There is no "gay gene" just as much as there is no "black gene" or "smart gene". Genetics is a complicated field where several small changes within the human genome can result in absolutely no difference, or a disastrous mutation.

Also, if it's impossible to base something's occurrence on biology because of a lack of genetic information, then the entire biology field is null and void. You're using very juvenile logic of you need to understand everything about a system to understand a small part of it. A child can learn basic addition without knowing calculus; a scientist can determine the extent of biological or environmental correlation without understanding the genetics. A very simple one would be identical twins. Identical twins are more likely than fraternal twins to share the same sexuality, who in turn are more likely than related siblings to share the same sexuality. Even when raised in separate environments, identical twins share their sexuality just as frequently than if they were raised together. The evidence to support a strong biological influence has been coming out steadily for a while now.

And using your logic, more individuals would have been homosexual in ancient times, as consensual homosexual relationships were not only common, but encouraged among males for the sake of developing "brotherhood". However, history shows that humanity not only survived through the ancient era, but didn't even have a decrease in population attributable to a lack of mating.

In addition, males will get an erection from having their prostate massaged. It's an organ that is not reachable except by sticking something into a male's anus. Using your logic, all males who receive a prostate exam are at risk of "contracting" homosexuality. Using your logic, people who masturbate extensively will become homosexual because they achieve pleasure through somebody of their own gender. The environment has routinely been proven to have little correlation with instances of homosexuality. You assume it does though, and fail to bring up proof to defend it. No matter how weak my evidence is, it's stronger than your base-less assumptions.

Homosexual relationships are documented in animal species. Look it up. There are animals that go their whole lives without mating with the other gender, and instead have a steady partner with another animal of the same gender.

Oracle:


I'm going to stop you right here. Race is genetic. There is a black gene, as well as a white gene. There are 3 major races in this world.

Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Each race contains distinct characteristics that define a person of that race. Characteristics like skin color, bone structure, and facial make-up.

The rest of what you said seems completely out of place. A lot of what you said doesn't contradict my arguments. So..
thanks for clarifying.



From your original comment...

"perhaps you would have a slightly more nuanced view"

I didn't say that wasn't my opinion, clearly it's my opinion. I just said that wasn't my only opinion. I'd be like declaring Einstein a creationist because he talks about God.



But it does... much of quantum theory is devoted to explaining the origins of our universe.



How about I fight your link with my link, aye?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/ny...uins.html?_r=0

So it seems that these penguins have "moved on". Perhaps conclusions of an animal's sexuality can be concluded by studying penguins in captivity. If that's the case, then I suppose we can conclude the sexuality is a choice. I mean, that seems apparent here doesn't it? One of the penguins decided to move on. In other words, decided to become heterosexual after being homosexual.


I don't understand how this is an argument for the upbringing of homosexuality by means of genetics? All I see is a genetic disorder that gives a male in extra x-chromosome which ultimately leads to feminine physical features. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, someone with the disorder is not any more likely to become gay than one without.

There isn't a gene that dictates race. You can quickly do any search and you will find that the concept of race as biologically defined among humans is horribly outdated. Race is a social construct.

As an example, would you say that a person of African descent is better suited to athletics because of their bone structure? Because that's significantly different from pre-Berlin Olympics thinking, because before then people believed that the "Negro race" was naturally inferior both physically and mentally to the "Caucasian race" and that it was destined for extinction. What caused this change in the perception of the "Negro race"? Because Jesse Ownes dominated track at the Olympics. Suddenly, all "evidence" pointed towards "Negros being more apt to physical work because they were more in tune with the primal aspects of nature".

In addition, 1920s basketball in America was dominated by what "race"? Give up? It was Jewish people. Who aren't actually defined by race by any distinct trait, but by religion, but that's just another reason to support race as a social construct. Regardless, people all said that Jewish people were more apt to play basketball because of their race (race established by religious belief rather than any physical difference), rather than Jewish men were growing up in a less privileged environment, where basketball was the predominant sport played. Rather than a biological reason, the reason was based on economics.

Second, a person can have white skin, but have a bone structure of somebody you might classify as a "Negroid". What determines their race then? Are they "Caucasian" because they are white? Or are they "Negroid" because their bone structure is more similar to that "race". It's also important to note the history behind some of these names. Caucasian only stands to mean white because the person who originated these terms believed that the most beautiful women came from the Caucus region of Russia. Is that the type of reasoning that should be dictating race?

And clearly you don't understand my arguments, because my arguments are routinely against your view. You argue homosexuality is illogical, I argue it is natural and perfectly logical given the biology behind it. You argue homosexuality is influenced by environment, I argue that environmental stimuli is documented to not change sexuality. So you need to either read closely, or bother to inform yourself about your own viewpoints.

There isn't 1 gene.. no. But genetic information is what dictates race among humans.

Outdated? What do you think causes a person to be black or white? It is not a social construct, the 3 major races that I pointed out are derived from location of origin of each race. Mongoloid (Asian region), Caucasian (European region), and Negroid (African region and the birth place of all humans). The rest, Latino, Eskimo, Native American, etc.. are all mixes of genetic code from these base 3 races.

Again... the rest of what you said seems completely out of place. Why are you talking about sports?