About Riphen's thing about being offended if gays hit on him...

As long as you control the urges to do external reactions of the illegal variety (punching, etc), there's nothing wrong with that. If it was wrong to feel like punching somebody for a reason that in the grand scheme isn't a big deal and then resisting that temptation to punch, I'd be wrong about three times a week.

However, every time a gay male has hit on me (and off the top of my head, I can think of about three times, there might have been more), I've seen it as the biggest possible compliment. I mean, consider this. That guy was so smitten by you that he literally risked death (there have been cases where people were killed over hitting on guys). That's huge.

One of the theories explaining why gay-ness hasn't evolved out of existence is that the 'gay' gene increases one's atraction to men. Now if this gene is present in a male, the male will be gay and probably not pass it on. But if the same gene is present in a female, it will increase her attarction to males as well, probably making her more promisuous, and she will have more children than an average woman, compensating for the male carriers not passing it on.

excuse my typos

what about lesbians.

@spyman: I rarely spend time answering religious questions on this site simply because they devolve into worthless arguing but occasionally, I'll take time to answer. It's not likely that I'll really spend time following this thread because KA's threads tend to be ridiculous (no offense KA, I'm just not that into these types of threads)

Whether or not there's a 'gay gene' or anything else is beside the point. God has established a natural thing from the beginning for opposite genders to produce progeny for mankind to survive. This was the scripted decision from the beginning but once sin entered the world (Genesis 3 with the fall of man) many things changed. Conflict entered the world and all things contrary to God's original design. The Bible says that the ground became hard to work, conflict among the animals began seeing a predator-prey scenario where once everything was originally vegetarian. People are drawn to rebellion against God and not toward obedience. Our natural inclination is to go against God. This is the basis of the sin nature and the Bible states that we are slaves to this nature until such a time as we accept Christ as our savior at which point we are set free (free from the bondage that sin holds on our life under a new master, although the fight between doing right and wrong persists while we are still part of this world).

This being said, homosexual relationships are natural for man because sin is natural for man. It's as natural as any other sin, be it the compulsory lying or stealing that some suffer from, also like alcoholism or other addictions, obsessions and anything else that rules our lives daily. Also, people born with the desires toward the same sex are also natural because we are born sinners. If this were not true, there would be some people that would remain sin-free their entire lives but because we are born with a sin nature, we desire to sin and must fight the urges to not sin. For this reason, you'll hear Christians say that they don't hate gays/lesbians (some cults do, but most don't) but rather they hate the acts of homosexuality because our ultimate fight isn't with the person but with the sin.

There are several comments on this thread attempting to explain homosexuality with reference to Natural Selection and genetic inheritance.

1) I wonder if it has been definatively established that it is always a matter of inheritance to the exclusion of environmental influences? If so this is unlike any Darwinian hypothesis I have heard before.

2) Not withstanding 1) has anyone an idea where the gay gene(s) might lie? Is there any realistic prospective of finding it/them? And if it is found what else might it influence or code for? Rather than Dawkins-like greedy reductionism it might be better to have an emergent attitude, if one really wants to understand the matter in the context of the whole individual.

3) Why are some people so strident in proposing that gays are ''born like that'' rather than being ''made like that through interaction with their environment coupled with their genetic template''. Surely if one proposes a Natural Selection influence on gayness the latter, rather than the former, is the correct view?

Well Tru Ninja, I guess if you accept a few premises namely God is real, and the Bible really is the word of God - maybe that all follows. I guess God is God and he can make whatever rules he wants.

I am not a theologian so I can't really debate it from that perspective - but I realize that amongst Christians there are different lines if thought about this subject. Some Christians argue that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. As far as procreation goes, if homosexuality is a sin, then celibacy should be a sin too?

