Nature: No Gay Gene.

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not making a political or cultural point here...just sharing an article that I found interesting.

I have been of the mind that sexual preference is not a choice based on the fact that I could not choose to be attracted to a dude. But this study seems to imply that there is more to sexual preference than biological imperative...

Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors — a figure similar to the findings of smaller studies.​

​

“This is a solid study,” says Melinda Mills, a sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who studies the genetic basis of reproductive behaviours.​

​

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality

Nearly half a million genomes reveal five DNA markers associated with sexual behaviour — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual.

www.nature.com

​

​

It would certainly would have been convenient for parents if there was a gay gene. After testing confirms it, they could dress their little boys like junior homos.

Could you picture the clash if they not only discovered a gay gene but developed a prenatal test for it? The gay and abortion at all costs at any time for any reason lobbies would be at it hammer and tongs. And then to develop treatment that nullified the gay gene in the womb. They would go bonkers.

None of that makes a god damned bit of sense!

Did you just miss it? If we developed a prenatal test for a gay gene, parents would know that their developing baby would be gay and many would abort such babies. That would make the gay lobby extremely angry that gay babies would be targeted for destruction. They would seek to restrict abortion for the purpose of destroying a gay baby. But the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd can't handle ANY restrictions on abortion at all, so they would fight the restrictions. It would an epic slapfest. Then, if we were to not only develop a prenatal test but a gene TREATMENT for the gay gene, many parents would opt to treat their baby and the gay lobby would go bonkers. You seriously didn't get that?

Your entire rant is predicated on several moronic assumptions that would only be entertained by someone living inside their far right bubble. The first is that "many" people would be so freaked out about the prospect of haaving a gay child that they would want to abort it.

Secondly, you assume that a "gay lobby"-if such a thing exists-woild concern it self with the number of gay kids who are born. Gay people either support or oppose abortion for many reasons just like everyone else

Third, you stupidly assume that people who identify as pro choice do not want any restrictions what so ever on abortion which cannot be ferther from the truth

Lastly, and pehapps the most obsurd is your assumption that "many parents" would see gayness as an illness that is in need of treatment.

You really need to get out more and get an education

Actually, top doctors like Marcus Bachmann do a tremendous job at treating and even curing men of the desire to take it in the caboose. So, yes, it is an illness.

The fact that a lot of states have passed laws prohibiting people from curing homosexuality says a lot about the effectiveness of the cures.

Marcus Bachmann ??? A fucking quack and a bigot

 

[hadit]

Not making a political or cultural point here...just sharing an article that I found interesting.

I have been of the mind that sexual preference is not a choice based on the fact that I could not choose to be attracted to a dude. But this study seems to imply that there is more to sexual preference than biological imperative...

Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors — a figure similar to the findings of smaller studies.​

​

“This is a solid study,” says Melinda Mills, a sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who studies the genetic basis of reproductive behaviours.​

​

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality

Nearly half a million genomes reveal five DNA markers associated with sexual behaviour — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual.

www.nature.com

​

​

It would certainly would have been convenient for parents if there was a gay gene. After testing confirms it, they could dress their little boys like junior homos.

Could you picture the clash if they not only discovered a gay gene but developed a prenatal test for it? The gay and abortion at all costs at any time for any reason lobbies would be at it hammer and tongs. And then to develop treatment that nullified the gay gene in the womb. They would go bonkers.

None of that makes a god damned bit of sense!

Did you just miss it? If we developed a prenatal test for a gay gene, parents would know that their developing baby would be gay and many would abort such babies. That would make the gay lobby extremely angry that gay babies would be targeted for destruction. They would seek to restrict abortion for the purpose of destroying a gay baby. But the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd can't handle ANY restrictions on abortion at all, so they would fight the restrictions. It would an epic slapfest. Then, if we were to not only develop a prenatal test but a gene TREATMENT for the gay gene, many parents would opt to treat their baby and the gay lobby would go bonkers. You seriously didn't get that?

Your entire rant is predicated on several moronic assumptions that would only be entertained by someone living inside their far right bubble. The first is that "many" people would be so freaked out about the prospect of haaving a gay child that they would want to abort it.

