SHOCK NEWS- On the 23rd February in Oxford University Richard Dawkins delcared himself to be an Agnostic ! WOW ! (google and see yourself.) And here we are thinking Dawkins was the Furher of the Atheist movement ! Maybe in a few more years he might conceed to Christianity like another former atheist C.S Lewis !
I wish that people could understand the difference between a Christian believing that homosexuality is sinful, and a Christian hating someone. I believe that lying is sinful too, but I don't hate liars. I believe that prostitution is sinful too, but I don't hate prostitutes. Just because you think something is wrong does not mean that you automatically hate those who do it.
@MPWorthMcEwan I am gay. And, I would agree with you that it doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean that just because you think something is wrong, that it means that you HATE that person. But, sooooo often, that IS the case. There is sooooo much hate towards gays in the so-called "Church." And, that is a fact. And, really, who (in the Church) is sin-free? "He who hath NO sin, let him cast the first stone." But, wait, NOBODY is perfect and sin free (except Jesus). So, I guess you can't judge me.
@Ohyewildthong I'm sorry but you are wrong. The fact is that in identical fraternal twins where one is known to be gay, there is a 50 to 55% chance the other is too. This shows a COMBINATION of both enviromental and genetic factors (as homosexual men make up approx 4% of the male population).
I think if having homosexual relatives assisted in the whole family's success, that would contribute to the gene being passed on, even if the subjects themselves would not have mated.
The first theory doesn't explain the passing on of homosexuality reproductively. The second theory is a bit too optimistic about the bi:gay ratio. But the third theory is logically consistent with the selfish gene theory.
@jeremymfontaine Well, the first theory does explain it to an extent. The relatives of an individual does carry some of that persons genes but I agree, the 3rd is the most likely. Or at least it seems more plausible.
@Zac6230 Thats nice but if you dont accept Jesus Christ and be born again Repent of your filthy sins You will not go to heaven. Its only Hell for you buddy. Im sure you have broken many of your makers commandments and a potty mouth used in your manner is hate. Jesus told us even if you hate your neighbor you have already murdered in your heart. You have been warned
@Zac6230 Get rid of all that hate and accept Jesus Christ he will save you from hell. Your hate is powered by satan. Hate is why your miserable. Did you know satan was also very prideful and rebellious against a righteous Holy God?
@kjvtruth1 I'm a Christian, too, man. But believe me, no one is going to come to Christ because you've argued with them over Youtube. We need to be careful what we argue about; there are plenty of areas--especially in science--in which we have become prideful, ignorant, and slow to listen (c.f. Prov 18:13). Perhaps there is a natural, genetic explanation for homosexuality. But then, don't we already believe that our nature is sinful and in need of redemption anyway? Don't we need Christ anyway?
It might be his accent or gray hair or glasses that make people think hes smart and he knows what hes talking about. Dont be afraid to tell Mr Dawkins hes an arrogant liar. The man knows nothing. Im getting real sick of these freemasons, But its ok God will judge him =)
@kjvtruth1 You seem like just the person to ask... I'm looking for a pink unicorn that hoofed my pet fire-breathing dragon in the balls. If you see that sneaky bastard prancing through the fantasy zone you live in, tell him that I've contracted the Flying Spaghetti Monster to hunt it down. We all know how elusive this breed of unicorn is(not a shred of proof!), but your faith is obviously strong. I've heard from a reliable source that he likes to hang out with jesus.
@MrHayeMekka What grounds do you base your expert assertion on? By what measure do you conclude I'm a complete idiot? Is it the fact that your literary skills and by extension your mind, are grade school level? Are you so far behind, you think you're in first place? I can spot five errors in your post, would you like me to point them out?
@MrHayeMekka ...but then, you said it yourself, "Ignorance is bliss", so maybe you should just stay illiterate. I think knowledge is bliss, myself. Take germ theory for example. The ignorance of this was most certainly not bliss, just have a look at the effects of small pox. At one time(and for some currently) it was thought that sickness like small pox was a curse from god(the all merciful of course) for the sins of men. That's ignorance for you, do you call this bliss?
@MrHayeMekka Have you seen that pink unicorn? I know he's also a close friend with and possibly a lover to muhammad. If he is or isn't a lover of muhammad is still up for debate, muhammad was asked to comment, but refused the opportunity to do so. Santa Claus and the Wolfman are going to debate the topic of muhammads homosexuality this month in superman's crystal fortress. That he was a child rapist and murderer has been settled.
@personEks Is that what you were told to look for at your brainwashing atheist camp for children. Thats frightening little children are brainwashed to look for a poke a dot pink unicorn and rewarded when they cant find it. A very sinister thing for those grownups to do to a childs mind. Believing God is a choice, You choose to believe in him Your not saved by religion, church, or any good works, Your saved by faith by believing we are sinners and Jesus died for us. Evil exists
@kjvtruth1 "poke a dot"!? hahaha... Oh, you mean "polka dot"! Man, I thought my comment to you held comedic value, but yours is pure comedy gold. "Brainwashing atheist camp" hahaha, so good. Yes I know there is evil and religion is it's avatar, that is why I fight against religion. Oh, and you should learn the difference between 'your'(the possesive pronoun) and 'you're'(the contraction of you are). You should really get basic grammar down before you attempt philosophy/theology.
@personEks Saying religion is the avatar of evil is a cop out. We didn't get to the top of the evolutionary ladder by being nice people. Our nature is often brutish, vile and violent, and religion has always been an attempt to either dull or channel our vicious tendancy towards mutual destruction. Unfortunately, man (not god) created religion, so it can always swing to the ugly side of the spectrum if poorly implemented.
@daolong51279 Good point, Way of the Dragon or is it Dragon Thief (盗龙)? I made too broad of a stroke there. To be more specific, religion has removed resposibility for our actions(not really, but in effect) and have placed them at the feet of a fictional being. Doing this allows for our base behaviour to find justification in that such acts are desired by it and so human evil can come in the guise of religious righteousness.
@kjvtruth1 Another thing, the unicorn that I am after is a monochrome pink. The polka dot pink unicorn is a very different variety of unicorn. The polka dot variety are best known for their culinary skills aswell as their charity work. I doubt that the polka dot variety would ever kick anything in the balls. You, much like the monochrome pink unicorn, may be a miscreant; but you shouldn't assume everyone else is as twisted as you are.
@kjvtruth1 Never understood the faith and faith alone doctrine of many evangelical religions. Seems to de-value those that actualy make a habit of doing good things. Not sure why you would ever tell your children that good works count for naught, or that their beloved savior will throw them into a pit of hellfire for eternity if they dont eat their carrots while praying to Jebus. The truth is so much more compelling. Eat your carrots or you will be ugly and blind and it will make Jebus weep.
@kjvtruth1 Free Mason? How the fuck do you associate that with Dawkins? Read his books. Especially his early ones that are more directly relevant to his profession. He actually contributed some useful ideas to evolutionary biology and the philosophy of science in general ("natural philosopher," the 19th century word for biologists, actually suits him perfectly).
The Bible uses the word Evil to explain wickedness in high places. Satan is evil. Sin is evil, Witchcraft is evil, Murder is evil Dawkins is an evil man. A freemason, An Illuminatist. He has many deceived. The agenda of freemasons are to lower the population to a comfortable number that is easy to control. New Word Order = Population Control. Homosexuality is encouraged by freemasons because they cannot give birth. Anyone who is AntiCreation is AntiChrist
Interesting theories but, in the end, who gives a fuck how the "gay gene" was preserved or if it even exists at all?
If you don't like gays or believe homosexual behavior is "sinful," that's your problem. Gays and lesbians have every right to live the way they please and don't need scientific theories purporting to explain their existence to justify their right to happiness.
Interesting video. I have tried to explain the existence of gays in an evolutionary way to myself but didn't get further than something similar to the gay uncle theory.
Those who have trouble believing the "sneaky fucker theory" because they think that each species with genders has only one type of males (and females) should read about this illustrative example: the common side-blotched lizard
@MrHayeMekka ..... you fucking retarded fool. watch the video again as many times as it takes for you to actually understand what dawkins is saying and not get it completely wrong again. im guessin another 68 views might do it
Could someone explain how the gay gene survives in the kids since gay men, most likely, do not impregnate women? Would this mean that the gay gene is a dominant gene, and thus preserved even if carried on by non-gays, but only activated thru certain environmental criteria?
Note that I am not trying to argue, but I am totally in the blind here.
