Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

New Research Indicating Homosexuality Is A Genetic Disorder? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is a very simple proof.

    Let us assume (hypothetically) that homosexuality is genetic.

    One, if not the, function of a human being is to sexually reproduce and pass on ones genes, this information is stored in our DNA and is evident by the physical composition of our bodies.

    By our earlier assumption that homosexuality is genetic, it therefore indicates one who is affected by homosexuality will not be attracted to people of their opposite sex and therefore will be unlikely to sexually reproduce and pass on their genes.

    We can define a genetic disorder as
    '
    A lack of order or regular arrangement.
    As homosexuality, under our assumption, is going against the regular genetic composition of a human being, it therefore proves homosexuality is a contradiction and shows it in fact is classed as a genetic disorder, by definition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    It is a very simple proof.

    Let us assume (hypothetically) that homosexuality is genetic.

    One, if the the, function of a human being is to sexually reproduce and pass on ones genes, this information is stored in our DNA and is evident by the physical composition of our bodies.

    By our earlier assumption that homosexuality is genetic, it therefore indicates one who is affected by homosexuality will not be attracted to people of their opposite sex and therefore will be unlikely to sexually reproduce and pass on their genes.

    We can define a genetic disorder as
    ' As homosexuality, under our assumption, is going against the regular genetic composition of a human being, it therefore proves homosexuality is a contradiction and shows it in fact is classed as a genetic disorder, by definition.
    I think what you're trying to do here is conflate disorder with something negative. Science is not biased. It is as objective as it can be within its own parameters. It's actually more accurate to say its a mutation as opposed to a disorder.

    Usain Bolt has a mutation which makes him run fast. So do many boxers, swimmers, athletes etc who have genetic 'disorders' or mutations which cause an irregularity in genetic makeup, causing a change in (more often than not) physiology but also in hormonal production. It culminates in producing something truly great. Of course, genetic mutations can go either way but I fail to see how being homosexual could be scientifically construed as negative really.

    P.S. You've included no research whatsoever; just your thoughts. Are you an academic or something?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    It is a very simple proof.

    Let us assume (hypothetically) that homosexuality is genetic.

    One, if not the the, function of a human being is to sexually reproduce and pass on ones genes, this information is stored in our DNA and is evident by the physical composition of our bodies.

    By our earlier assumption that homosexuality is genetic, it therefore indicates one who is affected by homosexuality will not be attracted to people of their opposite sex and therefore will be unlikely to sexually reproduce and pass on their genes.

    We can define a genetic disorder as
    ' As homosexuality, under our assumption, is going against the regular genetic composition of a human being, it therefore proves homosexuality is a contradiction and shows it in fact is classed as a genetic disorder, by definition.
    There are three problems with this approach.

    1. There is nothing to suggest homosexuality is purely genetic. In fact, it is pretty safe to assume that there is a complex interplay of genetic and enviromental factors which individually increase predisposition, but none make someone attracted to the same sex. Sexuality is a complex concept, and people differ in the degree to which gender(s) they find attractive.To peg homosexuality to a simple genetic abnormality is ludicrous.

    2. Your starting with a flawed concept that mankind has a purpose. We have no purpose, and our reproduction is something emergent, not designed, so it is irrelevant as far as abnormalities and disorders go.

    3. A genetic disorder is either a disease, illness or likewise something pathological or negative.


    Your argument is that, by definition, homosexuality is a genetic disorder. You made three flawed assumptions, so your conclusion is wrong. While it may be homosexuality can described as an abnormal genetic state (if we assume it is purely genetic), it would be extremely difficult to describe it as a genetic disorder as it sometimes was.

    As far as medicine and science goes, quality of life is what defines disorders and diseases. The apparent purpose of passing on genetic material is irrelevant.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    A disorder, in the medical sense, needs to be both abnormal and maladaptive. If it was just about abnormality, then high intelligence would be a disorder. No, it needs to be both. Homosexuality isn't maladaptive, therefore it's not a disoder.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Homosexuality most likely does have a genetic basis to it; its prevalence across the animal kingdom suggests this to us. It leads us to hypothesise that therefore a certain predisposition to homosexuality must in some way be helpful to the genes that promote it. Though it is counter-intuitive in terms of the benefit to the individual, who will not be able to pass on his or her own genes, it is not so for the group: The gene will be shared amongst the tribe, such that all members hold a chance of becoming homosexual, and whoever happens to become so affords a benefit to the group that permits the gene to be passed on through others.

    One theory that I'm aware of for what this benefit might be is that it would be considered safe for men to leave their partners unsupervised with a homosexual man for protection, without there arising a risk of infidelity and therefore an ambiguity or uncertainty towards whether your children were actually yours or not. If a child is not yours, then your efforts to raise them would not be in the best interests of your own genes, but rather of another's, and so would be quickly selected out. In this way we are able to imagine scenarios in which homosexuality would be, to a certain degree, selected for and not against, and leads us to the conclusion that homosexuality is itself a part of human nature.

    Edit: All this explains though is a latent predisposition towards it, not what could actualise it during childhood or pubescent development. It is quite possible that a person hypothetically exposed during this period to certain stimuli would result in an increased likelihood of becoming homosexual. What these stimuli might be is disputed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    All you have theoretically proven is that any genetic trait that goes against the norm is a genetic disorder.

    You say our 'function' is to reproduce, I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

    "A lack of order or regular arrangement" does not fit as you have not proven homosexuality to have a lack of order or regular arrangement.

    Your whole argument is based on an assumption, which has not been verified, so therefore doesn't prove anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We know that homosexuality is not merely a preference, so I don't think it's naive to suggest that it is a genetic disorder?

    I'm not too sure I like using the word disorder in this sense because I think that it portrays some degree of homophobia, but I'm sure you understand what I mean?

