We all inherit genes from our parents. Whether we have blue eyes or brown eyes depends on the genes we inherit, and whether those genes express a dominant or a recessive trait.

Example, if you inherit two blue eye genes from your parents, you will have blue eyes. If you inherit either two brown eye genes from your parents, or one blue eye gene and one brown eye gene from each parent, you will have brown eyes, because the brown eye gene is the dominant gene. To get the recessive blue eyes, you have to have TWO blue eye genes, or the dominant eye color gene will dominate.

Now, let\\\\\\\’s all be realistic and agree that if homosexuality is an inherited trait, it MUST be a recessive trait, because it only occurs in a small percentage of the total population. I\\\\\\\’ve seen estimates ranging form 3% to 15% for the total occurrence of homosexuality in the general population. You may argue it\\\\\\\’s larger or smaller, but surely we can all agree it is small enough to say without reservation that it must be a recessive trait if it is an inherited trait.

Now, since I believe the majority of homosexuals do not have children, i.e., do not reproduce, the occurrence of this recessive gene should be decreasing over time, as the major carriers (existing homosexuals) are not passing that gene on to future generations. This would argue for a decrease in the number of homosexuals over time, due to the decreasing occurrence of the recessive gene in the general population.

This is the reverse of the principle used to \\\\\\\”breed\\\\\\\” selective traits into various lines of livestock. If you want to increase the occurrence of a particular trait in livestock, you selectively breed a male and female that both exhibit that trait. If done over several generations, you get a \\\\\\\”type\\\\\\\” of that livestock that generally exhibits the trait for which you have selected.

Since the majority of homosexuals do not \\\\\\\”breed\\\\\\\”, their traits should not be passed on as an option to succeeding generations.

That homosexuality is more \\\\\\\”common\\\\\\\” today argues directly against the \\\\\\\”genetic\\\\\\\” nature argument, because the opposite effect of what we expect from nature (genetics) is observed. More frequency, not less frequency.

On the other hand, as homosexuality is more accepted, and in many cases celebrated, argues for homosexuality being a learned response. Homosexual frequency in the general population can be shown to have ebbed and flowed throughout history as it was more accepted (Ancient Greece) or less accepted (Biblical literature, Ancient Rome, Victorian England, etc.)

Therefore I submit the frequency of homosexuality observed in the general population is exactly what you would expect from the nurture argument and diametrically opposed to what would be expected from the nature argument.

For another example, look to the fact that a large percentage (much larger than the general) of Muslims have homosexual experiences. This is a response to their religious teachings that women are of lower status than males, and should be regarded as property. This causes psychological problems for male/female bonding, and leads to homosexual encounters among most males as they attempt to create an \\\\\\\”equality\\\\\\\” relationship bond with other males.

That homosexuality is a learned (nurture) response is undeniable based on real world evidence. Attempts to make it a nature debate is only the latest PC effort to gain acceptability by its practitioners and their sycophants.

We all inherit genes from our parents. Whether we have blue eyes or brown eyes depends on the genes we inherit, and whether those genes express a dominant or a recessive trait.

Example, if you inherit two blue eye genes from your parents, you will have blue eyes. If you inherit either two brown eye genes from your parents, or one blue eye gene and one brown eye gene from each parent, you will have brown eyes, because the brown eye gene is the dominant gene. To get the recessive blue eyes, you have to have TWO blue eye genes, or the dominant eye color gene will dominate.

Now, let\\\’s all be realistic and agree that if homosexuality is an inherited trait, it MUST be a recessive trait, because it only occurs in a small percentage of the total population. I\\\’ve seen estimates ranging form 3% to 15% for the total occurrence of homosexuality in the general population. You may argue it\\\’s larger or smaller, but surely we can all agree it is small enough to say without reservation that it must be a recessive trait if it is an inherited trait.

Now, since I believe the majority of homosexuals do not have children, i.e., do not reproduce, the occurrence of this recessive gene should be decreasing over time, as the major carriers (existing homosexuals) are not passing that gene on to future generations. This would argue for a decrease in the number of homosexuals over time, due to the decreasing occurrence of the recessive gene in the general population.