@ksym he explains this in his 3rd theory.. what he basically says is that this gene is already present in everybody, but isn't always "activated". There is already a lot of evidence that you can have certain genes without them being "active" and sometimes become active under certain environmental or social surroudings.
@shadowraptor888 thanks! I kinda suspected it being that way. Very interesting to say the least; I've read that there are many other "trigger" genes too.
Sorry for asking stupid questions I am just a bit, you know, jilted most of the time ... nevertheless I try to keep up with new information.
@shadowraptor888 That's not quite right, he doesn't say the gene is in everybody. Since for example, the gene for blonde hair is not in everybody. Also I imagine the gene is recessive so you need two of them, plus the trigger.
@ksym What shadowraptor said, except that the gene isn't necessarily in everybody, and if it's recessive then you can also carry the gene without actually being homosexual.
I was under the impression that it is a sort of birth defect but these are plausable as well. Sneaky fucker theory is fucking hilarious though. If we find out Dawkins is correct I think he might be able to coin the term and have it science texts. That would be a win for sure.
They do discuss gay genes depleting with less pressure for homosexuals to reproduce, however, with surrogacy, I doubt there will be such a noticeable decrease.
@Macrophaser Everything is genes. Everything that happens in your body is directed by genes. Homosexuality is most likely a mutated version of ordinary sexual genes.
Technically homosexuality gene can be found since human DNA has been fully explored and put to paper, but there would be much testing required to identify where, why and how homosexuality is. Someone correct me if this is already known, though.
Gay gene? someone explain to me how in the early stages of evolution, just a gene that would reduce the chances of an organism survival ( reduce chances of an organism from reproducing and passing its genes on) would have existed except as a mutation, that I would assume wouldn't survive for to long.
Its not logical to just assume that these gay organism would have had sex with the opposite sex just so your "gay gene" somehow is passed on. Also would this gene have not been out compete bynow
@kahf2 I'd assume mothers could have to be recessive carriers of homosexuality or something like that. Also, later in human history, sexuality was viewed to be more fluid and men who were initially attracted to men would also have female lovers as well... I'm no biologist, but those are just some possibilities. There is also a theory that it has to do with the female body using antigens on the male fetus that alter testosterone levels (however, this does not cover manly gays.)
I don't think he takes into account all the arranged marriages and pressure to "pass". That is just what people did back then (1,000 to 200,000 years ago). Love and attraction had little to do with marriage and reproduction until after the dark ages. Considering women don't need to be turned on to get pregnant, that would also account for it being passed on. And as far as the gay gene surviving in the future, have you heard of artificial insimination and sarogate mothers?
The interviewer has absolutely nothing to add apart from his 'experience'. Dawkins has been a leading evolutionary biologist for decades, who knows the data and research and can give an overview. The interviewer is just a layman.
I'm not entirely sure there is a 'gay gene' as such, only a gene that makes you more likely to be gay. However, I'd much rather that the 'interview' was not in fact an 'interview', but just Dawkins speaking to a camera.
One thing I don't understand: dawkins says how the gay gene was helpful to survive for a GENERATION: trust, help etc BUT I the gene needs to be PASSED ON....so if you are out-right 'gay' this scenario, how are you PASSING ON your gene?? men don't have babies! can anyone clear this up??
@jonhickman123 we all have what we call Recessive and Dominant genes. Assuming there is a Gay Gene if both the mother and the father recessivly carry the gay gene, likelyhood is that the offspring will be gay, much like Hair color, eye color etc... Its the same thing that can cause a child to look nothing like his parents, giving way to the idea of "The Milk Man"
@AlterBooks I can see what you mean, but I still don't see how this preserves the gene? Sorry :p The more 'active' gay genes there are around, the less chance that the gay gene will be passed on ie the active ones are not mating with the right sex. But if on the other hand it is recessive, and not being 'active', then it doesn't have any affect on the carrier anyway so how/why is it being selected for? and surely wont that mean it disappears eventually? thanks :-)
@jonhickman123 "The more 'active' gay genes there are around, the less chance that the gay gene will be passed on ie the active ones are not mating with the right sex." Most likely the homosexual part of humanity has never been larger than 10%, therefore there is no threat to the survival of a possible gay gene.
` so how/why is it being selected for?` Natural selection is a form of figurative language, it´s not a concious process.
@jonhickman123 Its like most genes, there are many inactive genes running through our bodies, preserved from some kind of primordial something or other. Would the gene dissapear? Highly unlikely. The only way that would happen totally would be the extinction of man, however I have read stories that the Red Hair gene is close to going extinct. Just because the gene doesnt activate doesnt mean that it wont be passed on, it just means its not present in the carrier
@AlterBooks I understand what you're saying and thus it can be passed on....but Dawkins here is giving reasons for it being useful, as if this is the *reason* it is passed on/or even evolved. So again according to my question, if it is active (and Dawkins is giving scenarios where it is active to explain why it is here) then how is it passed on? According to what you said, I understand how it is passed on; un-active. But like I say, I am still confused as to how Dawkins point works? tks again
@jonhickman123 Well in that scenario it wouldnt be passed on by that particular person. If I understand your question right, and keep in mind Im not a geneticist by any means, but I believe that active/inactive is arbitrary to passing on the gene itself. Simply carrying the gene passes it on whether you are gay or hetero and then something (again, not a genetiscist) causes it to activate. Anything more in depth is beyond my schooling
@AlterBooks I understand. So maybe the 'gay' uncle wouldn't directly pass on his gene, but would help his nephew, who may be a 'inactive' carrier of that gene, to pass on that gene. Thanks :)
You need to understand dominant and recessive genes to understand the 1st theory. Straight men (and women) can carry the gay gene and pass it on. Thus families carrying the gay gene, who may produce gay men, would have men to protect the kids at all times. Not sure I buy this but its a theory!
Gay people will not "die out" because many have children before they come out or they are bisexual.
@amysquie well before you go to the first theory.. what proof u have of these DNAs carries GAY gene..
if you say.. it carries the colour of your hair, eyes and skin.. THAT.. i know have been proven.. NO BLACK PARENTS suddenly have a YOUNG WHITE BOY, unless its adopted.
but GAY GENE?? its only a way to say.. ACCEPT US.. THIS IS NOT A CHOICE.. ITS INHERITED... like the BLACK PEOPLE..
@kiLuL76 You are wrong on that one kiLuL, there has been one case I have heard of that two black parents had a white son, and he was not adopted, they actually got a DNA test for the dad because he thought the woman had cheated on him, but it came back to be his.
@kiLuL76 "well before you go to the first theory.. what proof u have of these DNAs carries GAY gene.." Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Nor is an argument from incredulity a logically sound argument.
@kiLuL76 "ACCEPT US.. THIS IS NOT A CHOICE.. ITS INHERITED" Since there is no evidence of it being a choice and little to no gay persons feel it is a choice, it would seem it isn't a choice.
What about the self preservation? Needing to reproduce is strong in most species and I would assume that even ancient gay wanted to reproduce and given there was no test tube babies and such, they had to take a mate if only to bare offspring. I'm sure many homosexuals did the same when the penalty was death for being gay even both for reproduction and to hide that fact.
@fraglimat The urge to reproduce is probably socially constructed. We have sex because we crave sex-not babies. For gay men, this means they crave sex with men. The drive to have sex makes one more fit as it results in more offspring 4 heterosexuals. Animals who develop a biological tendency to crave sex are more likely to pass it on. Craving babies would require foresight the earlier mammals and humans lacked. Chimps don't decide to look for mates because they really want a baby.
@fraglimat "What about the self preservation? Needing to reproduce is strong in most species"
Evolution works based on survival of the species not the individual. Straight animals produce gay animals, so even if gay animals cannot procreate themselves, they will still exist. Furthermore by taking care of orphans and off-spring of family they ensure the survival of their species.
@kiLuL76 Well you make that quite clear with the way you express yourself, maybe you will see the logic when you get a little older since I assume you are 13-14 years old at the most or maybe you are trolling.
@Liljekrantz same way you assume that the GAY GENE is LOGICAL..
they cant even create a fly.. but they assume that the GAY GENE is there..
GAY GENEs and.. SNEAKY FUCKER GENEs, RAPIST GENEs.. NO EVIDENCE whatsoever, no studies, no nothing.. and suddenly its a THEORY? but because it came from the mouth of someone you believe in.. Faith.. at the end..
@kiLuL76 Sorry sweetheart, I have perfect vision and a pretty good ear. Also, we have conclusive evidence for the gay gene, as much evidence for evolution itself. He is just postulating the preservation of the gene and nothing more, nothing less.