Secondly, you assume that a "gay lobby"-if such a thing exists-woild concern it self with the number of gay kids who are born. Gay people either support or oppose abortion for many reasons just like everyone else

Third, you stupidly assume that people who identify as pro choice do not want any restrictions what so ever on abortion which cannot be ferther from the truth

Lastly, and pehapps the most obsurd is your assumption that "many parents" would see gayness as an illness that is in need of treatment.

You really need to get out more and get an education

Okay, here's an education for you.

1. Most people still today would not prefer their children grow up gay. Gay people still face a lot of stigma from their peers, no matter how many times Hollywood tries to boost homosexuality.
2. Many people abort babies with Down's Syndrome, even though those children can grow up and lead fulfilling lives. All things being equal, there would be a lot of gay babies aborted.
3. If you are deaf and know that most deaf babies are aborted, if you are blind and know that most blind babies are aborted, if are <fill in the blank> and know that most babies like that are aborted, you would want them spared.
4. I didn't say pro abortion people don't want any restrictions. Note what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said. I said, "the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd", and that is out there. There are many who clamor that there be no restrictions whatsoever on abortion, and you know that.
5. Many parents tolerate homosexuality, but if they had the choice would opt to treat it. Face reality, most people are heterosexual and would prefer their children be heterosexual.

 

[james bond]

I think being gay is a choice. OW, why is there no gay gene and why is it an abomination (in religious and moral terms)? It's just a different type of sex for perverted pleasures. Can a gay person become heterosexual again? If it is a choice, then they can but they probably have an addiction to it so it won't happen overnight. Those psychologists who do not listen to liberal (gay) politics will have a field day

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not making a political or cultural point here...just sharing an article that I found interesting.

I have been of the mind that sexual preference is not a choice based on the fact that I could not choose to be attracted to a dude. But this study seems to imply that there is more to sexual preference than biological imperative...

Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors — a figure similar to the findings of smaller studies.​

​

“This is a solid study,” says Melinda Mills, a sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who studies the genetic basis of reproductive behaviours.​

​

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality

Nearly half a million genomes reveal five DNA markers associated with sexual behaviour — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual.

www.nature.com

​

​

It would certainly would have been convenient for parents if there was a gay gene. After testing confirms it, they could dress their little boys like junior homos.

Could you picture the clash if they not only discovered a gay gene but developed a prenatal test for it? The gay and abortion at all costs at any time for any reason lobbies would be at it hammer and tongs. And then to develop treatment that nullified the gay gene in the womb. They would go bonkers.

None of that makes a god damned bit of sense!

Did you just miss it? If we developed a prenatal test for a gay gene, parents would know that their developing baby would be gay and many would abort such babies. That would make the gay lobby extremely angry that gay babies would be targeted for destruction. They would seek to restrict abortion for the purpose of destroying a gay baby. But the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd can't handle ANY restrictions on abortion at all, so they would fight the restrictions. It would an epic slapfest. Then, if we were to not only develop a prenatal test but a gene TREATMENT for the gay gene, many parents would opt to treat their baby and the gay lobby would go bonkers. You seriously didn't get that?

Your entire rant is predicated on several moronic assumptions that would only be entertained by someone living inside their far right bubble. The first is that "many" people would be so freaked out about the prospect of haaving a gay child that they would want to abort it.

Secondly, you assume that a "gay lobby"-if such a thing exists-woild concern it self with the number of gay kids who are born. Gay people either support or oppose abortion for many reasons just like everyone else

Third, you stupidly assume that people who identify as pro choice do not want any restrictions what so ever on abortion which cannot be ferther from the truth

Lastly, and pehapps the most obsurd is your assumption that "many parents" would see gayness as an illness that is in need of treatment.

You really need to get out more and get an education

Okay, here's an education for you.

1. Most people still today would not prefer their children grow up gay. Gay people still face a lot of stigma from their peers, no matter how many times Hollywood tries to boost homosexuality.
2. Many people abort babies with Down's Syndrome, even though those children can grow up and lead fulfilling lives. All things being equal, there would be a lot of gay babies aborted.
3. If you are deaf and know that most deaf babies are aborted, if you are blind and know that most blind babies are aborted, if are <fill in the blank> and know that most babies like that are aborted, you would want them spared.
4. I didn't say pro abortion people don't want any restrictions. Note what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said. I said, "the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd", and that is out there. There are many who clamor that there be no restrictions whatsoever on abortion, and you know that.
5. Many parents tolerate homosexuality, but if they had the choice would opt to treat it. Face reality, most people are heterosexual and would prefer their children be heterosexual.