    I think perhaps, a genetic predisposition would be a better term.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    We can define a genetic disorder as
    ' As homosexuality, under our assumption, is going against the regular genetic composition of a human being, it therefore proves homosexuality is a contradiction and shows it in fact is classed as a genetic disorder, by definition.
    If it is actually 'genetic', then by your definition we could indeed say it is a disorder as it does not follow the normal male-female reproduction pattern of 'order'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    There are three problems with this approach.

    1. There is nothing to suggest homosexuality is purely genetic. In fact, it is pretty safe to assume that there is a complex interplay of genetic and enviromental factors which individually increase predisposition, but none make someone attracted to the same sex. Sexuality is a complex concept, and people differ in the degree to which gender(s) they find attractive.To peg homosexuality to a simple genetic abnormality is ludicrous.

    2. Your starting with a flawed concept that mankind has a purpose. We have no purpose, and our reproduction is something emergent, not designed, so it is irrelevant as far as abnormalities and disorders go.

    3. A genetic disorder is either a disease, illness or likewise something pathological or negative.


    Your argument is that, by definition, homosexuality is a genetic disorder. You made three flawed assumptions, so your conclusion is wrong. While it may be homosexuality can described as an abnormal genetic state (if we assume it is purely genetic), it would be extremely difficult to describe it as a genetic disorder as it sometimes was.

    As far as medicine and science goes, quality of life is what defines disorders and diseases. The apparent purpose of passing on genetic material is irrelevant.
    well i have not stated homosexuality is genetic, i clearly made a hypothetical assumption as many people have openly declared homosexuality is genetic (i.e. people commonly say you cannot change/choose your sexuality). You seem to be denying this, would you like to explain.

    you are saying humans do not have a function? Are you really arguing that? You will find most biologists disagree with your claim (which you have presented without proof).

    And lastly you have contradicted your self. You mention quality of life, and completely disregard passing on genes. I think you need to research about this idea of logic before you post in my thread again, there would be no life without passing on genes so it cannot be disregarded.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    well i have not stated homosexuality is genetic, i clearly made a hypothetical assumption as many people have openly declared homosexuality is genetic (i.e. people commonly say you cannot change/choose your sexuality). You seem to be denying this, would you like to explain.
    Your hypothetical situation is as ridiculous as the (few) people who claim it is entirely (or mostly) genetic. While you didn't expressly say this, it is implied by your description as a genetic disorder, implying that genetics are a cause rather than a factor.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    you are saying humans do not have a function? Are you really arguing that? You will find most biologists disagree with your claim (which you have presented without proof)..
    Function and purpose are different things. But in either case, no self respecting scientist will claim humanity has a purpose or function, both imply a desired result or product, and there was no desired end point during our emergence. We were not created, thus no desired result.

    So to attribute some kind of purpose or function to our existence is purely an opinion.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    And lastly you have contradicted your self. You mention quality of life, and completely disregard passing on genes. I think you need to research about this idea of logic before you post in my thread again, there would be no life without passing on genes so it cannot be disregarded.
    I didn't contradict myself. Quality of life and passing on genetic material are two entirely separate issues. A disorder whereby someone is afraid of sex, is not a disorder because that person will not have children after all, but because of dysfunction in that person's life it may cause.

    The propagation of the species is irrelevant as far as personal medicine and psychology goes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Where's the research? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Where's the research? :confused:
    Was very disappointed to open this thread also and not discover any.

    Thought we were going to find out something new.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    well i have not stated homosexuality is genetic, i clearly made a hypothetical assumption as many people have openly declared homosexuality is genetic (i.e. people commonly say you cannot change/choose your sexuality). You seem to be denying this, would you like to explain.

    you are saying humans do not have a function? Are you really arguing that? You will find most biologists disagree with your claim (which you have presented without proof).

    And lastly you have contradicted your self. You mention quality of life, and completely disregard passing on genes. I think you need to research about this idea of logic before you post in my thread again, there would be no life without passing on genes so it cannot be disregarded.
    The problem with your reasoning is that you are assuming that there is absolutely no benefit to having homosexual individuals in the population, and that the vertical transfer of genes is completely linear.

    As a species we are extremely sociable which not only dictates your reproductive success but those around you, in your social groups. Lets suggest that homosexual individuals have their benefits in terms of structuring these social circles possibly by the strengthening of ties or even in the psycological development of children. These beneficial factors would lead to a specific group being more 'prosperous', groups that include relatives of the homosexual individuals and therefore a very similar gene pool.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You fellas that say it is counterproductive are missing the point that genes appear in females too.
    Let's say a female has the gene which makes her really attracted to males,
    If she were to then pass this on to a male child and he expressed this same gene he would be homosexual,
    Whereas passing it on to a female offspring who is very attracted to males will have it's advantages, in term of biology and survival of a species.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    So there is actually no new research.

    It is just you talking nonsense.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Why is every post that ever do on TSR on Homosexuality?

    The man doth protest too much, methinks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Why is every post that ever do on TSR on Homosexuality?

    The man doth protest too much, methinks.
    Er, homosexuality, Islam, religion in general, feminism... Er benefits, that's the gist of it
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    Er, homosexuality, Islam, religion in general, feminism... Er benefits, that's the gist of it
    What does this have to do with what I said?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sure they don't care what they're defined as as long as they're treated fine.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    It is a very simple proof.

    Let us assume (hypothetically) that homosexuality is genetic.

    ...

    We can define a genetic disorder as
    ' As homosexuality, under our assumption, is going against the regular genetic composition of a human being, it therefore proves homosexuality is a contradiction and shows it in fact is classed as a genetic disorder, by definition.
    This is by no means a revelation. This argument has been fielded many times before.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.