@kiLuL76 There is no sneaky fucker gene or rapist gene... he talks about methods how the gene that can make you gay was passed on since gay people dont have sex with the opposite sex so it should have died out. This is thoerys about how it could have lived on.
It is only logical that there is a gene that can make you gay... or do you think that people choose to be shunned and hated by there familys, bullied at school until they cant take it anymore and commit suicide?
@Liljekrantz okay.. i understand what u say.. i know what dawkin means.. exactly like what u have explained.. im just saying the sneaky fucker gene as an example.. Basically.. these genes is inherited by offsprings.. it can not be from someones uncle to someone else's nephew.. by LOOKING.. or touching.. or being around..
thats not GENETIC.. thats INFLUENCED..
how can i suddenly have blue eyes just being around westeners with blue eyes?
@kiLuL76 but the uncle and nephew share a common ancestor, the nephews grandfather and grandmother are the uncles mother, some genes are innate in us which is why your children may look nothing like you but have things in common with your brother or mother.
@kiLuL76 Well since there is no way to convince someone like you with logic this will be last ill write to you. Im just disappointed that so many "kind and loving religous people" have so much hate in there hearts and cant let people live their own life when it dosent affect them personally at all.
@Liljekrantz if i really hate u.. i would not try to explain to you about THE GOD.. i would curse u this way.. LIVE YOUR LIFE HAPPILY IN THIS EARTH TEMPORARILY.. and after that ROT IN HELL FOREVER.. thats easy... very easy..
but the hard thing is.. how am i going to answer HIM.. if He ask me "WHAT HAVE YOU TOLD THEM ABOUT ME????..
what do you think He will do to me.. if i say "NOTHING" or "ROT IN HELL".. do you think He like me???? NO.. I'LL BURN IN HELL WITH U..
@Liljekrantz why? cause i dont do what He told me... I CURSED PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.. I HATE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.. SO HELL IS THE MOST SUITABLE PLACE FOR ME..
so.. I dont hate u.. you are HIS CREATURE.. I have my responsibilites towards you.. ie. to tell you.. to convey His Words.. not mine.. and if you dont listen.. It is YOUR CHOICE and IT IS NOT FOR ME TO JUDGE YOU
but.. this DAWKINS.. is LURING EVERYBODY TO HELL.. should i be quiet? or should i say what I KNOW, is the TRUTH..
@hislord1 yup.. i agree.. or i might also be.. The Almighty is invisible to you.. seeing you see not, hearing you hear not. blind and deaf.. that would definitely affect your ability to comprehend what i am saying.
ANTONY FLEW'S SPIRIT has started having a say in his life and he now can see clearer and recognize Intelligent Design. For anyone that doesn't recognize the name, he is the most famous Atheists over the last 50 years.
Dawknis could be next to concede, he already admitted on EXPELLED that Intelligent design is possible.
Hmmm, not keen on any of the theories here. Years ago people seemed unwilling to listen to anything, nowadays I see that people are too ready to accept any answer. Personally, I read about a theory that the gay gene wasn't a survival trait in males, but that it affected the mother and made her more likely to mate, and so what if she ended up with some gay offspring? Overall it worked, reproductively speaking.
Some male cuttle fish, smaller in size than other males, will sometimes mimic females to sneak in close will the larger male is trying to mate without alarming him(because he thinks he's a female). The smaller cuttle fish gets close enough to mate with the female and the larger male is none the wiser. A known "sneaky fucker!"
Dawkins jumps the shark with his theories on homosexulity when he bases it on no science . Sorry Richard but there is no homosexual gene because homosexuality is caused by nurture not nature .
@imN0Ttheone people are born gay, its natures way of controlling the population.
rabbits are the most sexually active animals known (hence the expression fuck like a rabbit) and surprise surprise they also have the highest rates of homosexuality among animals.
If we didnt have gay rabbits they would over-breed and they would eat in to other animals resources and create a knock on effect that would damage the flow of nature and potentially make some plants/animals die out.
@yesweknowthedrill Compared to war famine and disease homosexuality is a grain of sand on the beach when it comes to population control . It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior . Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
@yesweknowthedrill Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.
@imN0Ttheone well at least you've done your home work and can back up your claims, i may have had you mistaken for a religious nutcase, been debating with a lot of those lately. however, did you take into account the fact that war and famine havent affected animals the way it has humans? and also how do you explain it when you see infants that are clearly gay? and why do gay people claim to have been born gay?
(btw im not trolling you, im asking because im interested.)
@yesweknowthedrill First i am an atheist and i don't buy into imaginary people or places in the sky . Concerning animals subtract war from the equation and add predators and loss of habitat and you see a direct correlation . Anecdotaly i have never seen an infant who is homosexual and i don't know how a being that has no idea about sexuality or sexual feelings could be homosexual . I believe you are confusing being effeminate with being homosexual .
@imN0Ttheone the reason i mentioned infant was because my moms best friends sun is now gay, and for as long as we can remember, pretty much since he started talking he was OBVIOUSLY gay, he always played with girls toys, all his nursery and school friends were girls, he even sounded gay. low and behold 15 odd years later, he IS gay.
besides nature takes into account the predators, if it didn't herbivores would have already died out and thus so would carnivores and thus would everything else.
@yesweknowthedrill Children start to talk around 2 yrs of age , what did this 2 yr old do that was homosexual at that age ? Try to redecorate the livingroom ? Nature does not always take into account predators . Man has wiped out several species and predators come in many forms such as in NJ,where a large population of raccoons (which turned out to have a parasitic disease) threatened the last remaining population of woodrats .
@yesweknowthedrill You still have not said what this 2 yr old infant did to make you say he was homosexual ? What i am saying is we ALL have emotions and behaviours we either choose to act on or not .
@imN0Ttheone what, you mean aside from speak with a feminine tone, play with dolls, love the colour pink, and only having female friends? Sounds like a pretty gay kid to me, my mom and his mom used to talk about it so even they noticed.
He might as well have came out of the whom screaming "i love cock," is what im saying.
@yesweknowthedrill Again this is anecdotal but i have never heard a 2 year old with a feminine voice since their vocal chords are still developing . . I know of no correlation between the pitch of your voice and homosexuality or that youing children who play with dolls become homosexuals . You seem to have a certain set of beliefs about homosexuality that are not based on science, unless you can cite a study that shows other wise .
@imN0Ttheone There's the homosexual stereotype that many live up to, my moms friends son being one of them, only its not an act because hes always been like it.
I would consider you have this debate with a homosexual, tell them that they have a choice, that they weren't born gay, and that they can change it anytime.
I guarantee you they will disagree.
Aside from that you and I will have to agree to disagree, you say people aren't born gay and i say they are.
@yesweknowthedrill My point exactly , you are making assumptions based on a stereotype and not credible science . Not only have i had this debate with several hoosexuals i have had a few agree with me . I would remind you that 1000s of people change their sexuality every year according to a study done by Robert Sptizer of Colombia University study which was presented to the American Psychiatric Association on May 9 2001 .
@imN0Ttheone "according to a study done by Robert Sptizer of Colombia University study which was presented to the American Psychiatric Association on May 9 2001 . "
You forgot to mention this: "The APA issued an official disavowal of Spitzer's paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed and stating that "[t]here is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."
@imN0Ttheone And this: "Two-thirds of the reviews were critical, and the publication decision sparked controversy, with one member of the publication's supporting organization resigning in protest.[22] The paper has been criticized for its sampling methods and criteria for success."
This study isn't recognised by any psychological nor psychiatric association.
@imN0Ttheone The American Psychological Association disagrees with your idea that it's a choice:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
@yesweknowthedrill Dr. Robert Spitzer, who conducted the study, said the research shows that some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that. Spitzer conducted 45-minute telephone interviews with 200 people, including 143 men who claimed they had changed their orientation from gay to heterosexual. They answered 60 questions about their sexual feelings and behavior before and after their efforts to go straight
@imN0Ttheone He also admitted that 43% of the sample had been referred to him by "ex-gay ministries." The study is not diverse enough to be considered scientific. Nor does it consider all the variables needed to be scientific. It's just a small survey of a homogenous sample within the gay community. Not to say that there is no merit, it's just not conclusive.
@yesweknowthedrill I have a strong desire to do endless lines of coke drink Crown Royal and fuck women that are not my wife yet i don't act on those urges even though i have had those feelings for as long as i can rmember . I guess i was born that way ....... or not
@imN0Ttheone ahh yes, but the real question is; have you been passionate towards men and not women for as long as you can remember? and if you did, would it really be fair to yourself to go against them just to conform with what others perceive to be "normal?"
