//
you're reading...
Homosexuality

No scientific basis for homosexuality (+ debate script)

Homosexuality not found in identical twins, no evolutionary purpose

Homosexuality has gained a lot of press recently with Obama favoring gay marriage.  Without throwing my two cents in (and editing out any religious influence), and just relying on the scientific research, I would like to present the following information I discovered on the not-so-scientificness of homosexuality:

 __________________________________________

 AREN’T IDENTICAL TWINS BOTH HOMOSEXUAL?  

 Historically, twin studies are the number one way for researchers to conclude if traits are genetic or not. 

Studying twins has also been pursued as an indirect means of detecting a “gay gene.” Since identical twins share identical genomes, there should be a higher correlation of homosexuality between identical twins than found between non-twin siblings (i.e., both twins should either be homosexual because they possess the “gay gene,” or heterosexual because they do not have the gene). Following this line of reasoning, various studies have attempted to detect such a correlation. Bailey et al. (2000, p. 534) studied a large number of twins and concluded if any homosexual gene existed, it was in the study group at a “low penetration or low frequency.” In a later study, Långström et al. 2010, p. 75) also analyzed a large number of twins and found a low-level of genetic correlation with homosexual twins but were obligated to note that the data had a very high variance, which “suggest cautious interpretation.”

HOMOSEXUALITY EVOLVED?  

Evolution also has difficulty accounting for the origin of human homosexuality. What evolutionary benefit does homosexuality provide? It would provide little reproductive advantage (at least as defined by Darwinism). Why would the behavior even evolve initially? By Darwinian criteria, only those behaviors and adaptations that increase survivability would be favorably selected.

Selections taken from Not so Gay, editorial by Kevin Anderson.  published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 42, Number 2, Winter 2012). 

Conclusion:  2 very reputable scientific scenarios cannot account for homosexuality being genetic.

 __________________________________________
THE FOLLOWING IS A DEBATE EXCHANGE I HAD WITH SOMEONE AFTER POSTING THIS TOPIC. 

I post this to show common responses and rebuttals:

 

DEBATER:  Homosexuality could possibly be an evolutionary mechanism for population control since the earth is at its maximum holding capacity for humans. Little reproductive advantage = no babies. BAM

RESPONSE:  The entire world’s population could fit into Texas. Just go for a long drive, you realize REAL quickly the Earth is not overpopulated, and even IF it were, evolution could not even know that.

DEBATER:  Evolution knew enough to wrinkle our skin when we go into a bath for too long.  If one has nerve damage, your skin won’t wrinkle. It’s an evolutionary mechanism to give you better grip under water.

RESPONSE:  Yes, but again that is survival of the fittest, that doesn’t fit homosexuality in any single way, in fact it is opposite of survival, it is extinction.  As for overpopulation, are you telling me that somehow unintelligently are genetics somehow magically know the amount of people on the earth when they go through a random mutation?  Survival of the fittest, if an evolutionary trait does not serve the common good (to advance the species), then it is eventually weeded out. If homosexuality, as you claim – is a good maneuver for evolution, and if it doesn’t get weeded out, it will only grow, and eventually lead to extinction.

DEBATER:  Then why is homosexuality found in dolphins? It’s not just humans.

RESPONSE:  I have a Biblical answer for homosexuality in dolphins, but wasn’t really intending on going there with this discussion, was trying to stay purely scientific.  Don’t get me wrong, I think you have all the right in the world to defend homosexuality, but the current normal arguments fail scientifically. You’re grasping at emotional arguments because the scientific don’t work. Nothing you are claiming has been shown. There is no genetic link to homosexuality, and the evolutionary claim fails anyways.

DEBATER:  (not sure why they through this in)  And the only reason why HIV is found often in homosexual males is because the colon is easily irritated and perforated during anal sex, and thus the exchange of bodily fluids (infected semen coming in contact with an open wound without exposure to air) is easier. HIV isn’t often found in straight couples or lesbian couples.

RESPONSE:  Before all this, you started to go back to the best argument you got – “don’t deny love”. That’s all you can do. But then it becomes even easier for the other side of the debate cause all they have to do is bring up polygamy, and incest, and bestiality. If we’re not going to regulate “love”, then all must be permitted.

DEBATER:  That’s the same argument that “Christians” used to try to combat interracial marriage.

RESPONSE:  Christians can be wrong too. Being against interracial marriage is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of. According to the Bible, we all come from one couple – Adam and Eve, therefore we are all one race – the human race, just different shades of brown. In fact the Human Genome Project confirmed this Biblical idea in the past 10 years.

