Posted on 11/19/2014 8:23:01 AM PST by Morgana
Lately, “pro-choice” has been “evolving” into “pro-abortion”–including support for sex selection abortion.
But what if we find there is a gay gene that could identify fetuses who would have a propensity to be homosexual? That may be on the horizon.
From the New Scientist story:
ultrasound3d22A genetic analysis of 409 pairs of gay twins has provided the strongest evidence yet that gay people are born gay. The study clearly links sexual orientation in men with two regions of the human genome that have been implicated before, one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.
The finding is an important contribution to mounting evidence that being gay is biologically determined rather than a lifestyle choice.
The story notes that the gene factor would not be determinative, but one factor in sexual orientation as a biologically-caused phenomenon.
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
So, if a test became available to determine such a propensity–as is currently available for sex or Down syndrome–should we permit abortion to eliminate babies likely to be gay from being born, e.g.,–or for that matter, straight–e.g., eugenic abortion?
Or, will we allow likely orientation to be used as a factor in determining whether to implant an embryo after IVF?
I hope not. But I do sense the potential for a real cultural clash.
There are a couple of things driving the tendency to choose that lifestyle...
Childhood sex abuse is a huge factor. But any study linking the two would never see the light of day.
Another is the male sex drive and sin nature of not desiring to control it.
Even with genes being turned on or off based on environmental factors, I don’t see how there can be a “gay gene” or a set of them. From an evolutionary standpoint, if that gene or those genes resulted in even a 5% lower chance of reproduction (which can simply include having less children), then the gene(s) would become a vanishingly small proportion of the population within a few dozen generations at most. The real question is, how would such a gene or genes arise in the first place? What evolutionary advantage would be conferred by it/them?
I believe that this is a bunch of crap. One again, the libs are stuck with a contradiction in their views, brought about by standing for policies and positions that “feel good” rather than make sense. Most libs are foresquare in the “Darwin was right” column. With that comes the passing of genes THAT CONFER ADVANTAGES TOWARD SURVIVAL UNTIL REPRODUCTION. OTOH, they also contend that being gay is something that people are “born with.” Well, it can’t be both. For that reason, I am quite certain that being gay is an environmental thing, rather than gene-based, since it simply cannot confer any advantage toward successful reproduction.
I am looking forward to the coming lieberal crack-up, pitting ultra-feminists against the gays. Gotta go, must get to the store for some popcorn before it flies off the shelf. :>)
Check this out http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3228665/posts ,maybe we can find the retardican gene so we can abort the tards in the making.
No such thing as HOMOsexual gene. It’s a choice
And please take the language back.....it’s homosexual....nothing gay about what they are doing
The problem isn’t really in saying it disappears over time. The problem is...it can’t begin!!
Liberalism will implode eventually because of these types of contradictions.
They want abortion on demand
...but not based on a gender decision
...but not based on a “gay gene”
...even though most are black babies it isn’t racist but requiring a voter ID is
They support Islam...and gays...and feminism....and assume the Jewish vote. That just CAN’T work in the long run.
It sounds like the gene factor is a biological marker for sexual orientation rather than a true cause.The actual behavior would still depend on cultural factors.
Prenatal testing for the faggot gene will become illegal.
I have long pondered the reason for the existence of a gay gene. If one exists, its function must be to end a problematic genetic line. Nature wants to reproduce. It seems that a gay gene would be a block to reproduction.
Then it would follow that men who don't produce sperm are technically gay.
Same for women and eggs. Then technically, it would seem you'd be looking for a defective gene.
But the reasons that people can't reproduce are usually some other reason...but not genetic.
Not the same as being gay. The inability to product sperm or egg can occur naturally. In those cases, I would have to wonder if that also was nature ending a line. Why else would biology do that?
There is no gay gene.
I should clarify the reasons why this is impossible:
1) If one believes in the evolutionary model: Millions of years would have weeded this supposed gene out of our gene pool as homosexuals cannot reproduce (and those that do have to have normal sexual relations), over generations it would disappear.
2) If one believes in the creation model of origins then one knows that God hasn’t give anyone a genetic predisposition, there are Biblical examples of people coming to know Jesus and being set free from homosexuality, cited by Paul no less. The origin of homosexuality has to do with one’s spirit/psychological make up, and originates in idolatry of the self and wrong relationship with God(Romans 1).
Of course not. They will be protected. It’s the straight ones that will be killed.
~ultrasound3d22A genetic analysis of 409 pairs of gay twins has provided the strongest evidence yet that gay people are born gay.~
Just like every charlatans before these can make any anti-scientific crap sound scientific.
Lysenkoism is alive and well.
Coming from people peddling health benefits of buggery.
Those inabilities are usually structural...can't deliver etc.
Always said a computer mouse was designed after a sperm...not a mouse because of how it functions....blasts through the data to get to its target. Surely a male thing.
What if they dug deeper and discovered that that particular gene was largely prevalent in those populations who would largely call themselves SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVE...whether gayness was present or not?
Was this a survey of identical gay twins? Fraternal gay twins? Fraternal mixed gay sex twins? Identical male or Identical gay female twins? Identical male or female twins in which one was gay and the other wasn’t?
Now those questions are why I question the methodology! Did they rule out the possibility that this gene expresses itself in a majority of all identical twin births because of how the egg was divided then fertilized? Did they do a survey of 409 pairs of identical twins or fraternal twins who weren’t gay to see if they had the gene? Does being in an identical twin set cause the gene to more readily express itself vs’s in the general population who aren’t identical twins? Can we trust that the gene really has something to do with causing someone to directly become gay when others, who have the gene, would never dream of being gay nor have the desire?
Since we don’t have the technology yet, we have no real idea in real time what the gene does when turned on or off.
Is the gene prevalent in folks who are into other sorts of sexual perversions or tend to be anti-social lawbreakers? Does the gene contribute, not to gayness per say but to the mental illness of Oppositional social disorder in which all manner of maladaptive behaviors are manifested?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.