Silly

mcchino64 you make very good points, and pi zero you have my idea right about the genetics aspect.

The reason i dislike gays is because of all the people i have met who are gay. They turn out to be bi-sexual, drug users and, overall, honor less. all of these reasons have become social acceptable so most people don't understand my distaste and say its just homophobia like the fools they are.

I find it necessary to figure out the source of all things to fully understand it which is why I have concluded, until proven other wise, that being gay has to be either a choice, recessive gene, or protein mutation.

I have no idea what happened above but I feel sort of responsible for it so I am sorry. Why can't we be friends? <3 :)

It is my impression although admittedly completely from either fictional shows or documentaries, I have never been to the US.

I'm certain it's to do with the more secular culture of the UK. I get the impression that biggots in the UK would hate gays because they're 'not right' but with no real religious undertones. As an atheist in middle England I probably have a skewed view - but nobody bats an eyelid when they say they're an atheist in the UK. I read a social study (it may even have been on wikinews) that suggested that atheists in the US are as unpopular if not more unpopular than muslims homosexuals and other potential minority groups. From this I concluded that homosexuality in the US, as atheism, is frowned upon as an affront to god.

I'm not suggesting that the US is more biggoted, but perhaps the predjudice stems from religious reasoning.

Religion performs an evolutionarily useful function in the human psyche: We've evolved instincts that presumably promoted our selfish genes but that contradict each other, and our rational minds don't like the contradiction. We have a moral instinct to be good to other human beings, but we also have an instinct to hate those different from us. Religion provides a solution, by claiming that all morality comes from God, and God says we should hate those who are different from us. Naturally, in order for religion to be evolutionarily successful, religions should exhibit similar morality/xenophobia toward other religions. For a religion, atheism is the ultimate foreigner.

However we are not in a life or death situation anymore so (at least many of us) can override any instinctive suspision of all things foreign i.e. a gay couple at high school aren't going to wipe out the straight kids thus they've been accepted.

It seems simplistic to me to suggest however that evolution acts to concentrate selfish genes - depending on the definition of selfish. Evolution can develop traits that are markedly unselfish, such as the poison in certain frogs - which might not aid an individual frog from being eaten but will protect the species as a whole.

I wonder also whether traits may develop which offer no advantage to the species but that also offer no distinct DISadvantage and thus may be allowed to progress. This could be a route through which any genetic susceptibility to homosexuality could travel (again I'm ignorant of where the scientific world stands on nature vs nurture as far as homosexuality goes)

The term selfish gene does not refer to genes for selfish individuals. It means that the genes themselves evolve in a way that promotes the "selfish" best interests of the genes. This is in opposition to the (erroneous) idea that evolution favors individual organisms that are most fit to survive, or that it favors communities that are most fit to survive. The genes are the "replicators", the things whose relative success drives evolution; organisms, and communities of organisms, are just vehicles for the genes. Our genes have "learned" that they can promote their own propagation by inducing the creation of these amazing tools — us. All the genes "care" about is that they, the genes, are propagated; sometimes that is is promoted by creating vehicles that survive well, sometimes by creating vehicles that are very fragile but very prolific, and sometimes it's in the best interests of the genes that individual organisms sacrifice themselves for others. What all these have in common is that they benefit the genes, regardless of the welfare of individual organisms. Hence the metaphorical use of the word "selfish".

for reference, the abstract of a 2010 article in the JOurnl of Sexual Medicine

Introduction.: Debate continues on whether or not male homosexuality (MH) is a result of biological or cultural factors. The debate persists despite the fact that these two sides have different abilities to create a scientific environment to support their cause. Biological theorists produced evidence, however, that these are not always robust. On the other hand, social theorists, without direct evidence confirming their positions, criticize, with good argument, methods and results of the other side. The aim of this Controversy is to understand the reasons of both perspectives. Methods.: Two scientists (R.B. and A.C.C.) with expertise in the area of biology of MH were asked to contribute their opinions. The nurture position is discussed by a third expert in sexology (J.B.). Main Outcome Measure.: Expert opinion supported by the critical review of the currently available literature. Result.: The role of the Controversy's editor (E.A.J.) is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. The two experts of the biological issue answer with their data to the questions: " Is male homosexuality partly explainable by immunology?" and " How is male homosexuality a Darwinian paradox?", respectively. Genetic and immunological factors, birth order, and fertility of relatives are largely discussed. Finally, the expert sustaining the idea that culture and experiences are important determining factors in sexual orientation used a psychosocial and holistic perspective to explain his position. Conclusions.: The JSM's readers should recognize that there are several biological factors in MH. However, these findings do not seem to be able to explain all cases of homosexuality. Some others may be due to particular environmental factors. The issue is complicated and multifactorial, suggesting that further research should be undertaken to produce the final answer to the question raised in this Controversy section. © 2010 International Society for Sexual Medicine.

Religion is memetic; to people like myself, it is by-and-large a regressive meme.

I think religion is memetic only in the sense that species homo sapiens is genetic: people are highly sophisticated organisms induced by and for their genes, religions are highly sophisticated organisms induced by and for their memes. Telltale features of organsisms are that they have a lifecycle involving birth, death, and reproduction, and that the children resulting from reproduction carry on many of the replicators (in this case, memes) from their ancestors, including some preserved in recessive form. Here, you can see recessive memes in religion from, for example, all those passages in the Bible, or the Quran, that any particular sect may choose to "overlook".