"Gay genes"

After seeing the success of civil rights movement championed by martin Luther king and Malcolm X gay activists tried to mimic it by declaring gay being an identity just like race. They claim that they are under unchangeable "gay genes" that propelled them towards homosexuality.

That claim is illogical. Why would evolution ever create such gene? There have been various attempts to explain the gay gene. One of the more prominent theory is that in cavemen time when time is bad the less dominant males will turn gay in order to stop reproduction so that his relatives (nephews, nieces) can have better chance of survival and at least those males can pass on their genes partially. The obvious question is if the time is bad and additional reproduction is not wise then why don't those male not reproduce i.e. because abstinent from sex? Most of the mammals only mate during a certain season so there is already a gene in mammals to turn off sexual urge and activities for an extended period of time. In many cases where external environment becomes too harsh, many mammal would skip a reproduction year/cycle. In order words the theory gays offer does not logically support gay genes. And their scenario mentioned above can only lead to periods of temporary abstinence rather than turning full out gay permanently.

And in animal world, gays claim, that you can find homosexual behaviors. That's true. However they always and intentionally did not mention the 2nd part which is those behaviors are temporary and are results of confusion, lack of experience to pin point a female, lack of dominance to fight and get a female, or a complete lack of female in a breeding population. There has NEVER been observed and proved of any instance where a male mammal knowing that he has full access to a mating female but deliberately choose a male to practice homosexual actives because it prefers male. NEVER has there been such observation. Once a mating female is introduced the male mammals in all such homosexual observations turned heterosexual. There has NEVER been a documented case of permanent homosexuality either. In other words homosexuality in mammal world in the wild is basically males can get females to have sex and they had to find some replacement such as trees or other males to hump. This is similar to having a un-neutered dog try to hump every guests that come to your house and also the sofa pillow. We've all seen and heard about things like this. Such behavior obviously does not mean bestiality is OK. If there is truly a gay gene then we should see this very evidently in primates where we should be able to scientifically observe that a significant percentage of primates (10-20%) are permanent and fully homosexual (i.e. intentionally reject a mating female in preference for a male instead) . Now since primates don't have any moral doctrine or church teaching so if this gay gene is present then it will show up in every primate groups i.e. everywhere you look. But as you all know there has NEVER been any documented mass OR permanent homosexuality in primates. So this means the gene is NOT present in primates as gays claim. Almost all human genes can be found in mammals so the lack of permanent gay genes in mammal is a good indication of no such gay gene in human.

third, it is politically incorrect and dangerous for anyone to fund researches that state gay genes do not exist. If I were to apply for a government grant to prove that gay is not genetic but rather a behavioral issue. Do you think I can get the grant? whoever giving the grant will be afraid of being called bigot, homophobic, hateful, use tax payer's money to fund intolerance, etc. that he will NEVER give me grant. In other words, the reason why you only see research paper that implies that there is a gay gene is because the research that show otherwise could never get any funding. And one must review carefully of those gay gene research to see the political bias of the researchers (for example, if the researcher is a big time liberal or even a gay), who's funding the research (don't tell me it's the GLBT organization), the type of research method (if their survey is done in san francisco, then of course 20% of male according to their "research" is gay), etc. Do NOT take any research paper on face value. Sadly scientific research now a days are being heavily influenced by political pressure. And also if a professor writes a research that states there is no gay gene, aside from lack of funding, he will get protested against and labeled as hate and bigot and get kicked out from his university. So there is alot of intimidation and that's why few dares to object or even provide research to prove that there is no gay gene.

You know in the early centuries when white people claim they have a superior traits or the white race is of superior breed. There were "scientific" research to show such crap. Anyone who object would be mocked, and precluded from the upper society. But now we know there is no such superior race/breed/traits. Same thing today, gays state there is a gay gene. Anyone who object will get mocked, protested against and "destroyed" politically and career-wise. But I bet in 10 years once the people are less eager to be politically correct then true science will show that there is no gay genes.

And so some may ask then "what about those studies that show there is correlation between some genes and being gay". Firstable assuming those studies are valid (see my point above about political driven or unscientific studies) we have to ask are those gene gay genes or personality genes that put individuals in situations where they are more likely to be gay. Let me explain. If I come up with a study stating that I found a CEO gene that if you have this gene then you are made to be a CEO and you are destined to be a CEO from the moment you are conceived. Anyone with common sense will know there is NO CEO genes. Rather the genes I isolated are most likely to be personality genes such as genes that make you stubborn/persistent (important quality to be successful), or genes for being very eloquent in talking (ability to bullshit your way up), or genes that make you like to delegate work to others (manager type). Having those genes PLUS the right environment and opportunities could significantly increase your chance of becoming a CEO but by no means it's a irreversible CEO gene that destine you to be a CEO. Same thing with a "pilot" gene. Well, there is no pilot gene but there are genes that make you much less prone to motion sickness, genes that suppresses fear for height, etc. that those genes, again, when combined with proper environment can increase your chance of being interested and becoming a pilot. So same thing I believe holds true with the "gay" gene and those studies that show correlations between being gay and have certain genes. For example, those genes they found could very likely be genes that makes a person very sensitive to rejection. So this group of guys who were rejected harshly by girls developed this fear and distaste for girls. But this by no means make them gays. But unfortunately due to lack of family support, common sense, or religious support, etc. some of them choose to approach males instead. That's why those scientists observed higher likelihood of being gay in those people , not because of an irreversible gay gene but rather a personality gene that combined with right situation (rejected by girls harshly, dysfunctional family, no friends, no religion, no community, hang out with certain group of people, etc.) can increase your chance turning into homosexuality. The other possibility is for that gene to be a personality gene of trying to be unique or trying to be someone else. You see many white boys trying to act black by dress up and talk and walk and act like African Americans all because they want to be "cool" like them but they actually look ridiculous. Well, people with this gene may also develop admiration for gays being so fashionable, so unique and different, so educated , and so rich that they intentionally or unintentionally tried to mimic them or even join them. Again, this is not a gay gene but a personality gene when combined with other personality traits and situations may significantly increase your change of going the wrong way. So you see those studies do NOT conclusively show that there is a gay gene but rather they show (if those studies are valid) that there care genes when combined with certain situations and opportunities and personalities could expose you to situations that may lead to homosexuality in today's society. If we live in 100 yrs ago these genes could just as likely to lead you into totally different things such as a monk or communists, who knows. So we must learn not to look at things superficially, but instead we need to take any findings and think beyond the obvious. I blame our public school systems for not teaching our children to think thoroughly or even think at all. That's why we ended up today with all those arrogant liberals who think they are smart but in actuality and in the eyes of people from other countries those liberals think very superficially.

Gay gene or no gay gene is really the minor point. the major point is that human beings have self control. I may have alcoholic genes but it does not excuse me for drinking excessively. I may have a violent gene but that will be no defense in court if I assault someone. I may even have a fat gene but being fat and heavy is still wrong. The point is the entire argument of gay gene is a moot and illogical approach to justify gay behaviors. Some liberal readers will say at this point that people all have different moral standards. True. That's why gays should not and cannot make a law to legalize gay marriage to force everyone who comply in their moral standards and their moral doctrine. You see? The message is: hey gay actistists, leave us americans alone!