The entire "gay gene" (the isolation of genetic code which biologically dictates sexual preference) is a topic of debate even among top geneticists, so it is one which should not be debated here given the (assumed) lack of PhD level genetic knowledge in the user base. Rather, we should be looking at the solid facts which are considered cannon among medical professionals (both physical and mental medical practitioners).
It has been shown time and time again that *most* people who are deemed to be homosexual have had this preclusion for their entire life. It is likened to asking a heterosexual person when they "discovered" that they liked members of the opposite sex. The typical answer? "I didnt discover it, I've always liked members of the opposite sex!" Or, at the very least whenever they become sexually aware and started noticing members of the opposite sex. The main point being that there was some sort of built in mechanism for them to be precluded to liking members of the opposite sex. I am sure this is something that every heterosexual person can agree to. It wasnt a "choice" that they are attracted to members of the opposite sex... They just "are".
To bring us back on point, the same can be said about homosexuals. Studies have shown time and time again that they answer in the same way. When did they know that they liked others of the same sex? Either they always have so soon after they started noticing people in an attractive/sexual context.
You also have the scientific evidence which shows that basically every type of mammal (as well as many many others which are not mamals), be it monkeys, dolphins or dogs have been shown to have "homosexual" members. Animals which for no reason other then their own "nature" try to mate with those of the same sex. Now, I highly doubt this is an active decision on the dog's part.
Of course there are always exceptions to every rule. There are those which may not have some natural tendency to be "gay" but as as such, because of environmental factors like sexual abuse, they have adopted those tendencies. People classified in this manner should be taken into account on a separate level from the majority. It would be like saying that just because there are people who get abnormally obese from eating McDonalds 5 times a day, every day for years on end, there arent people who have some sort of biological influence which predisposes them to becoming obese even though they dont eat such an unhealthy diet. In a nut shell, just because we dont have a word or classification to differentiate between someone who was biologically influenced and someone who was environmentally influenced, doesnt mean that there isnt a difference between the two.
As for the pedophile comment, that is a completely different classification of people. The same can be said about bestiality, necrophilia, and so on. These are all brought about by external factors, and as such these are classified as "disorders" by the APA, where as homosexuality is not (it was dropped as a classified "disorder" in 1973). There is no proof or even studies which show these "disorders" (pedophilia, et al) to be innate to people through some biological mechanism. Ultimately meaning that pedophilia is proven to be a learned behaviour no matter what NAMBLA wants us to believe. There really is no debate on this among respected scientists, unlike homosexuality.
In any case, to bring things full circle... While there may or may not be a "gene" responsible for predicating someone towards homosexuality, there is in all odds some sort of biological influence. Theories and studies are abound which cite things such as that lack of or excess hormones during birth can predicate someone towards liking others of the same sex. There doesnt need to be a specific gene for this to be a "natural" occurrence in other words.
It has been shown time and time again that *most* people who are deemed to be homosexual have had this preclusion for their entire life. It is likened to asking a heterosexual person when they "discovered" that they liked members of the opposite sex. The typical answer? "I didnt discover it, I've always liked members of the opposite sex!" Or, at the very least whenever they become sexually aware and started noticing members of the opposite sex. The main point being that there was some sort of built in mechanism for them to be precluded to liking members of the opposite sex. I am sure this is something that every heterosexual person can agree to. It wasnt a "choice" that they are attracted to members of the opposite sex... They just "are".
To bring us back on point, the same can be said about homosexuals. Studies have shown time and time again that they answer in the same way. When did they know that they liked others of the same sex? Either they always have so soon after they started noticing people in an attractive/sexual context.
You also have the scientific evidence which shows that basically every type of mammal (as well as many many others which are not mamals), be it monkeys, dolphins or dogs have been shown to have "homosexual" members. Animals which for no reason other then their own "nature" try to mate with those of the same sex. Now, I highly doubt this is an active decision on the dog's part.
Of course there are always exceptions to every rule. There are those which may not have some natural tendency to be "gay" but as as such, because of environmental factors like sexual abuse, they have adopted those tendencies. People classified in this manner should be taken into account on a separate level from the majority. It would be like saying that just because there are people who get abnormally obese from eating McDonalds 5 times a day, every day for years on end, there arent people who have some sort of biological influence which predisposes them to becoming obese even though they dont eat such an unhealthy diet. In a nut shell, just because we dont have a word or classification to differentiate between someone who was biologically influenced and someone who was environmentally influenced, doesnt mean that there isnt a difference between the two.
As for the pedophile comment, that is a completely different classification of people. The same can be said about bestiality, necrophilia, and so on. These are all brought about by external factors, and as such these are classified as "disorders" by the APA, where as homosexuality is not (it was dropped as a classified "disorder" in 1973). There is no proof or even studies which show these "disorders" (pedophilia, et al) to be innate to people through some biological mechanism. Ultimately meaning that pedophilia is proven to be a learned behaviour no matter what NAMBLA wants us to believe. There really is no debate on this among respected scientists, unlike homosexuality.
In any case, to bring things full circle... While there may or may not be a "gene" responsible for predicating someone towards homosexuality, there is in all odds some sort of biological influence. Theories and studies are abound which cite things such as that lack of or excess hormones during birth can predicate someone towards liking others of the same sex. There doesnt need to be a specific gene for this to be a "natural" occurrence in other words.