One small question though. The Bible says many things, but some parts of the Bible are disregarded, even amongst Christians, much of Leviticus for example. How do you know that homosexuality isn't one of those parts that is now supposed to be ignored?

fullhamish: environment and genetics - these two factors pretty much cover all bases. So the answer will lie in one or the other or a combination of both. We have to also consider that in some questions we can't entirely separate the two. For example physical traits such as height are considered genetic, but environment still plays a role. Malnutrition for example, is an environmental factor which limits height. But I think most people can agree that if there is a spectrum between which factor is more important, then height is more toward the genetic end. If I were to select an example, which has a genetic component but is closer to the environmental end than height - alcoholism comes to mind. Indeed if you lived your entire life on a secluded Island with no alcohol you could not become an alcoholic. But does this mean that it is entirely environmental - no because it can be shown that physiologically some people are more strongly affected by alcohol and it does seem to be more common in some families than others Moving further down the spectrum - music taste. I don't find it entirely inconceivable that this could affected by genetics. For example some people are tone deaf, but it is easy to conceive the enormous role that environment plays here.
I think the test for whether a trait could be consider environmentally determined - would be whether or not there are there environments where this trait cannot occur. For example are there societies where homosexuality is entirely unknown? Or is there some environmental factor which could be reasonably removed - for example artificial coloring in food or television or drama classes at school etc - and voila homosexuality ceases to exist. I propose that such an environment does not exist (within reason - growing up alone on a desert Island and thus never meeting someone of the same sex would not be within reason). Because this "environment" does not exist or at least seems unlikely to exist, we may therefore infer the predominance of genetic factors.

@ spyman. Not withstanding that you have ignored my point 2) given in my first post in this thread, moving on, however:

Let's start with a point of agreement. It sems to me that we both agree that there is an element of environmental influence in the founding of the gay phenotype. Now I disagree with your apportionment of the relative importance of environment and inheritance, but never-the-less we both accept that such an environmental influence may exist, that is a start. Unless, of course, you disagree?

Sorry fullhamish: I do not know where the gay gene is. Or if there is one genes or lot of genes. Or if it will ever be identified. But for the reasons I outlined above it can't be solely considered environmental. There is something in the human makeup that means homosexuality is inevitable within a certain proportion of the population regardless of the environment.

As far as natural selection goes - maybe it doesn't apply. Maybe it is something that happens as a by-product of some other necessary factor, which just turns out a little differently in some people. But I do not view it as a choice for the majority of gays, just as don't choose to be straight.

I am not sure what you mean by "it is better to have an emergent attitude". So I can't comment on that.

As the environmental influence - maybe there is some factor that triggers some latent potential. But that potential has to be there in the first place (that is the genetic component). But I can't conceive what that trigger might be.
Lately there has been talk of testosterone levels in the womb - maybe that is the answer.

Thank you for your honest answe Spyman. Perhaps the reductionist v. emergent view of scientific process debate is another occassion and I apologise for bringing it up.

As to the relative importance of environmental factors on the expression of the gay phenoype I ashould like to quote this abstract:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2263646523551487/
''There is still uncertainty about the relative importance of genes and environments on human sexual orientation. One reason is that previous studies employed self-selected, opportunistic, or small population-based samples. We used data from a truly population-based 2005–2006 survey of all adult twins (20–47 years) in Sweden to conduct the largest twin study of same-sex sexual behavior attempted so far. We performed biometric modeling with data on any and total number of lifetime same-sex sexual partners, respectively. The analyses were conducted separately by sex. Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.''

The researchers seem to be suggesting that the conventional wisdom of many which goes along the lines of ''I was born like that'' (ref. Hamer D et al (1993), 'A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation') to the exclusion of environmental influence is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Running with the environment first theory: what do you propose could be causes? Cold the the environmental factor be something that the gay person has control over or a degree of choice?

*Could the environmental factor be something that...

@ Spyman ''what do you propose could be causes''

Now you are getting your own back on me for asking you to pinpoint the gay gene, touche! Before I answer/speculate on your question, I would just ask if you accept the validity of twin studies in approaching this issue? If so we can discuss the matter further.

