that judgment is not far from its culmination - the downfall of America.

You have heard the siren. Now you can wait and see if the catastrophe strikes or not.
#19
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I was not intending to make a compelling argument
Mission accomplished 
#20
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,173
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
"I don't understand how homosexuality exists to the extent society says it does" You are just told it does. just like everything society and govt says. They say so,  so it is. Facts and truth are irrelevant. The narrative and agenda are what matter. The narrative is to accept perversion and the agenda is to indoctrinate children who don't have the mental capacity to understand what they are being indoctrinated to believe to accept perversion as normal and virtuous. Seems as obvious as a rhino sitting on your face if you ask me.
#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Procreational sex is procreational sex.

And recreational sex is recreational sex.

Remove the taboos and people will come out of the closet.

And elaborate with appropriate narratives.

I blame the water.
#22
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I am simply saying that the rise in homosexuality is not a genetic issue. It is a sign of God's judgment,
So God's judging America and making it more gay? Why? Isn't this all his doing anyway?
Topic's author
#23
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@zedvictor4
If gays have sex and straights have sex, the striaght people would reproduce and the gays wouldn't.  This causes the straight gene to spread and this causes the gay gene to die out.

With the exception of mutations, I don't know how homosexuality exists.
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yes.

But is there really a gay gene?

Or is it just a case of a tendency to enjoy recreational sex, without the socially conditioned restrictions.

The needs and the short term satisfaction from sexual activity, are the same however one chooses to behave.

Getting married to your same sex, sex partner, and living together,  with a nice new fitted kitchen, and a fancy puppy, is just the new acceptable trend.


Doesn't alter the fact that if you want a child, someone somewhere has got to impregnate an egg with a sperm.
#25
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
So God's judging America and making it more gay? Why? Isn't this all his doing anyway?
Homosexuality is not an inherent trait of people. It is a form of willful sexual immorality, just as adultery is. It is a destructive behavior. God giving people over to their lusts is a form of judgment since they will continue to heap up wrath for themselves by continuing to perform evil acts.

It would be similar to trying to help a drug addict get sober. But after they reject your help over and over, you give up and let them spiral into their self-destructive behavior. This is a very generalized comparison, but it gives the idea of a person being "given over" to the evil acts they want to do, as well as the resulting consequences.

As a nation, the rejection of God and the encouragement of wicked behavior is building up the wrath of God which will be poured out unless there is a nationwide repentance. And the rise in homosexuality, at least according to Romans 1, is evidence that God is judging our nation by giving people over to their lust for sexual immorality.
#26
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
Are you familiar with recessive genes?
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Religious baloney or truth.

Your call.

And my call too.



The gospel according to Zed.

Inherent sexual desire is the stimulus for procreation.

Half an hours fun in the sack with whosoever is the derived consequence.

And if a GOD actually is in charge, the it's all GODS bidding.

The cumming of GOD as it were.