@yesweknowthedrill You seem to be missing the point . We all have strong desires some for a life time that we choose to act on or not . Homosexuality is also behavior that you choose to act on or not . Is it fair that i don't have a nice buzz going from a couple of rails of coke this morning just because it doesn't conform with what others perceive to be "normal behavior " ?
@olioli917 Right, that makes a lot of sense, and I think that it does explain why the interviewer, at every point, has nothing to add, but responds insistently, and I think that there's a lot more we're going to learn about that.
There is of course, another option: the gay gene doesn't exist, and homosexuality is a conflation of phenotypes, originating from the intra-uterine chemical environment when you were a fetus, or perhaps some other non-genetic cause (epigenetic, cultural, etc.)
@Haarez1 I dont think there is a gene. Its just a defect in a persons mind. A naturally straight human has primal instincts - To mate, to procreate, with the opposite sex therefore continuing the human race. Gay people have a mind block and do have that same primal urge. Look at it this way, if gays are equal and it's 'not wrong'..then its ok for the whole male population of the world to be gay right? Of course not. That would equal extinction.
I can agree with Dawkins somewhat on how the gay gene was started and how it continues to be passed. Although an interesting thing is what happens during the process of growth in the womb as stated before by someone else one here and I'm sure Dawkins know this also. That we start out as bigendered which could explain brain differences in LGBT. Also that if there are too many people in the world it is only natural that some become different to reduce the amount of the human population.
that nigga just built himself a house and then knocked it the fuck down in a short 6 mins and 25 seconds. how u gonn say that this shit comes from a gene. genes are only passed thru reproduction. reproduction only happens heterosexually. this means all the people passing this gene dwn would have to be bi at best. not gay. bi. gay means (to me) unable to remain in an arroused state to have sex with a hetero partner.
@jr5607 "how u gonn say that this shit comes from a gene. genes are only passed thru reproduction." Yes and straight people can have the gay gene. Genes can be dormant, in case you did not know.
"this means all the people passing this gene dwn would have to be bi at best. " Nope.
And gay people can reproduce. Just because a person has sex with another person does not mean they are actually attracted to each other.
"gay means (to me)" Your layman's opinion is irrelevant.
Richard Dawkins ist Francesco Schettino des Wissenschaftsbetriebs, der das Schiff der exakten Naturwissenschaften in die Havarie der atheistischen Halbwissenschaften zusteuert. Mit seinem waghalsigen Manöver eines Hasardeurs wird er die unzähligen Passanten der "Costa Scienza" in die unmoralische Vernunftlosigkeit kentern.
This has been flagged as spam show
SHOCK NEWS- On the 23rd February in Oxford University Richard Dawkins delcared himself to be an Agnostic ! WOW ! (google and see yourself.) And here we are thinking Dawkins was the Furher of the Atheist movement ! Maybe in a few more years he might conceed to Christianity like another former atheist C.S Lewis !
MrMaxTruth 4 minutes ago
I wish that people could understand the difference between a Christian believing that homosexuality is sinful, and a Christian hating someone. I believe that lying is sinful too, but I don't hate liars. I believe that prostitution is sinful too, but I don't hate prostitutes. Just because you think something is wrong does not mean that you automatically hate those who do it.
MPWorthMcEwan 9 hours ago
@MPWorthMcEwan I am gay. And, I would agree with you that it doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean that just because you think something is wrong, that it means that you HATE that person. But, sooooo often, that IS the case. There is sooooo much hate towards gays in the so-called "Church." And, that is a fact. And, really, who (in the Church) is sin-free? "He who hath NO sin, let him cast the first stone." But, wait, NOBODY is perfect and sin free (except Jesus). So, I guess you can't judge me.
David8024667 6 hours ago
@David8024667 i don't have any thing against gays but is this video true
24wsm 3 hours ago
Except they've never found a gay gene and we know homosexuality isn't genetic because of the figures from identical twins.
Ohyewildthong 23 hours ago
@Ohyewildthong I'm sorry but you are wrong. The fact is that in identical fraternal twins where one is known to be gay, there is a 50 to 55% chance the other is too. This shows a COMBINATION of both enviromental and genetic factors (as homosexual men make up approx 4% of the male population).
metrx330 22 hours ago
@metrx330 Exactly. Which proves it's not soley genetic.
Ohyewildthong 22 hours ago
@metrx330
Are you sure that 50 to 55% does not reflect the twins that may be in the closet?
stonecookie 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexuals would Not be here today if they did not have a mother. WORD
God created man and woman and said be fruitful and multiple. Amen
Anything AntiCreation is AntiChrist
Get Right with your maker people, be born again, accept Jesus Christ as savior, Repent of this wickedness, Its a Sin
kjvtruth1 1 day ago
Comment removed
kjvtruth1 1 day ago
I think if having homosexual relatives assisted in the whole family's success, that would contribute to the gene being passed on, even if the subjects themselves would not have mated.
MatejDarksilver 1 day ago
OMG, until 0:43 I thought Dawkins was talking to Sam Harris , lol
NexisFilms 1 day ago
you can love whoever you want.
SlenderMaam 1 day ago
@SlenderMaam Word.
SuperDrRockzo 1 day ago
The first theory doesn't explain the passing on of homosexuality reproductively. The second theory is a bit too optimistic about the bi:gay ratio. But the third theory is logically consistent with the selfish gene theory.
jeremymfontaine 2 days ago
@jeremymfontaine Well, the first theory does explain it to an extent. The relatives of an individual does carry some of that persons genes but I agree, the 3rd is the most likely. Or at least it seems more plausible.
shananagans5 2 days ago
Dawkins is a pervert brainwashing lost fools to his beliefs, He is full of garbage,
kjvtruth1 2 days ago
@kjvtruth1 you're a fucking idiot!
Zac6230 2 days ago
Comment removed
kjvtruth1 1 day ago
@kjvtruth1 Fuck off christian everybody hates people like you
Zac6230 1 day ago
@Zac6230 Thats nice but if you dont accept Jesus Christ and be born again Repent of your filthy sins You will not go to heaven. Its only Hell for you buddy. Im sure you have broken many of your makers commandments and a potty mouth used in your manner is hate. Jesus told us even if you hate your neighbor you have already murdered in your heart. You have been warned
kjvtruth1 1 day ago
@kjvtruth1 I hate christians
Zac6230 1 day ago
@Zac6230 Get rid of all that hate and accept Jesus Christ he will save you from hell. Your hate is powered by satan. Hate is why your miserable. Did you know satan was also very prideful and rebellious against a righteous Holy God?
kjvtruth1 1 day ago
@kjvtruth1 Then why is hate so justified by Christian fundamentalists?
loudestsounds 1 day ago
@kjvtruth1 I'm a Christian, too, man. But believe me, no one is going to come to Christ because you've argued with them over Youtube. We need to be careful what we argue about; there are plenty of areas--especially in science--in which we have become prideful, ignorant, and slow to listen (c.f. Prov 18:13). Perhaps there is a natural, genetic explanation for homosexuality. But then, don't we already believe that our nature is sinful and in need of redemption anyway? Don't we need Christ anyway?
MPWorthMcEwan 9 hours ago
@kjvtruth1
There is no heaven or hell, you fucking idiot.
hxnncht 1 day ago
@hxnncht what happens after we die
24wsm 3 hours ago
@kjvtruth1 WHY don't you people get it! No one wants to hear about your ridiculous invisible HATE mongering GOD!
xusmcguy 1 day ago
@xusmcguy God will Rebuke you
kjvtruth1 1 day ago
It might be his accent or gray hair or glasses that make people think hes smart and he knows what hes talking about. Dont be afraid to tell Mr Dawkins hes an arrogant liar. The man knows nothing. Im getting real sick of these freemasons, But its ok God will judge him =)
kjvtruth1 3 days ago
@kjvtruth1 You seem like just the person to ask... I'm looking for a pink unicorn that hoofed my pet fire-breathing dragon in the balls. If you see that sneaky bastard prancing through the fantasy zone you live in, tell him that I've contracted the Flying Spaghetti Monster to hunt it down. We all know how elusive this breed of unicorn is(not a shred of proof!), but your faith is obviously strong. I've heard from a reliable source that he likes to hang out with jesus.
personEks 3 days ago
@personEks I can answer. your a complete idiot.
