There is no gay gene. They cannot reproduce so it is never passed on. Duh......
I predict that the liberals would want to outlaw abortions done on homosexual embryos if there were a gay gene discovery.
On the other hand, liberals are ok with the fact that most Down syndrome fetuses are aborted nowadays. It all comes back to who is favored under liberalism. Homosexuals are an officially recognized grievance group per liberals, so we are supposed to be shocked that anyone would abort a gay fetus.
On the other hand, Down syndrome people are NOT a recognized grievance group, so liberals are ok with aborting them for that reason.
Way to make Leftist heads explode!
Actually, I’ve really lost count on what the prevailing popular Gay culture argument for perversion is. Is it genetic, something one can’t help but do? Or is it a choice?
Do culture, upbringing and life’s experiences rule the roost, or can you be a queer just by being born?
I see and her examples of the effect and the import to the ‘richness’ of acceptance and diversity in society, but I don’t see much about the root cause. Perhaps that could have been explained by the American Psychiatry Association but it seems they drank the Koolaid long ago and decided that it (homosexuality) was ‘normal’
I remain unconvinced of the naturality.
Yes
And gays will become pro-life
And democrats will actually look at curtailing abortions
Irrelevant question. A desire gene does not make sense. Physically all humans are heterosexual — or there would be no future humans. It is unarguable that human biology is designed that way. A desire to do what is wrong or immoral is called a sin nature. But that’s not what people looking for the so-called gay gene mean. And just because a person grows older and more enslaved to their particular sin of choice does not mean it is good and normal or that they were born to do it.
While I don’t think there is any “gay gene”, the field of epigenetics is showing that some genes can become active, or become suppressed to the point of being active or being inactive in some way, due to conditions that are encountered.
Yes, gene’s can be “turned on” or “turned off”, environmentally; so it is not always a given that you either “have a gene or you don’t”, because in some cases a gene is present but dormant - unless some environmental trigger activates it, or some gene that is normally active is dormant, because of a reaction to something.
Epigenetics is showing that the way genes are used, or not, is more than simply having a particular genome; it is dependent in some cases on more than just having certain genes to start with.
What would the abortionists say about a “gay gene” if there was one? They’d be the hypocrites that they are. They’d think it was wrong to abort a baby with a “gay gene” but think it O.K. to abort babies for other genetic reasons.
....Oh wait you mean China forces abortions? You mean the many women abort baby girls before they are born in developing countries? You mean more black babies are aborted than born in NYC? Oh my, well then....maybe the gay-rights movement should be concerned!
Would they get gene therapy?
This particular gay gene theory using twins is weak science. You have to look for that gene in gay folks who have no twins. Also not every identical twin “set” which has a gay person in it has an equally gay sibling. The article says the gene might be contributory but not determinative to a person becoming gay. Well that is such a mish mash because if folks exist with that gene who aren’t gay at all, how can they tell if the gene has anything to do at all with gayness. The fact that there are gays who DON’T have the gene kind of dampens the research!
I suppose they can try to do a numbers search....of a certain number of folks with the gene.... how many in that gene group are gay. Now take the same number of persons known not to have the gene and query again, asking how many of that group are gay!
If the percentages are similar then the gene probably has no impact on gayness. If there are greater numbers of gays in the “gay gene” group vs’s the number of gays in the “non gay gene” group...then the “alledged gay gene” may indeed have effects on folks becoming homosexuals.
If there is such a thing as a “gay gene”, then it must be a genetic defect. It seems to me that any genetic condition that would prevent procreation would have to be a defect.
I could see “gay rights” being justified under the A.D.A., however offensive many may consider that notion.
Next question, if it is a genetic defect, would a “cure” be justified?
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.
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.
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.