Posted on 06/19/2015 8:10:34 AM PDT by wagglebee
Anything that prevents reproduction in a species can’t have a genetic basis. It is nonsense to claim otherwise. Queers are incapable of accepting the truth. It is simply part of their diseased thinking.
They are afraid that research into the causes of homosexuality will result in hetero parents taking steps to prevent having a homosexual child.
There will not be research (at least not in the US) on creating a prenatal test for whether the fetus will be likely to develop into a homosexual. The gay lobby will proclaim such research a hate crime. They will also make it illegal for such a test to be administered, or used as a basis for deciding to abort.
Not necessarily. Think of sickle-cell anemia. Having one gene gives immunity to malaria. Getting the gene from both parents gives anemia.
Think of early humans who may have formed matrilocal tribes(man joins wife's tribe rather than woman moving to husband's tribe). In such an environment, hetero boys would be lost to the tribe as they went off in search of mates, but homo boys would be more likely to stick around to help raise and feed their sisters' kids, who are genetically related.
Not following how sickle cell prevents reproduction.
Dying prevents reproduction rather effectively. Prior to modern treatments, life expectancy for those with sickle cell was 14, meaning they would not live to reproduce.
Ah, sickle cell allowed them to survive malaria. Malarial organisms do not infect sickle cells. The life expectancy for those homozygous for this disease is past the 5th decade. If they didn’t reproduce the gene would have been eliminated long ago. You are pretending to know something about an area outside your realm of expertise. I suggest you look at a 1994 article in the New England J of Medicine.
Key word: "is".
From the link to the NIH site I gave you:
In high-income countries like the United States, the life expectancy of a person with SCD is now about 40–60 years. In 1973, the average lifespan of a person with SCD in the United States was only 14 years. Advances in the diagnosis and care of SCD have made this improvement possible.You are pretending to know something about an area outside your realm of expertise.
You are an MD or researcher in the area of sickle cell disease?
From CDC:
The sickle cell gene is caused by a single amino acid mutation (valine instead of glutamate at the 6th position) in the beta chain of the hemoglobin gene. Inheritance of this mutated gene from both parents leads to sickle cell disease and people with this disease have shorter life expectancy. On the contrary, individuals who are carriers for the sickle cell disease (with one sickle gene and one normal hemoglobin gene, also known as sickle cell trait) have some protective advantage against malaria. As a result, the frequencies of sickle cell carriers are high in malaria-endemic areas.So, heterozygous carriers of the gene have malaria resistance and thus tend to live longer, so they can have more offspring. Homozygous (have it from both sides) tend to die young.
You wrote 14 year. The correct life expectancy is 50 plus which is clearly plenty of time to have offspring. If this were not the case the gene would have been eliminated long ago.
Sickle cell disease is a life-long illness. The severity of the disease varies widely from person to person.Hence, my statement "Prior to modern treatments, life expectancy for those with sickle cell was 14, meaning they would not live to reproduce".In high-income countries like the United States, the life expectancy of a person with SCD is now about 40–60 years. In 1973, the average lifespan of a person with SCD in the United States was only 14 years. Advances in the diagnosis and care of SCD have made this improvement possible.
If the medical research you have conducted disagrees with NIH, take it up with them. I'm done with you here.
I love this quote from Jurassic Park: “...your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
Granted, nevertheless, they have clearly been able to reproduce. For the record, I have been on many NIH funded projects dealing with other diseases.
Boil it down?: Triple the Cost
Forcing insurers to throw disease-ridden whackjobs and their self-inflicted, expensive and unnecessary claims in the same pool with otherwise healthy, normal Americans will double or triple premiums.
(Community rating, Guaranteed Issue)
How is that fair?
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.