Ignorance is bliss hey friend, so just stay stupid
MrHayeMekka 2 days ago
@MrHayeMekka What grounds do you base your expert assertion on? By what measure do you conclude I'm a complete idiot? Is it the fact that your literary skills and by extension your mind, are grade school level? Are you so far behind, you think you're in first place? I can spot five errors in your post, would you like me to point them out?
personEks 2 days ago
@MrHayeMekka ...but then, you said it yourself, "Ignorance is bliss", so maybe you should just stay illiterate. I think knowledge is bliss, myself. Take germ theory for example. The ignorance of this was most certainly not bliss, just have a look at the effects of small pox. At one time(and for some currently) it was thought that sickness like small pox was a curse from god(the all merciful of course) for the sins of men. That's ignorance for you, do you call this bliss?
personEks 2 days ago
@MrHayeMekka Have you seen that pink unicorn? I know he's also a close friend with and possibly a lover to muhammad. If he is or isn't a lover of muhammad is still up for debate, muhammad was asked to comment, but refused the opportunity to do so. Santa Claus and the Wolfman are going to debate the topic of muhammads homosexuality this month in superman's crystal fortress. That he was a child rapist and murderer has been settled.
personEks 2 days ago
@personEks Is that what you were told to look for at your brainwashing atheist camp for children. Thats frightening little children are brainwashed to look for a poke a dot pink unicorn and rewarded when they cant find it. A very sinister thing for those grownups to do to a childs mind. Believing God is a choice, You choose to believe in him Your not saved by religion, church, or any good works, Your saved by faith by believing we are sinners and Jesus died for us. Evil exists
kjvtruth1 2 days ago
@kjvtruth1 "poke a dot"!? hahaha... Oh, you mean "polka dot"! Man, I thought my comment to you held comedic value, but yours is pure comedy gold. "Brainwashing atheist camp" hahaha, so good. Yes I know there is evil and religion is it's avatar, that is why I fight against religion. Oh, and you should learn the difference between 'your'(the possesive pronoun) and 'you're'(the contraction of you are). You should really get basic grammar down before you attempt philosophy/theology.
personEks 2 days ago
@personEks Saying religion is the avatar of evil is a cop out. We didn't get to the top of the evolutionary ladder by being nice people. Our nature is often brutish, vile and violent, and religion has always been an attempt to either dull or channel our vicious tendancy towards mutual destruction. Unfortunately, man (not god) created religion, so it can always swing to the ugly side of the spectrum if poorly implemented.
daolong51279 2 days ago
@daolong51279 Good point, Way of the Dragon or is it Dragon Thief (盗龙)? I made too broad of a stroke there. To be more specific, religion has removed resposibility for our actions(not really, but in effect) and have placed them at the feet of a fictional being. Doing this allows for our base behaviour to find justification in that such acts are desired by it and so human evil can come in the guise of religious righteousness.
personEks 2 days ago
@kjvtruth1 Another thing, the unicorn that I am after is a monochrome pink. The polka dot pink unicorn is a very different variety of unicorn. The polka dot variety are best known for their culinary skills aswell as their charity work. I doubt that the polka dot variety would ever kick anything in the balls. You, much like the monochrome pink unicorn, may be a miscreant; but you shouldn't assume everyone else is as twisted as you are.
personEks 2 days ago
@kjvtruth1 Never understood the faith and faith alone doctrine of many evangelical religions. Seems to de-value those that actualy make a habit of doing good things. Not sure why you would ever tell your children that good works count for naught, or that their beloved savior will throw them into a pit of hellfire for eternity if they dont eat their carrots while praying to Jebus. The truth is so much more compelling. Eat your carrots or you will be ugly and blind and it will make Jebus weep.
daolong51279 2 days ago
@kjvtruth1 Free Mason? How the fuck do you associate that with Dawkins? Read his books. Especially his early ones that are more directly relevant to his profession. He actually contributed some useful ideas to evolutionary biology and the philosophy of science in general ("natural philosopher," the 19th century word for biologists, actually suits him perfectly).
spartyman4 2 days ago
The Bible uses the word Evil to explain wickedness in high places. Satan is evil. Sin is evil, Witchcraft is evil, Murder is evil Dawkins is an evil man. A freemason, An Illuminatist. He has many deceived. The agenda of freemasons are to lower the population to a comfortable number that is easy to control. New Word Order = Population Control. Homosexuality is encouraged by freemasons because they cannot give birth. Anyone who is AntiCreation is AntiChrist
kjvtruth1 3 days ago
"The second theory is the the so called sneaky fucker theory" is my text message noise.
DruideStick 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting theories but, in the end, who gives a fuck how the "gay gene" was preserved or if it even exists at all?
If you don't like gays or believe homosexual behavior is "sinful," that's your problem. Gays and lesbians have every right to live the way they please and don't need scientific theories purporting to explain their existence to justify their right to happiness.
TheSilverSurpher 5 days ago
Comment removed
TheSilverSurpher 5 days ago
Interesting video. I have tried to explain the existence of gays in an evolutionary way to myself but didn't get further than something similar to the gay uncle theory.
Those who have trouble believing the "sneaky fucker theory" because they think that each species with genders has only one type of males (and females) should read about this illustrative example: the common side-blotched lizard
MIQofDMC 5 days ago
2 videos
1. Can I still be gay
2. How to witness to a homosexual
No such thing as a gay gene. Just gay behavior that has to be changed through time and prayer
floridaboy22 5 days ago
@floridaboy22 lol. you idiot
OracleUndone 5 days ago
@OracleUndone Hahahaha hope that made you feel better. Can't find truth if your only interested in what (you) think LOL
floridaboy22 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@floridaboy22 "No such thing as a gay gene." And your evidence for this ludicrous statement is?
"Just gay behavior that has to be changed through time and prayer" Homosexuality is a natural attraction, not a dangerous sex act.
thomaseshuis 4 days ago
HAHAHAHA SNEAKY FUCKER GENE
HOW DO GAY MALES PASS THE SNEAKY FUCKER GENE ON IF THERE GAY??!!
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST SAYS EVOLUTION NOT SURVIVAL OF THE GAYEST WHO CAN'T EVEN REPRODUCE BECAUSE THEIR GAY
SEAKY FUCKER GENE HAHAHAHA
THIS IS HILARIOUS PEOPLE ACTUALLY TAKE THIS GUY SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MrHayeMekka 6 days ago
@MrHayeMekka gays have children too :)
watsinyrwallet 5 days ago
@MrHayeMekka ..... you fucking retarded fool. watch the video again as many times as it takes for you to actually understand what dawkins is saying and not get it completely wrong again. im guessin another 68 views might do it
OracleUndone 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrHayeMekka A mountain of ignorance shouted at the world. All you´ve managed to do is embarrass yourself.
thomaseshuis 4 days ago
@MrHayeMekka focus on the second possible explanation he gives and ignore the one he actually suggests. Cherry picking and a straw man argument.
Pirate44444 3 days ago
fascinating, but i'm glad i wasn't the interviewer as i'm not quick enough to follow the thread of the argument.
quelbop 6 days ago
Comment removed
quelbop 6 days ago
But then yeah, bisexuality would explain a lot. Sneaky fucker theory is maybe the best thus far. Still, a lot more data needed to conclude.
ksym 6 days ago
Could someone explain how the gay gene survives in the kids since gay men, most likely, do not impregnate women? Would this mean that the gay gene is a dominant gene, and thus preserved even if carried on by non-gays, but only activated thru certain environmental criteria?
Note that I am not trying to argue, but I am totally in the blind here.
ksym 6 days ago
@ksym he explains this in his 3rd theory.. what he basically says is that this gene is already present in everybody, but isn't always "activated". There is already a lot of evidence that you can have certain genes without them being "active" and sometimes become active under certain environmental or social surroudings.
shadowraptor888 6 days ago
@shadowraptor888 thanks! I kinda suspected it being that way. Very interesting to say the least; I've read that there are many other "trigger" genes too.
Sorry for asking stupid questions I am just a bit, you know, jilted most of the time ... nevertheless I try to keep up with new information.
ksym 6 days ago
@shadowraptor888 That's not quite right, he doesn't say the gene is in everybody. Since for example, the gene for blonde hair is not in everybody. Also I imagine the gene is recessive so you need two of them, plus the trigger.
Pirate44444 3 days ago
@ksym What shadowraptor said, except that the gene isn't necessarily in everybody, and if it's recessive then you can also carry the gene without actually being homosexual.