This is the reverse of the principle used to \\\”breed\\\” selective traits into various lines of livestock. If you want to increase the occurrence of a particular trait in livestock, you selectively breed a male and female that both exhibit that trait. If done over several generations, you get a \\\”type\\\” of that livestock that generally exhibits the trait for which you have selected.

Since the majority of homosexuals do not \\\”breed\\\”, their traits should not be passed on as an option to succeeding generations.

That homosexuality is more \\\”common\\\” today argues directly against the \\\”genetic\\\” nature argument, because the opposite effect of what we expect from nature (genetics) is observed. More frequency, not less frequency.

On the other hand, as homosexuality is more accepted, and in many cases celebrated, argues for homosexuality being a learned response. Homosexual frequency in the general population can be shown to have ebbed and flowed throughout history as it was more accepted (Ancient Greece) or less accepted (Biblical literature, Ancient Rome, Victorian England, etc.)

Therefore I submit the frequency of homosexuality observed in the general population is exactly what you would expect from the nurture argument and diametrically opposed to what would be expected from the nature argument.

For another example, look to the fact that a large percentage (much larger than the general) of Muslims have homosexual experiences. This is a response to their religious teachings that women are of lower status than males, and should be regarded as property. This causes psychological problems for male/female bonding, and leads to homosexual encounters among most males as they attempt to create an \\\”equality\\\” relationship bond with other males.

That homosexuality is a learned (nurture) response is undeniable based on real world evidence. Attempts to make it a nature debate is only the latest PC effort to gain acceptability by its practitioners and their sycophants.

We all inherit genes from our parents. Whether we have blue eyes or brown eyes depends on the genes we inherit, and whether those genes express a dominant or a recessive trait.

Example, if you inherit two blue eye genes from your parents, you will have blue eyes. If you inherit either two brown eye genes from your parents, or one blue eye gene and one brown eye gene from each parent, you will have brown eyes, because the brown eye gene is the dominant gene. To get the recessive blue eyes, you have to have TWO blue eye genes, or the dominant eye color gene will dominate.

Now, let\’s all be realistic and agree that if homosexuality is an inherited trait, it MUST be a recessive trait, because it only occurs in a small percentage of the total population. I\’ve seen estimates ranging form 3% to 15% for the total occurrence of homosexuality in the general population. You may argue it\’s larger or smaller, but surely we can all agree it is small enough to say without reservation that it must be a recessive trait if it is an inherited trait.

Now, since I believe the majority of homosexuals do not have children, i.e., do not reproduce, the occurrence of this recessive gene should be decreasing over time, as the major carriers (existing homosexuals) are not passing that gene on to future generations. This would argue for a decrease in the number of homosexuals over time, due to the decreasing occurrence of the recessive gene in the general population.

This is the reverse of the principle used to \”breed\” selective traits into various lines of livestock. If you want to increase the occurrence of a particular trait in livestock, you selectively breed a male and female that both exhibit that trait. If done over several generations, you get a \”type\” of that livestock that generally exhibits the trait for which you have selected.

Since the majority of homosexuals do not \”breed\”, their traits should not be passed on as an option to succeeding generations.

That homosexuality is more \”common\” today argues directly against the \”genetic\” nature argument, because the opposite effect of what we expect from nature (genetics) is observed. More frequency, not less frequency.

On the other hand, as homosexuality is more accepted, and in many cases celebrated, argues for homosexuality being a learned response. Homosexual frequency in the general population can be shown to have ebbed and flowed throughout history as it was more accepted (Ancient Greece) or less accepted (Biblical literature, Ancient Rome, Victorian England, etc.)

Therefore I submit the frequency of homosexuality observed in the general population is exactly what you would expect from the nurture argument and diametrically opposed to what would be expected from the nature argument.

For another example, look to the fact that a large percentage (much larger than the general) of Muslims have homosexual experiences. This is a response to their religious teachings that women are of lower status than males, and should be regarded as property. This causes psychological problems for male/female bonding, and leads to homosexual encounters among most males as they attempt to create an \”equality\” relationship bond with other males.

That homosexuality is a learned (nurture) response is undeniable based on real world evidence. Attempts to make it a nature debate is only the latest PC effort to gain acceptability by its practitioners and their sycophants.