MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Is homosexuality a genetic glitch?

Is homosexuality a genetic glitch?


Sorry if this offends anyone but I’ve thought about this long and hard for a while. Now that we’ve acknowledged that homosexuality is not a choice I think it’s time to examine its origins/cause to better understand it.

Let’s start with the basics - sexuality, sexual intercourse and sexual attraction all exist for one purpose and one purpose only: procreation; to ensure the survival of a species. This is no different in humans than it is in fish or birds. We can then conclude from this that any deviation from heterosexual attraction, be it homosexuality, bisexuality, or even asexuality, is not natural as none of them can produce an offspring. People saying that sexual reproduction is NOT the only purpose of sexual intercourse, who then proceed to rattle off all of the social and emotional health benefits of sexuality are wrong.

It doesn’t matter that homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time, or that it is pervasive across all different families in the animal kingdom, naturally occurring glitches that appear consistently on the evolutionary timeline does not make them “natural” in the sense of being intended.

reply

Of all the terrible things going on in society right now I think homosexuality is the least of our worries.

reply

Stop suggesting what we should and should not be worry about. It's a free country. You're not the boss of me!

reply

Homosexuality accounts no more than 2% of the population in the United States.

Even though that low percentage makes it seem like a non statistic and unimportant, it makes it even more urgent to protect vulnerable people, who are all walks of life such as them, from experiencing mistreatment.

The current US leadership supports their discrimination despite expressing positivity and giving lip service to the same community.

Edit: (10-10-2019)

Protest within Log Cabin Republicans
(Washington Blade):

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/08/27/exclusive-log-cabin-executive-director-resigns-over-trump-endorsement/

Policies hurting the queer community
(Mother Jones):

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/08/trump-administration-rule-religious-belief-discrimination-lgbtq-unmarried-pregnant/

Even though the latter can harm women and queers in the job market, it could also unintentionally lead to disputes and struggles between people of different faiths, whose beliefs may clash.

~~/o/

reply

I tend to believe it is genetic thing, or at least it plays a significant role, and I heard scientists have already isolated some genes related to homosexuality, but it is not a single gene can be switched on or off https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/

Science will progress on the study of human gene, I think the truth won't be that far from now.

reply

The ancient hunting-gathering communities would separate men and women for long stretches of time in an effort to create some kind of social balance between the two sexes by giving each different gender roles.

It would not be surprising for intimate bonds to happen between members of the same sex as a means of emotional support since family planning would be overseen by the whole community.

Just a theory, but this likely meant such relationships may not have been frowned upon thanks to the strong social aspect of the group, which would find the nurturing to be beneficial against lack of romance.

~~/o/

reply

It's not 100% genetic. There's cases of identical twins where one is gay and the other one is hetero. So there's environmental factors, even though genetics plays the big part.

reply

What’s your sexual orientation ?

reply


Probably.

😎

reply

We are always redefining what it means to be human and maybe this is a way of challenging our preconceptions.

"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" so says the Vulcans from Star Trek.

~~/o/

reply

To the extent there is a plan, it's just what works and what doesn't work. The stuff that didn't work went extinct, and the stuff that did work is still here. Homosexuality falls under the category of stuff that is still here, so apparently it fits the plan.

reply

Cancer, hemorrhoids and schizophrenia are still here so apparently they fit the plan too?

reply

Apparently nature doesn't consider any of that a design flaw. Its "plan" continues whether it aligns with humanitarian values or not.

reply

I think all of these points are irrelevant deflections, and none of them disproves that the only reason for sex is procreation and therefore homosexuality is not how it was intended.

reply

Nothing you've wrote "proves" that sex is only for procreation, so there's nothing I need to disprove. We're both just asserting there is/isn't a plan.

reply

It’s scientific fact that sex is for procreation, in addition to being obvious to anyone with half a brain

reply

It's not scientific fact that sex is ONLY for procreation, that's your idiotic value judgment. Something being your opinion doesn't make it a scientific fact. By this same retarded logic, hands are ONLY for masturbation.

reply

What else has sex been scientifically proven to be for?

reply

it has proven to be fun

reply

Lol, I know you don’t really believe that. It’s only “fun” to ensure that we procreate. You think eating is for our pleasure too??

reply

My wife and I were only able to have one kid. So there has been zero chance of procreation for over 20 years and yet we still have sex.

reply

That doesn’t prove anything, your brain and libido don’t know one of you are sterile.

reply

Why do prostitutes exist then or blow jobs for that matter? 😊 😊

reply

I think it's been made crystal clear that hands are for masturbation, the problem I see here is we are using them for typing. That is a glitch.

reply

A bargaining chip, a recreational activity, a form of abuse, a coping mechanism, a way to get a bag of cheetos... there are endless scientifically proven uses for sex.

reply

a way to get a bag of cheetos.

LOL

reply

That cracked me up too

reply

👍🤣 Yep! Too funny!

reply

Buy me that diamond! Or a new car! You can have the Cheetos!

Seriously, MovieBuff has a point. If you consider us to be part of the animal kingdom, we humans are the only group who have sexual intercourse for pleasure. As per Genesis 9:7.....”And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.” And He gave us the equipment and feelings to obey. No argument ensued! Man/Woman took Him at His word and ran with it....never to stop! 🙅‍♀️

reply

I don't understand how you could possibly say that. There is video of a chimp using a frog as a sex toy. You are just indoctrinated to view humans as having some special soul, "we aren't just machines, but animals are". It's so childish. And I guarantee people have trained animals to do sex acts for cheetos, you are just not giving animals any benefit of the doubt that they have as much free will as us. And that's an anti-intellectual and completely irresponsible bias based on nothing.

reply

So the chimp is using a frog as a sex toy. They also throw caca at people! And a male dog will ride your leg. And I’m sure an animal can be “trained to do sex acts for cheetos.” Human intervention...not mating naturally. But that doesn’t belie the fact we humans use our procreation equipment for pleasure also. Lesser animal mating is seasonal.