Pirate44444 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was under the impression that it is a sort of birth defect but these are plausable as well. Sneaky fucker theory is fucking hilarious though. If we find out Dawkins is correct I think he might be able to coin the term and have it science texts. That would be a win for sure.
guitarfuckist 1 week ago
They do discuss gay genes depleting with less pressure for homosexuals to reproduce, however, with surrogacy, I doubt there will be such a noticeable decrease.
ThereWillBeBreakfast 1 week ago
did they really find a "gay gene" or is this just speculation ?
Macrophaser 1 week ago
@Macrophaser Everything is genes. Everything that happens in your body is directed by genes. Homosexuality is most likely a mutated version of ordinary sexual genes.
Technically homosexuality gene can be found since human DNA has been fully explored and put to paper, but there would be much testing required to identify where, why and how homosexuality is. Someone correct me if this is already known, though.
Kuhlfurst 1 week ago
0:57 You're welcome
ThePopsheep 1 week ago
Gay gene? someone explain to me how in the early stages of evolution, just a gene that would reduce the chances of an organism survival ( reduce chances of an organism from reproducing and passing its genes on) would have existed except as a mutation, that I would assume wouldn't survive for to long.
Its not logical to just assume that these gay organism would have had sex with the opposite sex just so your "gay gene" somehow is passed on. Also would this gene have not been out compete bynow
kahf2 1 week ago
@kahf2 I'd assume mothers could have to be recessive carriers of homosexuality or something like that. Also, later in human history, sexuality was viewed to be more fluid and men who were initially attracted to men would also have female lovers as well... I'm no biologist, but those are just some possibilities. There is also a theory that it has to do with the female body using antigens on the male fetus that alter testosterone levels (however, this does not cover manly gays.)
ThereWillBeBreakfast 1 week ago
who's the parrot?
IbsaUtube 1 week ago 13
@meganritz some good points there! ones i hadnt considered,good post!
reeceyhiggs 1 week ago
I don't think he takes into account all the arranged marriages and pressure to "pass". That is just what people did back then (1,000 to 200,000 years ago). Love and attraction had little to do with marriage and reproduction until after the dark ages. Considering women don't need to be turned on to get pregnant, that would also account for it being passed on. And as far as the gay gene surviving in the future, have you heard of artificial insimination and sarogate mothers?
meganritz 1 week ago
The interviewer has absolutely nothing to add apart from his 'experience'. Dawkins has been a leading evolutionary biologist for decades, who knows the data and research and can give an overview. The interviewer is just a layman.
MrDarkbloom 1 week ago
I would be happy but it would be rather distracting. Not gonna lie, that made me lol.
oliver12345678910908 1 week ago 2
Dawkins is one sneaky fucker huh
littlemac88 1 week ago 31
@littlemac88. Ha ha! What do you mean by sneaky?
Elififa 3 days ago
I'm not entirely sure there is a 'gay gene' as such, only a gene that makes you more likely to be gay. However, I'd much rather that the 'interview' was not in fact an 'interview', but just Dawkins speaking to a camera.
atheistscepticism 1 week ago
One thing I don't understand: dawkins says how the gay gene was helpful to survive for a GENERATION: trust, help etc BUT I the gene needs to be PASSED ON....so if you are out-right 'gay' this scenario, how are you PASSING ON your gene?? men don't have babies! can anyone clear this up??
jonhickman123 1 week ago
@jonhickman123 we all have what we call Recessive and Dominant genes. Assuming there is a Gay Gene if both the mother and the father recessivly carry the gay gene, likelyhood is that the offspring will be gay, much like Hair color, eye color etc... Its the same thing that can cause a child to look nothing like his parents, giving way to the idea of "The Milk Man"
AlterBooks 1 week ago
@AlterBooks I can see what you mean, but I still don't see how this preserves the gene? Sorry :p The more 'active' gay genes there are around, the less chance that the gay gene will be passed on ie the active ones are not mating with the right sex. But if on the other hand it is recessive, and not being 'active', then it doesn't have any affect on the carrier anyway so how/why is it being selected for? and surely wont that mean it disappears eventually? thanks :-)
jonhickman123 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonhickman123 "The more 'active' gay genes there are around, the less chance that the gay gene will be passed on ie the active ones are not mating with the right sex." Most likely the homosexual part of humanity has never been larger than 10%, therefore there is no threat to the survival of a possible gay gene.
` so how/why is it being selected for?` Natural selection is a form of figurative language, it´s not a concious process.
thomaseshuis 1 week ago
@jonhickman123 Its like most genes, there are many inactive genes running through our bodies, preserved from some kind of primordial something or other. Would the gene dissapear? Highly unlikely. The only way that would happen totally would be the extinction of man, however I have read stories that the Red Hair gene is close to going extinct. Just because the gene doesnt activate doesnt mean that it wont be passed on, it just means its not present in the carrier
AlterBooks 1 week ago
@AlterBooks I understand what you're saying and thus it can be passed on....but Dawkins here is giving reasons for it being useful, as if this is the *reason* it is passed on/or even evolved. So again according to my question, if it is active (and Dawkins is giving scenarios where it is active to explain why it is here) then how is it passed on? According to what you said, I understand how it is passed on; un-active. But like I say, I am still confused as to how Dawkins point works? tks again
jonhickman123 1 week ago
@jonhickman123 Well in that scenario it wouldnt be passed on by that particular person. If I understand your question right, and keep in mind Im not a geneticist by any means, but I believe that active/inactive is arbitrary to passing on the gene itself. Simply carrying the gene passes it on whether you are gay or hetero and then something (again, not a genetiscist) causes it to activate. Anything more in depth is beyond my schooling
AlterBooks 1 week ago
@AlterBooks I understand. So maybe the 'gay' uncle wouldn't directly pass on his gene, but would help his nephew, who may be a 'inactive' carrier of that gene, to pass on that gene. Thanks :)
jonhickman123 1 week ago
Everyone below me is arguing?
Okay, fuck, I'm just going to say it because I think we are all thinking it.
Rickard Dawkins looks AND talks like Stewie from Family Guy.
there
Justinisinthebuildin 1 week ago
You need to understand dominant and recessive genes to understand the 1st theory. Straight men (and women) can carry the gay gene and pass it on. Thus families carrying the gay gene, who may produce gay men, would have men to protect the kids at all times. Not sure I buy this but its a theory!
Gay people will not "die out" because many have children before they come out or they are bisexual.
amysquie 1 week ago
@amysquie well before you go to the first theory.. what proof u have of these DNAs carries GAY gene..
if you say.. it carries the colour of your hair, eyes and skin.. THAT.. i know have been proven.. NO BLACK PARENTS suddenly have a YOUNG WHITE BOY, unless its adopted.
but GAY GENE?? its only a way to say.. ACCEPT US.. THIS IS NOT A CHOICE.. ITS INHERITED... like the BLACK PEOPLE..
kiLuL76 1 week ago
@kiLuL76 You are wrong on that one kiLuL, there has been one case I have heard of that two black parents had a white son, and he was not adopted, they actually got a DNA test for the dad because he thought the woman had cheated on him, but it came back to be his.
teddytonks 1 week ago
@teddytonks you have heard? but you have not seen.. u believe it to be true right?
kiLuL76 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiLuL76 "well before you go to the first theory.. what proof u have of these DNAs carries GAY gene.." Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Nor is an argument from incredulity a logically sound argument.
thomaseshuis 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiLuL76 "ACCEPT US.. THIS IS NOT A CHOICE.. ITS INHERITED" Since there is no evidence of it being a choice and little to no gay persons feel it is a choice, it would seem it isn't a choice.
Also your post looks ridiculous.
thomaseshuis 1 week ago
What about the self preservation? Needing to reproduce is strong in most species and I would assume that even ancient gay wanted to reproduce and given there was no test tube babies and such, they had to take a mate if only to bare offspring. I'm sure many homosexuals did the same when the penalty was death for being gay even both for reproduction and to hide that fact.
fraglimat 1 week ago
@fraglimat The urge to reproduce is probably socially constructed. We have sex because we crave sex-not babies. For gay men, this means they crave sex with men. The drive to have sex makes one more fit as it results in more offspring 4 heterosexuals. Animals who develop a biological tendency to crave sex are more likely to pass it on. Craving babies would require foresight the earlier mammals and humans lacked. Chimps don't decide to look for mates because they really want a baby.
mightyworker 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fraglimat "What about the self preservation? Needing to reproduce is strong in most species"
Evolution works based on survival of the species not the individual. Straight animals produce gay animals, so even if gay animals cannot procreate themselves, they will still exist. Furthermore by taking care of orphans and off-spring of family they ensure the survival of their species.
thomaseshuis 1 week ago
He should have just started with the 3rd theory because the other two were embarrassingly simplistic.
