mp.freelance
Well-known member
Red Robin said:If it was a dominant gene R2 we would see a larger segment of the population preforming this sinful act. If it is recessive you would have to have a lesbian and a ....(what can you call a male homosexual )...anyway it would still take one of each to pass the gene along. I am of the opinion (no supprise) that the Bible is correct and it is a act of progressive sin. Theirs , or if molestation turned them that way , someones. That is the reason you see it more prevalent in American culture than you did 50 years ago. We are more sinful as a nation. I am not trying to make him part of my scary mindset but i'm with soapweed. It just aint right.reader (the Second) said:Maybe I'm still exhausted and jet lagged but it appears to me that you two are missing the point that if until the 20th century homosexuals had children than homosexuality would NOT be "weeded out."
It wouldn't necessarily be one gene though, RR. It could be a combination of genes - one that leads to low testosterone, one that leads to certain neurological abnormalities, etc. When combined with external stimuli, such as molestation during childhood, rejection by women, etc., these biological tendencies might be activated, causing someone to find it easy to make the choice to become gay.
I agree it is a choice, but you have to ask yourself: does a normal person make that choice? I don't think so. There's no damn way I'd wake up one morning and decide to have sex with men, and I don't think that's how it works. There's a deeper pathology to it, in my opinion.
It could be cultural too. As R2 pointed out, in the Spartan society in Greece, homosexuality was pretty much expected. Men had sex with younger warriors as a way to cement a bond, but that never stopped any of them from having wives and kids. This is disturbing because the way our society is currently glamorizing homosexuality, it could lead to more recruitment of impressionable youth.