I do not need an education and I damned sure don’t need one from you. But I will congratulate you on your accomplishment of committing at least 4 logical fallacies in one inane post

First, you moved the goal posts. First you said that many people would abort a gay child if they could. When I pointed out the stupidity of that, you changed your assertion to “ . Most people still today would not prefer their children grow up gay.” Maybe yes and maybe no but they are very different matters. Yes, you did later repeat that there would be many abortions, but without any evidence.

Secondly, the whole abortion thing that you started is a red herring logical fallacy because it is intended to divert the conversation away from the issue of genetics. You are obviously ill equipped to deal with genetics so you seek to fling whatever excrement that you can to avoid it

In addition, you throw more dung around by bringing up Downs Syndrome and other diseases –another Red Herring to avoid the real topic and also a False Equivalency logical fallacy Being gay is not a disease or defect

As far as this assertion goes,

“I didn't say pro abortion people don't want any restrictions. Note what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said. I said, "the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd"

I have to ask what the difference is? And its one more Red Herring

As for this

“Many parents tolerate homosexuality, but if they had the choice would opt to treat it. Face reality, most people are heterosexual and would prefer their children be heterosexual”

I’m going to call Non Sequitur on that one. You conclude that parents

“tolerate homosexuality” and would “treat it”

is not supported by any premise or evidence that you presented to support it. I could make the argument that most parents love and are supportive of their gay kids, but that too would not be a valid argument in the absence of supporting evidence

The only time you came close to making sense is when you said “

Gay people still face a lot of stigma”

No shit. The question is why, and I will tell you why. It is because they are discriminated against, dehumanized and marginalized. The solution is not to abort or cure gay kids, the solution is to eliminate the moronic bigots who cause them to be stigmatized. If you’re suggesting that gays suffer from stigmatization just because they are gay, independent of the social environment and legal structure you have committed you another logical fallacy-false cause. Hey that makes 5! Good job slick

Your grade f minus for debate ability

 

[hadit]

Not making a political or cultural point here...just sharing an article that I found interesting.

I have been of the mind that sexual preference is not a choice based on the fact that I could not choose to be attracted to a dude. But this study seems to imply that there is more to sexual preference than biological imperative...

Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors — a figure similar to the findings of smaller studies.​

​

“This is a solid study,” says Melinda Mills, a sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who studies the genetic basis of reproductive behaviours.​

​

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality

Nearly half a million genomes reveal five DNA markers associated with sexual behaviour — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual.

www.nature.com

​

​

It would certainly would have been convenient for parents if there was a gay gene. After testing confirms it, they could dress their little boys like junior homos.

Could you picture the clash if they not only discovered a gay gene but developed a prenatal test for it? The gay and abortion at all costs at any time for any reason lobbies would be at it hammer and tongs. And then to develop treatment that nullified the gay gene in the womb. They would go bonkers.

None of that makes a god damned bit of sense!

Did you just miss it? If we developed a prenatal test for a gay gene, parents would know that their developing baby would be gay and many would abort such babies. That would make the gay lobby extremely angry that gay babies would be targeted for destruction. They would seek to restrict abortion for the purpose of destroying a gay baby. But the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd can't handle ANY restrictions on abortion at all, so they would fight the restrictions. It would an epic slapfest. Then, if we were to not only develop a prenatal test but a gene TREATMENT for the gay gene, many parents would opt to treat their baby and the gay lobby would go bonkers. You seriously didn't get that?

Your entire rant is predicated on several moronic assumptions that would only be entertained by someone living inside their far right bubble. The first is that "many" people would be so freaked out about the prospect of haaving a gay child that they would want to abort it.

Secondly, you assume that a "gay lobby"-if such a thing exists-woild concern it self with the number of gay kids who are born. Gay people either support or oppose abortion for many reasons just like everyone else

Third, you stupidly assume that people who identify as pro choice do not want any restrictions what so ever on abortion which cannot be ferther from the truth

Lastly, and pehapps the most obsurd is your assumption that "many parents" would see gayness as an illness that is in need of treatment.

You really need to get out more and get an education

Okay, here's an education for you.

1. Most people still today would not prefer their children grow up gay. Gay people still face a lot of stigma from their peers, no matter how many times Hollywood tries to boost homosexuality.
2. Many people abort babies with Down's Syndrome, even though those children can grow up and lead fulfilling lives. All things being equal, there would be a lot of gay babies aborted.
3. If you are deaf and know that most deaf babies are aborted, if you are blind and know that most blind babies are aborted, if are <fill in the blank> and know that most babies like that are aborted, you would want them spared.
4. I didn't say pro abortion people don't want any restrictions. Note what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said. I said, "the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd", and that is out there. There are many who clamor that there be no restrictions whatsoever on abortion, and you know that.
5. Many parents tolerate homosexuality, but if they had the choice would opt to treat it. Face reality, most people are heterosexual and would prefer their children be heterosexual.

I do not need an education and I damned sure don’t need one from you. But I will congratulate you on your accomplishment of committing at least 4 logical fallacies in one inane post

First, you moved the goal posts. First you said that many people would abort a gay child if they could. When I pointed out the stupidity of that, you changed your assertion to “ . Most people still today would not prefer their children grow up gay.” Maybe yes and maybe no but they are very different matters. Yes, you did later repeat that there would be many abortions, but without any evidence.

Secondly, the whole abortion thing that you started is a red herring logical fallacy because it is intended to divert the conversation away from the issue of genetics. You are obviously ill equipped to deal with genetics so you seek to fling whatever excrement that you can to avoid it

In addition, you throw more dung around by bringing up Downs Syndrome and other diseases –another Red Herring to avoid the real topic and also a False Equivalency logical fallacy Being gay is not a disease or defect

As far as this assertion goes,

“I didn't say pro abortion people don't want any restrictions. Note what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said. I said, "the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd"

I have to ask what the difference is? And its one more Red Herring

As for this

“Many parents tolerate homosexuality, but if they had the choice would opt to treat it. Face reality, most people are heterosexual and would prefer their children be heterosexual”

I’m going to call Non Sequitur on that one. You conclude that parents

“tolerate homosexuality” and would “treat it”

is not supported by any premise or evidence that you presented to support it. I could make the argument that most parents love and are supportive of their gay kids, but that too would not be a valid argument in the absence of supporting evidence

The only time you came close to making sense is when you said “

Gay people still face a lot of stigma”

No shit. The question is why, and I will tell you why. It is because they are discriminated against, dehumanized and marginalized. The solution is not to abort or cure gay kids, the solution is to eliminate the moronic bigots who cause them to be stigmatized. If you’re suggesting that gays suffer from stigmatization just because they are gay, independent of the social environment and legal structure you have committed you another logical fallacy-false cause. Hey that makes 5! Good job slick

Your grade f minus for debate ability

Several attempts from you to sound erudite fell rather flat. In addition, the fact that you wander off into arguing debate style instead of dealing with what is in front of you is very telling. You chose, after all, to get involved in this discussion, so deal.

1. I said that many people would abort a gay child if they could. That is true, because there are many people who have no objection to abortion and who would elect to abort a baby if they knew he/she was going to be gay. That's what cheap abortion has brought us. If you can believe that the child growing inside the woman is not a human and can be destroyed for any reason at all, it follows logically that many would abort a gay child because they don't want one. And why not? Children are aborted now because they would be inconvenient to a career woman who doesn't want to take time off to care for a child. They are aborted because a test revealed that they have a birth defect of some kind. They are aborted for every reason under the sun. The assertion didn't change, BTW. That was you making a fallacious leap of illogic.
2. Identifying a gay gene leads logically to when that gene could be identified, and that naturally leads to what would happen if we could predict with a great deal of certainty that a child would grow up gay. I do believe it is you that desperately wants to avoid discussing the natural consequences of a gay gene and where it would lead. That's okay, you don't have to.
3. I bring up Down's because many people do view homosexuality as an abnormality, and if it could be identified before the developing baby is granted legal status as a human being, there could be no objection to the destruction of said baby. After all, if there is no objection to abortion because somebody doesn't want stretch marks, who could object to this?
4. I will tell you what the difference is between the two groups of people since you obviously didn't think this through very well. One group is hard core pro abortion and do not believe there should ever be any objection to abortion for any reason at all. And yes, we've heard from them. The other group supports abortion but are willing to impose restrictions such as parental involvement, limits on the age of the baby, that sort of thing. Seriously, you didn't know there are people like that?
5. Absolutely most parents would prefer their children be heterosexual, and why would they not? Most parents are themselves heterosexual. Do you deny that? Most people have an instinctive negative reaction to homosexuality. Do you deny that? Most parents would like their children to have children of their own to carry on the family line. Do you deny that? Therefore, it is completely logical to state that most parents would treat homosexuality if they could.

 

[Polishprince]

Not making a political or cultural point here...just sharing an article that I found interesting.

I have been of the mind that sexual preference is not a choice based on the fact that I could not choose to be attracted to a dude. But this study seems to imply that there is more to sexual preference than biological imperative...

Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors — a figure similar to the findings of smaller studies.​

​

“This is a solid study,” says Melinda Mills, a sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who studies the genetic basis of reproductive behaviours.​

​

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality

Nearly half a million genomes reveal five DNA markers associated with sexual behaviour — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual.

www.nature.com

​

​

It would certainly would have been convenient for parents if there was a gay gene. After testing confirms it, they could dress their little boys like junior homos.

Could you picture the clash if they not only discovered a gay gene but developed a prenatal test for it? The gay and abortion at all costs at any time for any reason lobbies would be at it hammer and tongs. And then to develop treatment that nullified the gay gene in the womb. They would go bonkers.

None of that makes a god damned bit of sense!

Did you just miss it? If we developed a prenatal test for a gay gene, parents would know that their developing baby would be gay and many would abort such babies. That would make the gay lobby extremely angry that gay babies would be targeted for destruction. They would seek to restrict abortion for the purpose of destroying a gay baby. But the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd can't handle ANY restrictions on abortion at all, so they would fight the restrictions. It would an epic slapfest. Then, if we were to not only develop a prenatal test but a gene TREATMENT for the gay gene, many parents would opt to treat their baby and the gay lobby would go bonkers. You seriously didn't get that?

Your entire rant is predicated on several moronic assumptions that would only be entertained by someone living inside their far right bubble. The first is that "many" people would be so freaked out about the prospect of haaving a gay child that they would want to abort it.

Secondly, you assume that a "gay lobby"-if such a thing exists-woild concern it self with the number of gay kids who are born. Gay people either support or oppose abortion for many reasons just like everyone else

Third, you stupidly assume that people who identify as pro choice do not want any restrictions what so ever on abortion which cannot be ferther from the truth

Lastly, and pehapps the most obsurd is your assumption that "many parents" would see gayness as an illness that is in need of treatment.

You really need to get out more and get an education

Okay, here's an education for you.

1. Most people still today would not prefer their children grow up gay. Gay people still face a lot of stigma from their peers, no matter how many times Hollywood tries to boost homosexuality.
2. Many people abort babies with Down's Syndrome, even though those children can grow up and lead fulfilling lives. All things being equal, there would be a lot of gay babies aborted.
3. If you are deaf and know that most deaf babies are aborted, if you are blind and know that most blind babies are aborted, if are <fill in the blank> and know that most babies like that are aborted, you would want them spared.
4. I didn't say pro abortion people don't want any restrictions. Note what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said. I said, "the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd", and that is out there. There are many who clamor that there be no restrictions whatsoever on abortion, and you know that.
5. Many parents tolerate homosexuality, but if they had the choice would opt to treat it. Face reality, most people are heterosexual and would prefer their children be heterosexual.

I do not need an education and I damned sure don’t need one from you. But I will congratulate you on your accomplishment of committing at least 4 logical fallacies in one inane post

First, you moved the goal posts. First you said that many people would abort a gay child if they could. When I pointed out the stupidity of that, you changed your assertion to “ . Most people still today would not prefer their children grow up gay.” Maybe yes and maybe no but they are very different matters. Yes, you did later repeat that there would be many abortions, but without any evidence.