PoledniceWP 2 weeks ago
i think.. dawkins is crazy..
kiLuL76 2 weeks ago
hahahahhaha.. GAY GENE.. a way of saying.. its NOT MY FAULT.. IT IS IN MY GENE.. NO SCIENTIST HAVE A EVER PROVEN ANY GAY GENES..
DUMB as AN ASS.. and BELIEVING LIKE A COW..
these atheist.. just so damn ARROGANT.. and QUADRAPLE STANDARD..
logically, these gay will die without offspring.. they just have sex and die..
dawkins claim, gay genes could be passed on by their protecting gay uncle/brother? WHATT????????????????
i really dont understand.. this dawkins
kiLuL76 2 weeks ago
@kiLuL76 i believe your the arrogant one
gmann65478 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiLuL76 i believe your the arrogant one
gmann65478 2 weeks ago
@kiLuL76 Well you make that quite clear with the way you express yourself, maybe you will see the logic when you get a little older since I assume you are 13-14 years old at the most or maybe you are trolling.
Liljekrantz 2 weeks ago
@Liljekrantz same way you assume that the GAY GENE is LOGICAL..
they cant even create a fly.. but they assume that the GAY GENE is there..
GAY GENEs and.. SNEAKY FUCKER GENEs, RAPIST GENEs.. NO EVIDENCE whatsoever, no studies, no nothing.. and suddenly its a THEORY? but because it came from the mouth of someone you believe in.. Faith.. at the end..
INVENTION OF LIES
kiLuL76 2 weeks ago
@kiLuL76 Sorry sweetheart, I have perfect vision and a pretty good ear. Also, we have conclusive evidence for the gay gene, as much evidence for evolution itself. He is just postulating the preservation of the gene and nothing more, nothing less.
hislord1 2 weeks ago
@hislord1 gay gene.. G-T-C-A-A-G-T-C-A-A-G-T-G-A-Y-G-E-N-E... hmmm very conclusive.. written genes..
kiLuL76 1 week ago
@kiLuL76 There is no sneaky fucker gene or rapist gene... he talks about methods how the gene that can make you gay was passed on since gay people dont have sex with the opposite sex so it should have died out. This is thoerys about how it could have lived on.
It is only logical that there is a gene that can make you gay... or do you think that people choose to be shunned and hated by there familys, bullied at school until they cant take it anymore and commit suicide?
Liljekrantz 1 week ago
@Liljekrantz okay.. i understand what u say.. i know what dawkin means.. exactly like what u have explained.. im just saying the sneaky fucker gene as an example.. Basically.. these genes is inherited by offsprings.. it can not be from someones uncle to someone else's nephew.. by LOOKING.. or touching.. or being around..
thats not GENETIC.. thats INFLUENCED..
how can i suddenly have blue eyes just being around westeners with blue eyes?
who teach dawkins biology lesson?
kiLuL76 1 week ago
@kiLuL76 but the uncle and nephew share a common ancestor, the nephews grandfather and grandmother are the uncles mother, some genes are innate in us which is why your children may look nothing like you but have things in common with your brother or mother.
MetalDoneMoreForME 1 week ago
@kiLuL76 Well since there is no way to convince someone like you with logic this will be last ill write to you. Im just disappointed that so many "kind and loving religous people" have so much hate in there hearts and cant let people live their own life when it dosent affect them personally at all.
Liljekrantz 1 week ago
@Liljekrantz if i really hate u.. i would not try to explain to you about THE GOD.. i would curse u this way.. LIVE YOUR LIFE HAPPILY IN THIS EARTH TEMPORARILY.. and after that ROT IN HELL FOREVER.. thats easy... very easy..
but the hard thing is.. how am i going to answer HIM.. if He ask me "WHAT HAVE YOU TOLD THEM ABOUT ME????..
what do you think He will do to me.. if i say "NOTHING" or "ROT IN HELL".. do you think He like me???? NO.. I'LL BURN IN HELL WITH U..
kiLuL76 1 week ago
@Liljekrantz why? cause i dont do what He told me... I CURSED PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.. I HATE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.. SO HELL IS THE MOST SUITABLE PLACE FOR ME..
so.. I dont hate u.. you are HIS CREATURE.. I have my responsibilites towards you.. ie. to tell you.. to convey His Words.. not mine.. and if you dont listen.. It is YOUR CHOICE and IT IS NOT FOR ME TO JUDGE YOU
but.. this DAWKINS.. is LURING EVERYBODY TO HELL.. should i be quiet? or should i say what I KNOW, is the TRUTH..
kiLuL76 1 week ago
@kiLuL76
You don't know what the truth is, no one does, you are trying to play god, when you are not, you are going to hell.
teddytonks 1 week ago
@kiLuL76 It might be all that talking to your invisible friend that is affecting your ability to comprehend what he is saying.
hislord1 2 weeks ago
@hislord1 yup.. i agree.. or i might also be.. The Almighty is invisible to you.. seeing you see not, hearing you hear not. blind and deaf.. that would definitely affect your ability to comprehend what i am saying.
kiLuL76 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiLuL76 "i really dont understand.. this dawkins" This explain the rest of your nonsensical comment.
The amount of ignorance is staggering.
thomaseshuis 1 week ago
I think the 3rd possibility is the most likely.
Nexus974 2 weeks ago
could someone explain to me the first theory pls i didnt understand it
hansantov 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANTONY FLEW'S SPIRIT has started having a say in his life and he now can see clearer and recognize Intelligent Design. For anyone that doesn't recognize the name, he is the most famous Atheists over the last 50 years.
Dawknis could be next to concede, he already admitted on EXPELLED that Intelligent design is possible.
mrelgordoA 2 weeks ago
I cannot get enough of Dawkins saying "sneaky fucker theory".
RamrockMansJukebox 2 weeks ago 15
Hmmm, not keen on any of the theories here. Years ago people seemed unwilling to listen to anything, nowadays I see that people are too ready to accept any answer. Personally, I read about a theory that the gay gene wasn't a survival trait in males, but that it affected the mother and made her more likely to mate, and so what if she ended up with some gay offspring? Overall it worked, reproductively speaking.
difficultbastard 2 weeks ago
Some male cuttle fish, smaller in size than other males, will sometimes mimic females to sneak in close will the larger male is trying to mate without alarming him(because he thinks he's a female). The smaller cuttle fish gets close enough to mate with the female and the larger male is none the wiser. A known "sneaky fucker!"
LOL4Polio 2 weeks ago
I want a Santorum/Dawkins debate.... PLEASE.
17onamission17 2 weeks ago
@17onamission17 dawkins wins just by entering the room
edtri19 2 weeks ago
KD Lang's let himself go
FrogsCock 2 weeks ago
Dawkins jumps the shark with his theories on homosexulity when he bases it on no science . Sorry Richard but there is no homosexual gene because homosexuality is caused by nurture not nature .
imN0Ttheone 2 weeks ago
@imN0Ttheone people are born gay, its natures way of controlling the population.
rabbits are the most sexually active animals known (hence the expression fuck like a rabbit) and surprise surprise they also have the highest rates of homosexuality among animals.
If we didnt have gay rabbits they would over-breed and they would eat in to other animals resources and create a knock on effect that would damage the flow of nature and potentially make some plants/animals die out.
same applies to humans.
yesweknowthedrill 2 weeks ago
@yesweknowthedrill Compared to war famine and disease homosexuality is a grain of sand on the beach when it comes to population control . It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior . Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
imN0Ttheone 2 weeks ago
@yesweknowthedrill Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.
imN0Ttheone 2 weeks ago
@imN0Ttheone well at least you've done your home work and can back up your claims, i may have had you mistaken for a religious nutcase, been debating with a lot of those lately. however, did you take into account the fact that war and famine havent affected animals the way it has humans? and also how do you explain it when you see infants that are clearly gay? and why do gay people claim to have been born gay?
