Posted on 10/09/2015 2:35:13 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
“gay men will be found to lack the queer gene thought to be responsible for the queer behavior that is sexual deviancy.”
Why, because you magically wish it to be so?
Uhm...sure
So, is there a queer gene? Brian Duprey wants to know.
Is there a gangbanger gene? How about a murdering moslem gene?
“So, is there a queer gene? Brian Duprey wants to know.”
If there are genes which determine heterosexual and homosexual behaviors to greater or lesser degrees, why should you be surprised to discover it? All known lifeforms which feature sexual reproductive methods are governed by genetic and epigenetic systems for their sexual development.
“Is there a gangbanger gene? How about a murdering moslem gene?”
Why do you compare homicidal behaviors to biological sexual dimorphism?
Waddaya mean "If"? You gotta be kidding. I seriously doubt it. And because that legislator put in a bill on this topic a decade ago.
Why do you compare homicidal behaviors to biological sexual dimorphism?
You mean boy-raping faggotry? Because all three have one very important thing in common....they all kill a lot of people, and I doubt any of them are genetic.
“Waddaya mean “If”? You gotta be kidding. I seriously doubt it. And because that legislator put in a bill on this topic a decade ago.”
So, because you “seriously doubt it,” any medical and scientific evidence to the contrary doesn’t matter to you and the rest of the world must adopt your belief or be dismissed by you as having some ulterior motive. Does that about sum up your viewpoint?
“You mean boy-raping faggotry? Because all three have one very important thing in common....they all kill a lot of people, and I doubt any of them are genetic.”
So, are we to understand that you also believe all heterosexual males are girl child raping pedophiles because heterosexual males “kill a lot of people, and” you “doubt any of them are genetic”?
Please carefully read my post again to extract the true meaning
Meaning?
you misinterpreted my post
“you misinterpreted my post”
Yes. I already got that, but misinterpreted how? As written it appears as if you presume or propose there are no such genes: “gay men will be found to lack the queer gene....” What do you mean to say?
there is no genetic mutation producing deviant sexual behavior
Where in the article did it say anything about a “genetic mutation” having anything to do with the topic?
to have a gay gene, there must be a mutation to produce the deviance
there are other articles casting truth on the subject
I seriously doubt there is, or ever will be any real "medical and scientific evidence"...just fake junk-science paid for by the taxpayers. "Chicken hawk" faggots harvest boys and ruin them.
So, are we to understand that you also believe all heterosexual males are girl child raping pedophiles because heterosexual males “kill a lot of people, and” you “doubt any of them are genetic”?
That's the weirdest comment I've ever seen in my life. You don't understand much.
“to have a gay gene, there must be a mutation to produce the deviance”
You are using the terminology improperly and imprecisely. Changes in the genome are mutations and each change in the genome is a deviation from the form which preceded it. The question of whether or not there is a “gay gene” in no way required a new and current mutation. The genes necessary to make insignificant and highly significant changes in the development of the organism can lie dormant in the DNA from one generation to the next, from one species to the next, from one genus to the next, and far backwards in time. This is equally true of sexual development where the failure of a single gene can trigger a complete switch of sex at the cellular level. So, there is no need for a mutation to occur in order for the sexual orientation to be determined by genetics and/or epigenetics.
“there are other articles casting truth on the subject”
yes, and the topic of this thread may yet be refuted as many have been before due to failures in the experimental study. Example:
Brief on Sexual Orientation and Genetic Determinism
May 2006
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/viewpage.aspx?pageid=66
There cannot be a “gay” gene. It would be eradicated from the species in 2-3 generations.
Once again:
man + man = no procreation
woman + woman = no procreation
Only man + woman = procreation
Those that are genetically “gay” would not procreate and would thus become extinct.
“Under Christian doctrine being born with homosexual genetics would not be a sin, but engaging in homosexual acts forbidden by the Scriptures is sinful.”
Yes, that is where the morality/immorality issue comes in...if there is a homosexual gene (I seriously doubt it) it would not change the moral aspects in the least. According to Christian doctrine...or as us Christians like to say...according to God’s Word.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
- Bill Shakespeare
You seem to be pushing this position a little to hard for a normal non-queer person. You wouldn’t be an activist would you? (disease-ridden, boy-raping whackjob)
Just asking a question.
It teaches us to resist temptations of the flesh.
Winner Winner, Chicken-hawk Dinner!
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.