DEBATER:  Biblically speaking, it always talks about man and a man, sodomy, whatever. When does it mention lesbians? I don’t remember a single passage. Is it implied? Are we going to go into applied theories, because you keep saying that part is very clear as a literal. Which one is it?

RESPONSE:  the Bible rarely discusses women at all. Usually when it uses the term “man”, it is meaning “mankind”.

DEBATER:  God said slaves are ok, though.

RESPONSE:  Biblical slavery is 100% different than Civil War slavery. Biblical slavery was a profession that people went into when they didn’t have enough money to support their families. They were more like indentured servants.

DEBATER:  Mankind, well okay, but where does Sodomy come into a lesbian relationship?

RESPONSE:  Do you realize you are hurting your position more and more. By even making that statement you are conceding male homosexuality being wrong.

DEBATER:  there’s a reason why your karma is crap on reddit, that’s all I’m saying

RESPONSE:  Yes, my positions are unpopular, I know. But as you can see, I can defend them. You cannot. You have to resort back to “well, it just is wrong to tell someone they can’t love someone else“, an emotional argument that is not universal. And even with that, I have a strong rebuttal.  Doesn’t necessarily mean I’m right / you’re wrong, things aren’t that clear cut usually. Just means some arguments are more solid than others.

DEBATER:  Why did God create homosexuals? You must be pretty angry at God for creating people like that.

RESPONSE:  According to my position God did not create people that way. In fact He created them perfect, and they chose disobedience. They still choose disobedience to this day, and He allows it.

DEBATER:  We are all God’s creations, though, which means homosexuals are God’s creations.  Gays are as perfect as you or me.

RESPONSE:  You are not perfect, I am not perfect, they are not perfect, none of us are.  Homosexuality gets picked on a lot cause it’s a hot topic issue, but the reality is it’s a sin just like any other sin. Lying, stealing, etc. We’ve all sinned, we are all imperfect. I am no better than anyone else. I will be spending eternity in Heaven with homosexuals.  I don’t have a right to tell them what they can and cannot do, but I do have a right to defend my position, just as they have the right to defend there’s.  Personally, I am for civil unions for all the state benefits. I see no Constitutional reason to prevent that. I am not for marriage because I believe marriage is a Holy institution created by God and defined by Jesus as between a man and a woman.

DEBATER:  I have a feeling God’s gonna give you a big smack to the back of the head when you arrive and call you an idiot.  I believe that it’s a Holy institution created by God and defined by Jesus as between a lover and a lovee.

RESPONSE:  Jesus: “For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife”. You can believe whatever you want, but it’s not in the Bible. No slap to the back of the head for believing the Bible.

DEBATER:  and gay people sometimes refer to themselves as queens, or girls….wife in the bible could mean a guy.

RESPONSE:  It could mean whatever fits your perception of the world. Or it could just mean what it says.  I find it interesting that I was not the one who brought up religion here. LOL.

DEBATER:  because you said the bible said something about sinful dolphins.

RESPONSE:  I just said I had an opinion on that, but wasn’t going to go into it unless asked.  Dolphins are not sinful, they would need a soul to do that. Humans are the only ones with souls. Therefore dolphins (and other animals) are not under our law.  They have no moral law. They kill at will. No mercy. True survival of the fittest.

DEBATER:  OHhhh I see, animals have no soul. Then how do they feel pain exactly how do you explain how an animal knows when you’re sad? They have souls.

RESPONSE:  Animals mimic humans. They have a brain, they do learn. They have nerve endings, they feel pain. They were not created in the image of God, therefore they have no soul. Jesus did not die on the cross for their sins. They do not need to accept Jesus as their savior.  This whole discussion just goes to accentuate my starting argument, which was scientific excuses for homosexuality fail. It is not a scientific issue, it is a moral issue. Since atheistic evolutionary morals go with popular opinion, homosexuality is becoming more embraced. It’s a moral issue, not a genetic one. Lady Gaga is wrong, sorry.

DEBATER:  it’s not moral or ethical. When I see a girl I like, I don’t say….hmmm should I ask her out? I don’t know, I mean…she’s a girl, and……idk….a boy and a girl? What if the bible stated otherwise? That you are meant to be gay? Would you fight the urge to be with your wife? Because GOD ALMIGHTY MADE THE LAW NOT TO LOVE WOMEN?

RESPONSE:  If that were the case, I hope I would.  As a Christian, I need to weigh EVERY decision I make against the word of God, and His will for my life, not MY will.  I don’t need to concern myself with what others accept about me. Obviously according to my previously mentioned reddit karma, I don’t now.

