A lot of the arguments saying that you can't be born Gay seem to invoke the "It's useless for evolution so it can't exist" argument. So I'm just gonna make this little post here:

We have an appendix, and some people have sickle cell disease. One of those is unnecessary now, but it's still there. The other one is a potentially fatal condition, and it still exists. I do t have a degree or anything, but I'm pretty sure that evolution isn't everything that serves no purpose being eliminated.

Besides, mutations exist. They're, you know, the reason we aren't amoebas.

I don't think 'the gay gene' would be useless at all, or at least, not any more useless than any other gene. But what's interesting about it is, the gay gene selects itself for omission in sexual reproduction. That is a very high evolutionary hill to climb.

I really don't think being gay is anything that can be determined by genetics. Or if it is, I highly doubt there is a single, isolated gay gene. Like height, I would assume it's affected by a range of other genes.

Anyway, I guess it's the same as asking why some people like the color green and why some don't. Why do most people like the opposite gender? Why are most people right-handed? And remember there are bisexual people, as well as asexual or any other sexual denomination.

As for the born with it vs. chose it argument, again, who the hell knows. But I dont find it odd that people could just choose their sexuality. It's like choosing the person you like... If you introduce me to someone, I either feel an attraction or I don't. Sure the feelings can change, but it certainly feels outside of my control. Unless I'm making some kind of unconscious choice. I don't know. But like any of our other preferences, not just the sexual ones I mean, they don't seem to be chosen.

But wait, if it can't be determined by genetics, and it isn't a choice, then what the hell is it? O__o Environmental factors, maybe? Maybe our genes make us more responsive to environmental factos that turn us gay? What? I just confused myself.

Anyway... I kinda very vaguely remember picking up a pencil in preschool, testing out both hands and just picking my left. That's also what happened with guitar... Actually I play Guitar Hero left-handed but I play the real guitar right-handed. Is sexual orientation that simple? Maybe.

Anyway, DAMN. Sorry for my rambling; I know I haven't made one argument. Just thinking out loud. Whatever. I'll just... er, yeah. *backs out slowly*

<Snipped quote by Keyguyperson>

I don't think 'the gay gene' would be useless at all, or at least, not any more useless than any other gene. But what's interesting about it is, the gay gene selects itself for omission in sexual reproduction. That is a very high evolutionary hill to climb.

Apparently, it's been linked to sex drive in women, for homosexual men at least; apparently there's a higher rate of reproduction among the female relatives of gay men according to a study in Italy. I didn't go nailing down the study's sources or trying to figure out any of the science behind it because, quite frankly, that's not my job and I don't have all the free time in the world to worry about it.

I doubt there's a single gene that would determine someone's sexuality. I feel that levels of hormones (completely outside our control) could maybe be a factor in sexuality and sexual identity, because chemistry seems to have a pretty profound effect on us. I don't know if that relies on a single gene, but I'm going to guess that things like how much estrogen or testosterone or anything else that we produce is probably going to rest on a multitude of genes. Plus, different chemicals probably interfere with our lives in ways we have no idea of yet. It's a pretty interesting discussion for me because I like biology (never said I'm good at it), but I'm in the camp that it doesn't really matter why people aren't straight; they deserve human rights just as much as any straight person.

As for evolution, it hasn't been selected against to such a degree that gay people don't exist, so perhaps it serves some purpose, or perhaps it's just there in the gene pool and doesn't cause enough harm that natural selection would have struck it out.

Very relevant podcast that covers several topics relating to gender identity in depth;

Every sex gender term explained

Science says there are more than two genders

Does gender even matter?

I feel like the gender conversation has went of the rails. It seems to be hip for to people imagine popular gender construction as fixed stereotypes and assume that any deviation from a stereotype equals a new gender.

I feel like the gender conversation has went of the rails. It seems to be hip to people imagine popular gender construction as fixed stereotypes and assume that any deviation from a stereotype equals a new gender.

I've been called racist by bluntly stating that there is male or female, and there isn't such thing as a middle gender.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

I've been called racist by bluntly stating that there is male or female, and there isn't such thing as a middle gender.

Xenophobic, Mars, and Venus.

@ArenaSnow Except there are literally intersex people. There are plenty of people who exist and are literally neither male or female bodied.

Not only that, but being male or female bodied is something completely distinct from your gender.

It doesn't make you racist, but if you are outright looking at someone who doesn't identify as strictly male and telling them that they're just wrong it's pretty easy to see how someone could be hurt by that and lash out.

Gender and biological sex are distinct, but only in a brain-body sense. I mean, gender identity is a shadow of biological sex, hence why people who have gender-identity issues also have body-dimorphism.