(btw im not trolling you, im asking because im interested.)
yesweknowthedrill 2 weeks ago
@yesweknowthedrill First i am an atheist and i don't buy into imaginary people or places in the sky . Concerning animals subtract war from the equation and add predators and loss of habitat and you see a direct correlation . Anecdotaly i have never seen an infant who is homosexual and i don't know how a being that has no idea about sexuality or sexual feelings could be homosexual . I believe you are confusing being effeminate with being homosexual .
imN0Ttheone 2 weeks ago
@imN0Ttheone the reason i mentioned infant was because my moms best friends sun is now gay, and for as long as we can remember, pretty much since he started talking he was OBVIOUSLY gay, he always played with girls toys, all his nursery and school friends were girls, he even sounded gay. low and behold 15 odd years later, he IS gay.
besides nature takes into account the predators, if it didn't herbivores would have already died out and thus so would carnivores and thus would everything else.
yesweknowthedrill 2 weeks ago
@yesweknowthedrill Children start to talk around 2 yrs of age , what did this 2 yr old do that was homosexual at that age ? Try to redecorate the livingroom ? Nature does not always take into account predators . Man has wiped out several species and predators come in many forms such as in NJ,where a large population of raccoons (which turned out to have a parasitic disease) threatened the last remaining population of woodrats .
imN0Ttheone 2 weeks ago
@imN0Ttheone he was clearly gay, he was basically a girl with a penis.
sooo are you saying that homosexuals should choose not to be gay?
yesweknowthedrill 2 weeks ago
@yesweknowthedrill You still have not said what this 2 yr old infant did to make you say he was homosexual ? What i am saying is we ALL have emotions and behaviours we either choose to act on or not .
imN0Ttheone 2 weeks ago
@imN0Ttheone what, you mean aside from speak with a feminine tone, play with dolls, love the colour pink, and only having female friends? Sounds like a pretty gay kid to me, my mom and his mom used to talk about it so even they noticed.
He might as well have came out of the whom screaming "i love cock," is what im saying.
yesweknowthedrill 2 weeks ago
@yesweknowthedrill Again this is anecdotal but i have never heard a 2 year old with a feminine voice since their vocal chords are still developing . . I know of no correlation between the pitch of your voice and homosexuality or that youing children who play with dolls become homosexuals . You seem to have a certain set of beliefs about homosexuality that are not based on science, unless you can cite a study that shows other wise .
imN0Ttheone 2 weeks ago
@imN0Ttheone There's the homosexual stereotype that many live up to, my moms friends son being one of them, only its not an act because hes always been like it.
I would consider you have this debate with a homosexual, tell them that they have a choice, that they weren't born gay, and that they can change it anytime.
I guarantee you they will disagree.
Aside from that you and I will have to agree to disagree, you say people aren't born gay and i say they are.
This has been an interesting debate.
yesweknowthedrill 2 weeks ago
@yesweknowthedrill My point exactly , you are making assumptions based on a stereotype and not credible science . Not only have i had this debate with several hoosexuals i have had a few agree with me . I would remind you that 1000s of people change their sexuality every year according to a study done by Robert Sptizer of Colombia University study which was presented to the American Psychiatric Association on May 9 2001 .
imN0Ttheone 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imN0Ttheone "according to a study done by Robert Sptizer of Colombia University study which was presented to the American Psychiatric Association on May 9 2001 . "
You forgot to mention this: "The APA issued an official disavowal of Spitzer's paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed and stating that "[t]here is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."
thomaseshuis 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imN0Ttheone And this: "Two-thirds of the reviews were critical, and the publication decision sparked controversy, with one member of the publication's supporting organization resigning in protest.[22] The paper has been criticized for its sampling methods and criteria for success."
This study isn't recognised by any psychological nor psychiatric association.
thomaseshuis 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imN0Ttheone The American Psychological Association disagrees with your idea that it's a choice:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
thomaseshuis 1 week ago
@yesweknowthedrill Dr. Robert Spitzer, who conducted the study, said the research shows that some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that. Spitzer conducted 45-minute telephone interviews with 200 people, including 143 men who claimed they had changed their orientation from gay to heterosexual. They answered 60 questions about their sexual feelings and behavior before and after their efforts to go straight
imN0Ttheone 2 weeks ago
@imN0Ttheone sounds interesting, is there a video you would recommend for me?
This theory is news to me, but i like to understand things, and will defiantly check it out.
yesweknowthedrill 2 weeks ago
@imN0Ttheone He also admitted that 43% of the sample had been referred to him by "ex-gay ministries." The study is not diverse enough to be considered scientific. Nor does it consider all the variables needed to be scientific. It's just a small survey of a homogenous sample within the gay community. Not to say that there is no merit, it's just not conclusive.
LOL4Polio 2 weeks ago
@yesweknowthedrill I have a strong desire to do endless lines of coke drink Crown Royal and fuck women that are not my wife yet i don't act on those urges even though i have had those feelings for as long as i can rmember . I guess i was born that way ....... or not
imN0Ttheone 2 weeks ago
@imN0Ttheone ahh yes, but the real question is; have you been passionate towards men and not women for as long as you can remember? and if you did, would it really be fair to yourself to go against them just to conform with what others perceive to be "normal?"
yesweknowthedrill 2 weeks ago
@yesweknowthedrill You seem to be missing the point . We all have strong desires some for a life time that we choose to act on or not . Homosexuality is also behavior that you choose to act on or not . Is it fair that i don't have a nice buzz going from a couple of rails of coke this morning just because it doesn't conform with what others perceive to be "normal behavior " ?
imN0Ttheone 2 weeks ago
It's annoying how the interviewer is insisting on responding o every point even though he has absolutely nothing to add.
olioli917 2 weeks ago 31
@olioli917 it's not really true that he has nothing to add. He's a gay man, so his opinion has obvious value from that perspective
bigman25plus25 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
@olioli917 Right, that makes a lot of sense, and I think that it does explain why the interviewer, at every point, has nothing to add, but responds insistently, and I think that there's a lot more we're going to learn about that.
Valelacerte 1 week ago
There is of course, another option: the gay gene doesn't exist, and homosexuality is a conflation of phenotypes, originating from the intra-uterine chemical environment when you were a fetus, or perhaps some other non-genetic cause (epigenetic, cultural, etc.)
Haarez1 2 weeks ago
@Haarez1 I dont think there is a gene. Its just a defect in a persons mind. A naturally straight human has primal instincts - To mate, to procreate, with the opposite sex therefore continuing the human race. Gay people have a mind block and do have that same primal urge. Look at it this way, if gays are equal and it's 'not wrong'..then its ok for the whole male population of the world to be gay right? Of course not. That would equal extinction.
IMONAMADTING1 2 weeks ago
I can agree with Dawkins somewhat on how the gay gene was started and how it continues to be passed. Although an interesting thing is what happens during the process of growth in the womb as stated before by someone else one here and I'm sure Dawkins know this also. That we start out as bigendered which could explain brain differences in LGBT. Also that if there are too many people in the world it is only natural that some become different to reduce the amount of the human population.
Thenewfallingsacred 2 weeks ago
that nigga just built himself a house and then knocked it the fuck down in a short 6 mins and 25 seconds. how u gonn say that this shit comes from a gene. genes are only passed thru reproduction. reproduction only happens heterosexually. this means all the people passing this gene dwn would have to be bi at best. not gay. bi. gay means (to me) unable to remain in an arroused state to have sex with a hetero partner.
jr5607 3 weeks ago
@jr5607 "how u gonn say that this shit comes from a gene. genes are only passed thru reproduction." Yes and straight people can have the gay gene. Genes can be dormant, in case you did not know.
"this means all the people passing this gene dwn would have to be bi at best. " Nope.
And gay people can reproduce. Just because a person has sex with another person does not mean they are actually attracted to each other.
"gay means (to me)" Your layman's opinion is irrelevant.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
@jr5607 are you telling a Evolutionary biologist How Genes Work?! XD
36inc 3 weeks ago
what if the women were gay and they all got raped!
Rohmanator 3 weeks ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins ist Francesco Schettino des Wissenschaftsbetriebs, der das Schiff der exakten Naturwissenschaften in die Havarie der atheistischen Halbwissenschaften zusteuert. Mit seinem waghalsigen Manöver eines Hasardeurs wird er die unzähligen Passanten der "Costa Scienza" in die unmoralische Vernunftlosigkeit kentern.
JesusChristusSoter 3 weeks ago
So the last theory, in effect, proposes that homosexuality is a sort of lifestyle choice.
adnanaeroadnan 3 weeks ago
@adnanaeroadnan I think you need to watch it again, because that's not what he says.
First of all homosexuality is the attraction to the same sex and therefore nor remotely close to anything that can be called a lifestyle.
Nor does Dawkins imply or state that it is a choice.
thomaseshuis 3 weeks ago
I think the last theory would be most accurate
BboyKeny 3 weeks ago
love dawkins