DEBATER:  because you were born straight.

RESPONSE:  I thought we’ve already been through the genetics.  This is the part where you stick your fingers in your ears and say “I don’t care what you say, I’m still gonna believe what I do”….then turn around and blame me for doing the same thing with evolution.

DEBATER:  not everything has to be scientifically OR religiously proven.  Where does the bible talk about dinosaurs?

RESPONSE:  Job Chapter 40.  Behold Behomoth.  The Bible also talks about “dragons”, i.e. large lizards.  See https://gracesalt.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/dinodrag.png

DEBATER:  people may or may not be born gay, but it does develop no matter what, in which you have absolutely no control over. To me that sounds like you are born gay.

RESPONSE:  nature vs. nurture. nature = born that way, nurture = learned.

DEBATER:  gay isn’t learned, just like straight isn’t, It just…….is.

RESPONSE:  I knew you would get back to “it just is”….that’s a great argument, dont ya think. I cant show its genetic, but its sure not learned…so… I dunno, it just is.  I’m not singling out gays. In fact you could just replace “gay” with any sin, and I would be against it. That, technically, makes me against EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the planet. But that isn’t Christian. I am to love every single person on the planet. So, that is what I try to do. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have a right to stand up for truth… even if I’m wrong, I have the right to stand up for it.  I understand why people see it as personal attacks, because it’s a very personal issue. That is not my intent at all. If my son were lying, I’d call him out on it. If my son were stealing, I’d call him out on it. If my son was showing interest in men, I’d call him out on it. I don’t pick and choose my battles. They’ve been chosen for me already. The Bible tells us over and over that our hearts are wicked and deceitful. What do you think that means?  Most Christians pick and choose which parts they like, and weed out the parts that don’t fit their preconceived ideas about how the world works. I am sorry, that it too inconsistent for me. If I were to do that, then I couldn’t defend my faith as I’ve done here. If I couldn’t defend my faith – then I might as well give it up.

DEBATER:  i wouldn’t let anything get in the way of my daughter’s feelings. What she feels is true and she shouldn’t feel ashamed of it. If your son comes out with an interest in men, and you call him out on it, he’ll stop until he’s out of your house, where he’ll either marry a beard, or be true to his feelings and get with a guy.

RESPONSE:  Is polygamy wrong? If so, how come… if all parties are in agreeance?  If your daughter says she loves cutting herself, would you tell her that its wrong? Why, she LOVES to do it. Maybe it’s like the Bible says – her heart is deceitful.  Do you think it’s possible for a human to make a wrong decision regarding who they love? Have you ever done that? I have.

DEBATER:  she cuts herself, that’s harming herself, and I would get her help. It isn’t hurting yourself to love someone of the same gender.

RESPONSE:  That’s your opinion that it’s not hurting.  According to the Bible it is separating her from God which is the worst possible thing she could do.

DEBATER:  According to God, god is love, and he would understand more then you ever could.

RESPONSE:  That’s right. Then don’t stop her, she loves cutting herself, and God would not be against love.

DEBATER:  Again it always comes down to this, if God is against gays, I don’t want to live in his house.  I don’t want to live with a God that I disagree with, god is supposed to be a full package.

RESPONSE:  Yes, a full package – but not according to your opinions of how He should work.

DEBATER:  But the reality is I think you’re wrong on His thoughts on this, that’s the thing.

RESPONSE:  Well, I don’t stake my life on what I think.  I realize I am imperfect, and do not have all the knowledge in the universe, and cannot see the whole picture – only the tiny puzzle piece I’m on now. How could someone as insignificant as me have any clue about how God should or should not act? I am not that confident in myself. I’d rather bow to His knowledge and authority on ALL matters.

DEBATER:  good, then don’t start guessing at what he means and neither will I. Let people be who they are and don’t pass judgment.

FINAL RESPONSE: 

Thank God I don’t need to guess.  You will continue to say what you need to, to justify your position. In the end I have demonstrated that your entire position boils down to “you just know it”. The genetics position fails scientifically. The evolution position has no ground whatsoever. The love argument fails in comparison to other forbidden loves. The “you just know it” argument is weak from the beginning because it’s based on feeling (no law should be based on feelings). Therefore you’ve got no basis for your position other than your personal opinion. 

I have basis for my position. There is no scientific link. There is no evolutionary benefit. Love has been shown to be unacceptable in the past. Laws should not be based on feeling. And heck, you even brought up the health problems related (I didn’t even go there). And, all that is not even getting into religion.

Advertisements

About Tim

http://www.gracewithsalt.com

Discussion

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: