[Mr. Jazzy]

Oh yes there is a “gay” gene! ...

... And it looks fabulous!

[Personal Responsibility]

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a soon to be banished as a homophobe doctor who has written about the issue on the about to be put out of business for disagreeing with the gay lobby website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

Edited for accuracy. /sarc

[Hacklehead]

While this is a good start I should point out that psychologists have as much credibility in genetic studies as plumbers have in heart surgery.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

How much money was wasted on finding out that "gay" is a choice?

I wonder if God gets sick of being right all the time....

[dragonblustar]

[chemicalman]

Sure they don’t mean “jeans”?

[theDentist]

I remember, during the time when a "gay gene" was originally proposed, that there was a debate which arose from it: It was something like... Assuming it was true, and assuming DNA could be tested for it, would you as a prospective parent abort your baby because it may be gay?

Pro-Lifers remained true to their beliefs and still wouldn't abort (good for you!). But there was quite a fight in liberal camps about it.... I'll look to see if I can find the data on it.

[sageb1]

I caught this last night. Here is a post on the gay and lesbian response:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2250568/posts

[Ancesthntr]

How could there be? Wouldn’t it be selected out of existence, even if there was only a 0.1% chance that someone who has it as the dominant gene (i.e. someone gay) would not reproduce, and thereby pass the gene on?

Clearly, the answer is that such a gene would, over a sufficient number of generations (and there have been a couple thousand generations of humans since the appearance of Cro-Magnon Man), be selected out of existence. Which necessarily requires that the behavior in question is as a result of some outside, non-genetic influence. Even if it took some outside influence to activate or express the gene, a mere 0.1% failure-to-reproduce rate would phase such a gene out of existence (though more slowly than one that didn’t require an outside influence to activate it).

IOW, the whole concept of a “gay gene” is a bunch of horse poop.

[HamiltonJay]

There never was a gay gene... its a mental disorder folks, not a biological one. Does that mean there are not folks born with certain urges? Nope, not at all. However we are human beings, not animals, we all have urges, and sane rational adults know healthy ones from unhealthy ones and generally avoid unhealthy ones. They don’t engage repeatedly in unhealthy ones and ask the world to accept that they can’t help it.

[lilylangtree]

Queers can no longer hide behind a medical reason for being queer. That’ll burst their bubble. They’ll have to finally understand what’s already been known, i.e., that participating in a queer lifestyle is a choice. This means that Congress can stop leaning towards making “a choice” a legitimate reason for making queers a protected group, and thereby stop supporting the godawful “hate crimes” legislation.

[vpintheak]

It is a birth defect. I am convinced of this. Something happens in the womb that changes people. It is only normal because it happens to a small percentage normally. Other than that, it is not normal behavior and anyone who tries to say yes it is, is dead wrong.

[NewHampshireDuo]

Golly gee, then homosexuals should be candidates for therapy to "straighten" them out.

[DMG2FUN]

The perverted homosexuals will just start calling this person a homophobe.