You may have hit the mark with primates as per the following:

“There are relatively few animals that mate for pleasure. A number of animals mate for life, but that does not mean they necessarily mate for pleasure. It seems to be the case that the only animal species that mates for pleasure, aside from humans, are dolphins. Depending on how "pleasurable mating" is defined, however, the bonobo chimpanzee of Central Africa could also be included.”

reply

What does it matter if there's human intervention or not? It's still an animal knowingly using sex to get a result other than procreation. You fail at being honest with yourself, and the result is sentient individuals' welfare being disregarded anytime it conflicts with your convenience, because they are "lesser animals"... but I'll bet if there's a human vegetable with less self awareness than an animal, you will probably still consider them important, because the organism is still shaped like a human, even though it can't function as one. You probably think an undeveloped human embryo is more important than a fully developed, fully aware animal. Such embarrassing hypocrisy from bible thumpers.

reply

You are missing my point from this “bible thumper” which has nothing to do with the subject. I inserted the scripture in my reply as jest even though I personally may believe the command. Did you not see the humor in my words “No argument ensued! Man/Woman took Him at His word and ran with it....never to stop! 🙅‍♀️”

Back to the point. If left alone the following occurs. To repeat:

“There are relatively few animals that mate for pleasure. A number of animals mate for life, but that does not mean they necessarily mate for pleasure. It seems to be the case that the only animal species that mates for pleasure, aside from humans, are dolphins. Depending on how "pleasurable mating" is defined, however, the bonobo chimpanzee of Central Africa could also be included.”

reply

Who even wrote that? You didn't source it or ask for a peer review, it's just one man's opinion. I'm wondering how you would even demonstrate which are doing it for "pleasure" or not, and when "pleasure" became the standard for this discussion. My whole point was to promote skepticism about your idea that there is some cosmic plan about how we use our sex organs.

reply

I regret I’m unable to locate the article. I usually provide a link to my sources of information. I was remiss in doing so in this instance. Maybe it’s a good thing because I have been informed my thoughts are not correct due to the recent research about this subject. So....without hesitation I cede to you. 🤷‍♀️

reply

Cool, I respect your willingness to question your assumptions, and as long as you are looking at things critically, I will be enjoying our discussions! I just get overzealous sometimes when I hear religion brought up, or anything I perceive as diminishing the dignity of others, including animals. I've tried going hardcore vegan before.

reply

There's another thing that has crossed my mind, related to what the bible says about animals and morality. Supposedly, the main thing that separates humans from animals is the knowledge of good and evil, but we stole that. So we would have to answer the question of what else is different about us. As I recall, Adam's job was to look after the animals or something?! Apart from that, nothing really comes to mind. I'd have to really dissect it. But that's not really where I'm going with this.

When it says "knowledge", is it talking about intelligence? What would the world look like if man never sinned? One difference is we'd all be nudists. This is just true of the Genesis account.

Would there be computers, art, sports, skyscrapers, etc, etc? Apparently, no! God looked upon his creation and said it was "good". So without knowledge of good and evil, we couldn't tell the difference between a useful design and a trash one. Creation is an attribute of God. Maybe we are gods, and that gives us the right to torture his creations, because God has the right to torture his creations(for some reason), and we stole his powers.

Here's a fun idea, what if we really stole his powers, and by doing so made it so Satan could kill him, and Satan has just been posing as him this whole time? That would mean every time you felt God, you were just touching yourself. That's assuming you weren't being completely deceived by outside forces.

So to sum it up, if we're trying to emulate God's plan for us, the one from before the fruit was eaten, it would seem to me that we need to be living as primitive tribes do, and taking care of the animals, without caring if it's a good thing to do or not. Feel free to pick apart my reasoning.

reply

To sum it up....there’s no way I would be able to delve into your hypothesis. The first scripture I thought of was
Hebrews 11:1
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

BTW, the knowledge you speak of included nakedness and carnal knowledge which was the beginning of sin. Nothing more powerful than lust.

reply

I've often seen people claim that atheists actually believe there's a god, but just convince themselves really hard that they don't believe. To me, "faith" is just lying to yourself really hard... forcing it, not actually being convinced of it. It's the same tool used by people who believe in religions that compete against yours. "Faith" can be used for anything, like I could have faith I'm gonna sleep with Oprah one day. Not a very effective tool for coming to correct conclusions about reality.

reply

“To me, "faith" is just lying to yourself really hard.”

Please keep this cordial by not insulting me. I am not lying to myself. I have faith in a greater power. I have faith there is God and His Son, the Christ who went to the cross taking the world’s sins, mine included upon His shoulders.
To repeat:
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Unless this is put upon your heart....you know not of what I speak. I will pray for you. Someone in a chat room who I don’t know personally will have a prayer sent for him. May the Lord bless you with understanding. I only request one thing from you, no more insults please. With that I bid you adieu. I’m finished proselytizing on this board. No need as I would get the same response speaking to a wall.

reply

you have to visit a strip joint and then tell me sex is all about procreation.

reply

😂 I’m sorry! The hemorrhoids did it!

reply

Technically speaking, you could say so. Life generally evolves to sustain itself so someone's sex drive being targeted away from reproduction would not be expected to be the norm.

That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, though.

reply

Its about pushing boundaries

reply