• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is gayness a birth defect?

What do you think that article is proving, exactly? In your own words. Because I don't think it is saying what you think it is. Nor is that article very in-depth.

The article is saying that scientists are looking at why this trait may be so widespread in the animal kingdom. When something is this widespread, usually there is a good reason for it. There have been some intriguing new developments in research in this area. It doesn't matter exactly what those are- if you are interested in exploring this topic further, the article goes into it a little more, and you can google it. There are even whole books on it.
 
Is there a reason you avoided my question?

I thought I answered it: it may impede the individual's likelihood to reproduce, but improve the species' likelihood as a whole. So the gene gets propogated in the recessive mode through kin selection.

Evolution and natural selection don't care about individuals- only the species as a whole.
 
Again, my only claim is that--per the OP--homosexuality is not a birth defect as there is no known genetic source for homosexuality. Now a new discovery tomorrow could prove me wrong but--thus far--any studies, etc. that "prove" a biological cause have--thus far--been discredited. Today there is no know "gay gene".
By the same logic, there is no proof that it isn’t a birth defect, so I’m not sure why you’ve decided it can’t be until proven otherwise.
 
Well, now we know how the right wing will justify 'rehabilitation' of gayness.
 
I thought I answered it: it may impede the individual's likelihood to reproduce, but improve the species' likelihood as a whole. So the gene gets propogated in the recessive mode through kin selection.

Evolution and natural selection don't care about individuals- only the species as a whole.
That’s reasonable.
 
Again, my only claim is that--per the OP--homosexuality is not a birth defect as there is no known genetic source for homosexuality. Now a new discovery tomorrow could prove me wrong but--thus far--any studies, etc. that "prove" a biological cause have--thus far--been discredited. Today there is no know "gay gene".

That's not quite accurate. There are many candidate genes already found linked to the behavior.

"In a study of data from hundreds of thousands of people, researchers have now identified genetic patterns that could be associated with homosexual behaviour, and showed how these might also help people to find different-sex mates, and reproduce. The authors say their findings, published on 23 August in Nature Human Behaviour1, could help to explain why genes that predispose people to homosexuality continue to be passed down. "
 
I understand there is no “gay gene.” I was speaking figuratively to that genetic component.

Do you agree that component expresses a trait that could be called “unsuccessful” in a Darwinian sense?
No. The trait still exists and is expressed. It has not impeded or been detrimental to the population.
 
The original question is:
The answer is, no!
I could honestly not care less who people have sex with, what their orientation is, or whether they reproduce or not. But my opinion stands that from a biological reproductive standpoint, yes. It could be considered a birth defect.
Still incorrect then.
If you breed dogs, for instance, and your puppy is "gay" then you will no longer have a breeding line from that dog. Biology is biology.
That doesn't preclude the possibility of procreation. But since gays are born presumably from heterosexual couples, then procreation regarding homosexuals is rather irrelevant.
 
In the sense that if you are gay, you cannot biologically reproduce without scientific intervention, then yes. It is.

2 gay biological men cannot reproduce.
2 gay biological women cannot reproduce.
In the sense that if you are gay, you cannot biologically reproduce with a person of the same sex period, with or without scientific intervention. However being gay does not stop one physically from having sex with a person of the opposite sex in order to procreate. Simply because a man is only sexually attracted to other men, does not mean he is repulsed by the idea of sex with a woman, especially if it is purely for reproductive purposes. The same hold true for a gay woman. Reproduction is not a requirement for sex nor marriage. Any argument of reproduction in the context of who should have sex or get married is a red herring.
 
The original question is:



My answer was and stands as:

I could honestly not care less who people have sex with, what their orientation is, or whether they reproduce or not. But my opinion stands that from a biological reproductive standpoint, yes. It could be considered a birth defect.

If you breed dogs, for instance, and your puppy is "gay" then you will no longer have a breeding line from that dog. Biology is biology.
That analogy still fails in that humans are thinking beings and can choose to do things that do not attract them, or even that repulses them, if the payoff is significant enough for them. A gay human can still choose to reproduce even though they cannot choose what sex attracts them.
 
No. The trait still exists and is expressed. It has not impeded or been detrimental to the population.
You’re missing the point. It’s not that trait is deterimental to the population. The trait is detrimental to itself.
 
You’re missing the point. It’s not that trait is deterimental to the population. The trait is detrimental to itself.
Wrong, but also irrelevant.
 