I will say that I doubt the ''womb'' theorey which you give above because of the twin evidence, but I am still unclear whether you accept this methodology or not.

Not sure yet fullhamish. It's past my bed time so I'll have to get back to you on that one. Tomorrow. Cheers.

OK Spyman, thank you, it is good to talk.

Its important to distinguish between "it's not a choice" and "i was born like this"

i agree with the former not so much with the latter, unless more conclusively proven. but that doesn't mean you can undo it or something.

and there's also no reason to undo it, from a deontological standpoint, tell me what is wrong with homosexuality

@ Thucy
I will not refer to the right and wrong of the matter as it can serve no useful purpose, except to start a slanging match. Moving on:
these guys seem to disagree with you and think that they have made a choice:
http://www.queerbychoice.com/
In fact they seem to take a rather strong exception to your take on the matter!

I would just make three points on the issue. if I may -

1) There is good evidence that childhood sexual abuse can lead to a higher incidence of the expression of the gay phenotype, obviously this is not a matter of choice but an environmental trigger (Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey, J. Elisabeth Wells, Magnus A. McGee and Annette L. Beautrais). In my view this is likely a partial explanation.
2) In my experience life is often a matter of chance. Who we meet and when we meet them is often crucial. This particularly applies to adolesence and the forming of sexual behaviour patterns.
3) Not withstanding 2), then again perhaps the most straightforward explanation is that sexual behaviour is often/usually a matter of choice (given that some individual's behaviour is more constrained than others), just as the ''Queers by Choice'' people maintain. Or does that bring us squarely back to the free-will debate we had a few days ago?

I would also ask, a little rhetorically perhaps, whether homophobia is a matter of choice or not?

I think a guy kissing a guy is super gross. However, I fully support everyone's right to live their lives the way they want. I wouldn't be "against" gays any more than I am "against" marmalade. I believe marmalade is grossly sour and bitter and I much prefer some sort of jelly or jam. Still, it wouldn't occur to me to try and tell people how to live their lives.

Plus, some gay guy that's been with another guy for thirty years and can't visit him on his deathbed because he isn't "family"? Can't everyone see that is messed up?

SuperSteve a really good and human post, thank you.

But do you perhaps see that the first sentence doesn't quite fit with the rest? I could understand it better if you said something like ''I think the thought of kissing a guy/a guy kissing me, is super gross''. I am not being super critical, just trying to understand.

I'm fully pro gay for several reasons, but here is one that most dudes understand:

Homosexuality removes both ugly women and attractive men from the dating pool, making my chances of finding a suitable mate increase. Therefore it is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged as much as possible.

Please won't some of you men consider it as an alternative? All the sex you want and no risk of pregnancy. Plus you can watch football together afterwords.

@ Yellowjacket - Yeah except most gays don't really like football that much. But I suppose if you changed it to "musical" it would work. (I am being facetious in case you can't tell.)

@ fulhamish, spyman and Thucy - I put it to all of you that if the "born this way" meme is an important part of how some LGBT individuals relate to their identity, then, for them, the actual scientific accuracy of that claim, while a matter of great interest academically, is completely irrelevant from a social/political standpoint.

Wait a minute! I DON'T LIKE FOOTBALL!

I agree Malfialligator.

.... I should qualify that. Irrelevant to me. I am an atheist. I don't view homosexuality as breaking God's law. But for those who believe in the Bible, the validity of the "I was born this way" meme could be pertinent.

Agreed spyman, I was speaking from a generally liberal, secular humanist viewpoint. Obviously there are some conservatives and religious people who will read that post and say "What the f&*k are you talking about?"

"Seeeeeeee the Showboat. That's old Captain Andy's Cotton Blossom will you goooooooooooooo? Let me take you to the showwwwwwwwwwww!"

I can sing that show tune Maf. Can I be an honorary fag?