Posted by
Edmond Long on Monday, January 12, 2009 10:49:46 AM
With ultrasound technology, couples can know the sex of their child before birth. What is obvious immediately is the biologically-based sexual orientation of the little boy or girl. All of us are born pre-disposed to heterosexual behavior. We are designed physically and hot-wired emotionally and intellectually for heterosexuality. The choice of when or if to become sexually active is delayed until sexual maturity, but the expectation for such behavior, even before birth, given the obvious presence of a male and female sex organs, is normal.
The male sex organ has two functions: the discharge of urine and the ejaculation of semen. Female sex organs similarly have two functions as well: a point of entry to the uterus is available so sperm can be deposited for egg fertilization; and an exit point for the birth of a baby. All other uses or functions of these biological realities are subsidiary to their primary purposes. Ironically, no physical “proof” exists to indicate homosexuality. No one is born physically predisposed to homosexual behavior. In fact, behavior is the only indicator of homosexuality.
Having said that, let’s still consider the argument for a genetic basis for homosexuality. What would be some logical implications of a genetic basis for homosexuality? Well, first of all, we would need to identify some genes. First, we would need a female gene, say A. Second, a male gene, B, would be required. Obviously, these genes are imbedded in all human (and other animal DNA). Further, to establish the genetic basis for homosexuality, two other categories would be required. First, heterosexual genes, peculiar to the two sexes would need to exist: AB (girl/boy) and BA (boy/girl). Second, we would need homosexual genes specific to each sex: AA (girl/girl) and BB (boy/boy).
Having established our genes, we now must look to the implications. First and foremost, we rightly assume procreation as the major and sole function of heterosexuality. Boys and girls get together in order to make babies. Except in the case of infertility, every time a male and a female engage in intercourse, a baby can be produced. Thus, we practice birth-control.
Such is not the case for homosexuals. No two men engaging in anal sex (I do not consider anal sex to be intercourse) can produce a baby. Nor are two female homosexuals capable of producing a child since no form of true intercourse exists for two women. So, producing a child is not and cannot be a function of homosexuality. We therefore must conclude homosexual sex is primarily recreational
But, back to genetics. Since homosexuals are said to make up between 1 - 3 percent of the overall population, we must conclude the heterosexual gene is predominant. Yet, if homosexuality is genetic, the AA and BB genes are imbedded in all human DNA. At any time, any heterosexual couple could produce a homosexual child.
Two considerations come to mind. First, if homosexuality is genetic, and the gene is imbedded in human DNA (Do other primates have homosexual genes?), then such a gene could replace the heterosexual gene and become the dominant gene. Surely, if the gene exists, over time, more and more homosexuals will be born. What if a particular group of humans starting producing more homosexual children than heterosexual. Would that group face extinction?
We must ask, as well, if homosexuality is genetic, would not the children produced by a male homosexual and a female homosexual stand a greater chance of being born homosexual? Such is the case with other genetic traits: eye color, hair color, skin pigmentation, height, body size, etc. African-American couples are no more likely to produce a blue-eyed, blond-headed, fair-skinned child than a Caucasian couple has of producing a child with decidedly Asian physical traits. If homosexuality is genetic, and thus normal, why would homosexuals not want to increase the chances of more of their tribe being born