You’re missing the point. It’s not that trait is deterimental to the population. The trait is detrimental to itself.
Please expand upon that.
 
No, it's not. Neither have you demonstrated that.
You have this curious habit of making arguments you disagree with evaporate from your memory. I’ve made my points in this thread, and you can agree with them or not.
 
My whole input here was to simply say that homosexuality is not a birth defect for the very simple reason that it is not genetic. And why would I say that? Because there is simply no evidence for it.

Everything else is simple supposition.
Facts matter,
The biology of sexual orientation has been one of the most vexing — and politically charged — questions in human genetics. For the first time, researchers have found associations between homosexuality and markers attached to DNA that can be influenced by environmental factors.
Twin studies and family trees provide strong evidence that sexual orientation is at least partly genetic. When one identical twin is gay, there is about a 20% chance that the other will be as well1. But because this rate is not 100%, it is thought that environmental factors play a role as well. One of the best characterized is the 'older brother effect': the chance of a man being gay increases by 33% for each older brother he has2. The reason is not clear, although one hypothesis holds that the mother’s immune system begins to react against male antigens and alter the fetus’s development.
To search for factors that could mediate a link between environment and genes, geneticist Eric Vilain at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and his colleagues looked at epigenetic markers — chemical changes to DNA that affect how genes are expressed, but not the information they contain. These 'epi-marks' can be inherited, but can also be altered by environmental factors such as smoking, and are not always shared by identical twins.
The researchers collected DNA samples in saliva from 37 pairs of identical twins in which only one twin was gay, and 10 pairs in which both were gay. By scanning the twins’ epigenomes, the researchers found five epi-marks that were more common among the gay men than in their genetically identical straight brothers. An algorithm they developed based on the five epi-marks could correctly predict the sexual orientation of men in the study 67% of the time. UCLA computational geneticist Tuck Ngun will present the work on 8 October at the American Society of Human Genetics meeting in Baltimore, Maryland.

Vilain is not surprised to find that epigenetics is associated with sexual orientation, although he says it is too early to try to directly link the epi-marks to any particular environmental exposure or the expression of a specific gene. Ngun says that the researchers want to replicate the study in a different group of twins and also determine whether the same marks are more common in gay men than in straight men in a large and diverse population. Associations found in small studies are prone to evaporate when tested in larger groups.
 
In a strictly biological (and Darwinian) sense, yes, of course it’s a birth defect.

While “survival of the fittest” is often given as a the tag line for natural selection, a more accurate summary would be “he who leaves the most genes in the next generation wins.” The biological purpose of sex is procreation, and being sexually attracted to someone of the same gender is akin to designing a weapon that will never hit its target. From the standpoint of a gene’s survival, homosexuality is useless.

But then again, so what?

See post 289. You speak of that which you do not know.
 
In the sense that if you are gay, you cannot biologically reproduce without scientific intervention, then yes. It is.
2 gay biological men cannot reproduce.
2 gay biological women cannot reproduce.

Gays have been reproducing biologically for centuries. Actively choosing to do so. See my previous posts. Or not 🤷
 
You’re missing the point. It’s not that trait is deterimental to the population. The trait is detrimental to itself.

It's not. See post 289 and someone else posted a link to source it, I forget who.
 
You’re missing the point. It’s not that trait is deterimental to the population. The trait is detrimental to itself.
How is being gay detrimental to itself? This is hilarious. Gay people are made by heterosexual couples at a rate of about 5 per 100. Gay couples do not produce LGBT people.

Gay people are not infertile. Both gay male and lesbian couples can reproduce with the aid of surrogates or sperm donors.
 
Last edited:
How is being gay dertminel to itself? This is hilarious. Gay people are made by heterosexual couples at a rate of about 5 per 100. Gay couples do not produce LGBT people.
The premise is that there's a genetic component to being gay, which is only speculation If there is such a component, then that genetic trait is detrimental to itself in the same way a genetic predisposition to avoiding all sex would be.
 
The premise is that there's a genetic component to being gay, which is only speculation If there is such a component, then that genetic trait is detrimental to itself in the same way a genetic predisposition to avoiding all sex would be.
There isn't a genetic component. Its epigenetic. You dont seem to understand biology very well.

Gay people dont make more gay people. Gay people are made by heterosexuals. Gay people aren't a threat to the existence of the human species. Gay couple can reproduce if they choose to by various methods, but the odds are that are offspring will be heterosexual.

Being gay is biologically recessive.
 
Back
Top Bottom