But I think the issue with the modern concept of gender is that we start taking the social constructs too seriously. Because gender-identity comes with social constructs, people seem to enjoy believing that the social constructs themselves are in fact are what gender is, which doesn't quite fly. Gender is identifying emotionally with a biological sex. You can't really make new genders to fit sexes that don't exist. You can create new social constructs, and you'll hear people sometimes talk about older social constructs like they were third genders, but all in all its just a different place in the pecking order of the already existent genders, only as deep as the difference between a 'Tom girl' and a 'Girly girl'.

Gender and biological sex are distinct, but only in a brain-body sense. I mean, gender identity is a shadow of biological sex, hence why people who have gender-identity issues also have body-dimorphism.

But I think the issue with the modern concept of gender is that we start taking the social constructs too seriously. Because gender-identity comes with social constructs, people seem to enjoy believing that the social constructs themselves are in fact are what gender is, which doesn't quite fly. Gender is identifying emotionally with a biological sex. You can't really make new genders to fit sexes that don't exist. You can create new social constructs, and you'll hear people sometimes talk about older social constructs like they were third genders, but all in all its just a different place in the pecking order of the already existent genders, only as deep as the difference between a 'Tom girl' and a 'Girly girl'.

You know, they used to teach us just math and reading and shit in school.

The one thing I absolutely hate about this whole issue is the fact that love is often confused with sexuality and often it is economics that gets in the way of the issue.

So on to my first point, I feel that so often it seems that love gets confused with sex. There is a reason that the Greek language has several different versions of love while the poor English language just has one. Greek has at least 4 versions of love Agápe [Brotherly love, wanting the best for that person], Éros [Sexual love/Romantic], Philia [Essentially friendship], and Storge [Mostly family relationship type love]. People often get upset with each other because unfortunately most people instantly jump to Éros version of love when they think about relationships between two women or two men which does not have to be the case. Society is so preoccupied with sex they forget what 'real' relationships are.

Well this is coming from someone who thinks that homosexual sex is a bad idea as our biology is not made to work that way plus there is often a higher risk of certain diseases or just tissue damage from such acts. Well I am also a Christian so there is that, though in that case I think God knew such activity could easily damage the body and therefore knew we should keep away from it. God does not delight in suffering and unlike a lot of mainstream Christians I do not believe in a Hell that burns sinners for all eternity, instead it is merely an absolute end like an eternal, dark sleep.

Well on to my second point. Frankly one of the biggest reasons for this debate is the whole issue of economics and property rights. The US system set itself up for this by giving married heterosexual couples more financial support, hospital visit rights, etc, than homosexual couples in 'civil unions'. So instead of trying to get 'civil unions' up to par with marriage they just decided to expand marriage to include homosexuals as well. This would not have been such a mess if the government had separated 'civil unions' to be the financial way for partners to support themselves and left 'marriage' as a religious affirmation of the union between the two partners. But the US never did that and instead left 'civil unions' as an inferior type of marriage so this is the result, making both sides feel that the other is trying to destroy them.

People need to remember that we can love all without Éros which is only one form of love.

Eh, hope that made sense to people. This is one of those topics that are hard to formulate an answer to properly.


Oh and I am a firm believer that while having homosexual feelings are not always a choice for people, engaging in any sexual activity is certainly a choice. Let people have the choice to make their own decisions, which is what God did for humanity, though I wish marriage had not been caught up in the issue which I do believe is a Man and Woman only institution. *Sigh* if only we could have avoided this mess with government based 'civil unions' and religious based 'marriages'.

Gender is identifying emotionally with a biological sex.

*Unless you don't.

---

The one thing I absolutely hate about this whole issue is the fact that love is often confused with sexuality and often it is economics that gets in the way of the issue.

So on to my first point, I feel that so often it seems that love gets confused with sex. There is a reason that the Greek language has several different versions of love while the poor English language just has one. Greek has at least 4 versions of love Agápe [Brotherly love, wanting the best for that person], Éros [Sexual love/Romantic], Philia [Essentially friendship], and Storge [Mostly family relationship type love]. People often get upset with each other because unfortunately most people instantly jump to Éros version of love when they think about relationships between two women or two men which does not have to be the case. Society is so preoccupied with sex they forget what 'real' relationships are.

Oh the Greeks! Have you ever read The Symposium by Plato? A popular theory that arose is described by Aristophanes-- essentially each of us is half of a whole being; some of us are men/women, some of us are women/women, and some of us are men/men. In the beginning Zeus cut each of us in half, which is why we spend our lives looking for our other half to make ourselves whole. It didn't matter whether or not the pairing was homosexual or not when it came to finding Éros.

