Posted on 09/10/2019 8:10:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Just look for the gene that looks “fabulous”.
Funny that the Left now no longer hold that your genes don’t determine your gender but The Gay must be genetic, huh?
They obviously didn’t find the designer gene.
I was hoping that there was a “gay” gene. It would have been fun to see the next step, which would have been the California collection of cretin clowns (otherwise known as their legislature) quickly pass the “It’s a woman’s body, unless the fetus has a gay gene, then she cannot abort” law.
I don't think that there is a gene. Otherwise, after thousands of generations, the gay gene would have been discarded as being useless because it is not reinforced through procreation. Discarded because gayness means no or very few offspring.
Prior to birth: hormones?
Post birth: relationships and bonding with the mother? Relationships with the father?
Post birth: abuse (sexual and other).
Post birth: perversion of the individual because of the availability of extreme forms of sex — innocence lost. Much like a drug addict searching for the next high leads them to more extreme sexual situations including homosexuality.
You’re either XX or XY. There isn’t anything else.
No excuse but it makes you wonder if Bill Cosby and Michael Jackson might have not abused others if “the opportunity” wasn’t available to them. Money and power allowed them to follow through on their perversions. And one perversion leads to another and to another. Again, if given the opportunity.
Some people are easily turned and tempted if given the opportunity. Others, not so much. But it might depend upon their make up and environment.
The Christian faith along with social constructs are supposed to guard against perversion or at least make people think twice. Unfortunately, homosexuality is encouraged these days.
It’s called the Sin gene.
Everybody has it...
‘’A resolute determination among earlier scientists’
The ‘studies’ were done by two researchers only. They said they arrived at their results independently. I saw them on TV in the early 90’s. They both appeared to be gay and I believe knew each other before conducting their studies. The news that there is no ‘gay gene’ was known very shortly after this proclamation there was a gay gene, but the libMedia ignored it. I have several friends with family members and very close friends who are gay/lesbian. They all absolutely believe in the gay gene. But those of us who have been paying attention are aware that it really is mostly nurture, not nature. I have known at least one child though who was obviously not going in the direction that was in line with his birth gender. I have no idea what his home life was like, but at age 5 he wasn’t even remotely interested in ‘boy things or boy activities’. This will not get the attention it should, but way too many people are bound to give excuses for aberrant behavior. So they will stick with old, faulty research to give them cover.
RE: It’s called the Sin gene.
Everybody has it...
______________________________________
A non-believer seems to have hit the nail on the head and indirectly and implicitly agreed with the above statement you just made.
The writer ( and regular debate protagonist of conservative author and TV debate host, Bill Buckley ), GORE VIDAL was gay himself.
He however, refused to be called homosexual and insisted that we are all potentially bi-sexual.
Writing for an edition of Esquire magazine in 1969, he wrote:
Quote:
“We are all bisexual to begin with. That is a fact of our condition. And we are all responsive to sexual stimuli from our own as well as from the opposite sex. [...] regardless of tribal taboos, homosexuality is a constant fact of the human condition and it is not a sickness, not a sin, not a crime [...] Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Notice I use the word ‘natural,’ not normal.”
This for me, explains why a lot of gay activists want schools to “educate” children to “find” their own innate sexuality. They want company. The more, the better.
I agree with much of what you say here. I believe imprinting is a strong factor, but many straights have been successfully raised by single women. I also think there is a trend of not accepting any responsibility that seems to be native in some. The denial of traditional responsibility associated with “being a man” or “being a woman” could cause denial of manhood or womanhood itself. Likewise, those who cannot accept their same sex attraction feel they must have been born into the body of the wrong sex. Again with feelings instead of thought.
When children are young, the opposite sex is icky. We fully believed girls had cooties, whatever those were. I remember when all that changed, the day school started back and I was in 6th grade. There was something suddenly different about Lisa, whom I had known for years. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it, but I knew I wanted to. Maybe some guys still believe in cooties, who knows...
Why would a genetic trait exist (At least not for long!) that encourages the organism not to procreate?
Where’s the survival advantage?
If they actually found this gene and the abortions start watch what happens.
We are born naked, there is no ‘wear the clothes of the opposite sex’ gene.
And for parents bragging about their drag queen toddlers, would they boast about them dressing as a clown every day, preferring to be referred to as Bozo or Homey?
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.