"our biology is not made to work that way"

Wow I've never met someone who had zero exposure to modern medicine before.

Well on to my second point. Frankly one of the biggest reasons for this debate is the whole issue of economics and property rights. The US system set itself up for this by giving married heterosexual couples more financial support, hospital visit rights, etc, than homosexual couples in 'civil unions'. So instead of trying to get 'civil unions' up to par with marriage they just decided to expand marriage to include homosexuals as well. This would not have been such a mess if the government had separated 'civil unions' to be the financial way for partners to support themselves and left 'marriage' as a religious affirmation of the union between the two partners. But the US never did that and instead left 'civil unions' as an inferior type of marriage so this is the result, making both sides feel that the other is trying to destroy them.

Even if Civil Unions were equal in every way to Marriage, this would still need to happen. 'Civil Unions' were like telling people 'Oh, you can get married, but you can't call yourself married! That's our word. You are Civil Union-ed, you are not actually allowed to participate in this historical institution of love between two people!' The very concept of Civil Unions are a petty and childish political move.

Original Question

Oh and I am a firm believer that while having homosexual feelings are not always a choice for people, engaging in any sexual activity is certainly a choice. Let people have the choice to make their own decisions, which is what God did for humanity, though I wish marriage had not been caught up in the issue which I do believe is a Man and Woman only institution. *Sigh* if only we could have avoided this mess with government based 'civil unions' and religious based 'marriages'.

Except marriage is a Pagan institution appropriated by the Church.
Like most things about Christianity.

Oh the Greeks! Have you ever read The Symposium by Plato? A popular theory that arose is described by Aristophanes-- essentially each of us is half of a whole being; some of us are men/women, some of us are women/women, and some of us are men/men. In the beginning Zeus cut each of us in half, which is why we spend our lives looking for our other half to make ourselves whole. It didn't matter whether or not the pairing was homosexual or not when it came to finding Éros.

The Greeks had many popular theories such as the one described; however, even if the Greeks are a 'classical' civilization they were hardly the first. In any event this does not get in the way of the original point at all being that not every kind of love is Éros.

Wow I've never met someone who had zero exposure to modern medicine before.

Humans are biologically programmed to be male and female, sure things can get messed up because of various factors but no one can argue that humans are sexual beings, as opposed to asexual or whatever. But I digress, as someone who has grown up around doctors and the medical field your statement is completely faulty. Yes some people are born with both sets or whatever but as far as medical science is concerned that is a mutation or the result of faulty DNA. In any case everyone has choice to decide what to do with their own circumstances.

Even if Civil Unions were equal in every way to Marriage, this would still need to happen. 'Civil Unions' were like telling people 'Oh, you can get married, but you can't call yourself married! That's our word. You are Civil Union-ed, you are not actually allowed to participate in this historical institution of love between two people!' The very concept of Civil Unions are a petty and childish political move.

Maybe, yet the concept would take care of many of the issues that cause problems. Everyone is so worried about equality that they forget the fundamental fact that there is inequality in the world. Everyone is different but instead people try to ignore that fact by saying we're all the same. We are all children of God and are equally precious in His eyes but the plain fact of this world is that equality is a myth. No matter how hard they try it will never be the same even if it is called the same.

Except marriage is a Pagan institution appropriated by the Church.
Like most things about Christianity.

There was marriage long before Christianity was around so I find much at fault with your statement; however, you are right in that fact that many pagan influences have effected and entered Christianity. The Catholic Church in particular was adept at incorporating the culture of an area to make the transition from the natives old lives toward their Christian ones easier to do. Still there is no evidence that marriage has pagan roots, especially since the Jews practiced marriage from way before hand. Also if you consider Adam and Eve as being marriage, even from the beginning of human existence.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>
*Unless you don't.

The operative word is A. Doesn't have to be your own. Any other definition of gender (besides perhaps agendered) is going to almost certainly going to be a convoluted description of something entirely different and unrelated to gender.

Except marriage is a Pagan institution appropriated by the Church.
Like most things about Christianity.

Something tells me they appropriated theirs from the Jews. Probably not intentionally either. More like, if you are a Christian who wants to get married the logical thing to do so is to work in the rights of the new religion.

The Greeks had many popular theories such as the one described; however, even if the Greeks are a 'classical' civilization they were hardly the first. In any event this does not get in the way of the original point at all being that not every kind of love is Éros.

Sure, but it does contradict your implication that Éros can only be felt between a man and a woman, and all us gays in every instance ever are just pretending to feel something beyond strong friendship.

Humans are biologically programmed to be male and female

*unless you're intersex

sure things can get messed up because of various factors but no one can argue that humans are sexual beings, as opposed to asexual or whatever.

Oh, I totally can. What with the fact that there are literally asexual people alive right now.

But I digress, as someone who has grown up around doctors and the medical field your statement is completely faulty. Yes some people are born with both sets or whatever but as far as medical science is concerned that is a mutation or the result of faulty DNA. In any case everyone has choice to decide what to do with their own circumstances.

Human beings' thumbs, brains, and ability to speak, think, and understand is also the result of faulty DNA.

Maybe, yet the concept would take care of many of the issues that cause problems. Everyone is so worried about equality that they forget the fundamental fact that there is inequality in the world. Everyone is different but instead people try to ignore that fact by saying we're all the same. We are all children of God and are equally precious in His eyes but the plain fact of this world is that equality is a myth. No matter how hard they try it will never be the same even if it is called the same.

You fix inequality by trying to create equality.

There was marriage long before Christianity was around so I find much at fault with your statement; however, you are right in that fact that many pagan influences have effected and entered Christianity. The Catholic Church in particular was adept at incorporating the culture of an area to make the transition from the natives old lives toward their Christian ones easier to do. Still there is no evidence that marriage has pagan roots, especially since the Jews practiced marriage from way before hand. Also if you consider Adam and Eve as being marriage, even from the beginning of human existence.

Marriage predates all three Abrahamic religions and recorded human history entirely. Early man would participate in bonding rituals to join two people from separate families and strengthen clans overall. It was just a thing the Church adopted because people were already doing it-- to me that says that people should decide how they want to see marriage evolve, not a religious institution.

Also, Adam and Eve never got married, and if they did it'd technically be incestuous. Since Eve was basically just Adam's r63'd clone.

Also, Adam and Eve never got married

Well no, they didn't have any wedding guests yet. And where are you going to get prime rib when all the cows are your good friends?

Sure, but it does contradict your implication that Éros can only be felt between a man and a woman, and all us gays in every instance ever are just pretending to feel something beyond strong friendship.

Actually, I never implied that people of the same sex can't feel Éros for each other. The point I was trying to get at is there are different types of love and not everyone that is trying to get married is doing it for the Éros aspect. There are plenty of people who want to get married because its a good arrangement, not because they want to have a romantic relationship with each other. For example two best friends might decide since they are best buds and want to share everything together but find a Civil Union is not enough so decide to get married instead. Best friends for life but might never cross the line.

Oh, I totally can. What with the fact that there are literally asexual people alive right now.

Whoops, I meant that in terms of asexual reproduction, not the fact that they feel little to no sexual drive which is asexual, my mistake there.

Human beings' thumbs, brains, and ability to speak, think, and understand is also the result of faulty DNA.

Hardly, since I do not believe the current human race is a result of Evolution. Yes, DNA is what makes us who we are down to our hair color, but faulty DNA creates bad results.

You fix inequality by trying to create equality.

We can certainly try but there are some things impossible because of how we are. Generally we should try to fix such things but at times just cannot be done. For example a homosexual couple can never create a child on their own and need outside help so by default such a couple has to be treated differently by either adopting or even artificial insemination if they are female. The point is there are some things which are impossible to circumvent.

Marriage predates all three Abrahamic religions and recorded human history entirely. Early man would participate in bonding rituals to join two people from separate families and strengthen clans overall. It was just a thing the Church adopted because people were already doing it-- to me that says that people should decide how they want to see marriage evolve, not a religious institution.

Also, Adam and Eve never got married, and if they did it'd technically be incestuous. Since Eve was basically just Adam's r63'd clone.

Incestuousness became a thing because human DNA is strange and will brake down more easily if it combines with a very similar gene pool, leading to disease, weakness, and potentially fatal mutations. Reminds me of the old European royal families who intermarried all the time and most of us know how well that worked out, lol. Back when humanity was first created Adam and Eve had nearly perfect DNA so there was no problem with having offspring together. Somewhat quickly after that time though it became apparent that humanity needed to diversify its gene pool to prevent quick degradation. Also when you're the only two human beings on the planet, not really much choice if you want to continue the line.

Also if you believe in the creation then marriage obviously, was in essence, created by God, since he made a male and female, put them together and said to multiply. In the end, in any society to expand the population it makes sense to try and encourage heterosexual coupling over anything else. Now looking at it from an Evolutionary view point[which I don't believe] there is no reason for a society to encourage anything other than the traditional view of marriage, as too much away from that norm could break it down and weaken it over time.