Secondly, the whole abortion thing that you started is a red herring logical fallacy because it is intended to divert the conversation away from the issue of genetics. You are obviously ill equipped to deal with genetics so you seek to fling whatever excrement that you can to avoid it

In addition, you throw more dung around by bringing up Downs Syndrome and other diseases –another Red Herring to avoid the real topic and also a False Equivalency logical fallacy Being gay is not a disease or defect

As far as this assertion goes,

“I didn't say pro abortion people don't want any restrictions. Note what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said. I said, "the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd"

I have to ask what the difference is? And its one more Red Herring

As for this

“Many parents tolerate homosexuality, but if they had the choice would opt to treat it. Face reality, most people are heterosexual and would prefer their children be heterosexual”

I’m going to call Non Sequitur on that one. You conclude that parents

“tolerate homosexuality” and would “treat it”

is not supported by any premise or evidence that you presented to support it. I could make the argument that most parents love and are supportive of their gay kids, but that too would not be a valid argument in the absence of supporting evidence

The only time you came close to making sense is when you said “

Gay people still face a lot of stigma”

No shit. The question is why, and I will tell you why. It is because they are discriminated against, dehumanized and marginalized. The solution is not to abort or cure gay kids, the solution is to eliminate the moronic bigots who cause them to be stigmatized. If you’re suggesting that gays suffer from stigmatization just because they are gay, independent of the social environment and legal structure you have committed you another logical fallacy-false cause. Hey that makes 5! Good job slick

Your grade f minus for debate ability

What makes you think that Homos are discriminated against at all in America? From this vantage, it seems obvious that they are glorified. If you don't like it, you you told to shut up, but homos are free to attack their critics at will.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not making a political or cultural point here...just sharing an article that I found interesting.

I have been of the mind that sexual preference is not a choice based on the fact that I could not choose to be attracted to a dude. But this study seems to imply that there is more to sexual preference than biological imperative...

Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors — a figure similar to the findings of smaller studies.​

​

“This is a solid study,” says Melinda Mills, a sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who studies the genetic basis of reproductive behaviours.​

​

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality

Nearly half a million genomes reveal five DNA markers associated with sexual behaviour — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual.

www.nature.com

​

​

It would certainly would have been convenient for parents if there was a gay gene. After testing confirms it, they could dress their little boys like junior homos.

Could you picture the clash if they not only discovered a gay gene but developed a prenatal test for it? The gay and abortion at all costs at any time for any reason lobbies would be at it hammer and tongs. And then to develop treatment that nullified the gay gene in the womb. They would go bonkers.

None of that makes a god damned bit of sense!

Did you just miss it? If we developed a prenatal test for a gay gene, parents would know that their developing baby would be gay and many would abort such babies. That would make the gay lobby extremely angry that gay babies would be targeted for destruction. They would seek to restrict abortion for the purpose of destroying a gay baby. But the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd can't handle ANY restrictions on abortion at all, so they would fight the restrictions. It would an epic slapfest. Then, if we were to not only develop a prenatal test but a gene TREATMENT for the gay gene, many parents would opt to treat their baby and the gay lobby would go bonkers. You seriously didn't get that?

Your entire rant is predicated on several moronic assumptions that would only be entertained by someone living inside their far right bubble. The first is that "many" people would be so freaked out about the prospect of haaving a gay child that they would want to abort it.

Secondly, you assume that a "gay lobby"-if such a thing exists-woild concern it self with the number of gay kids who are born. Gay people either support or oppose abortion for many reasons just like everyone else

Third, you stupidly assume that people who identify as pro choice do not want any restrictions what so ever on abortion which cannot be ferther from the truth

Lastly, and pehapps the most obsurd is your assumption that "many parents" would see gayness as an illness that is in need of treatment.

You really need to get out more and get an education

Okay, here's an education for you.

1. Most people still today would not prefer their children grow up gay. Gay people still face a lot of stigma from their peers, no matter how many times Hollywood tries to boost homosexuality.
2. Many people abort babies with Down's Syndrome, even though those children can grow up and lead fulfilling lives. All things being equal, there would be a lot of gay babies aborted.
3. If you are deaf and know that most deaf babies are aborted, if you are blind and know that most blind babies are aborted, if are <fill in the blank> and know that most babies like that are aborted, you would want them spared.
4. I didn't say pro abortion people don't want any restrictions. Note what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said. I said, "the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd", and that is out there. There are many who clamor that there be no restrictions whatsoever on abortion, and you know that.
5. Many parents tolerate homosexuality, but if they had the choice would opt to treat it. Face reality, most people are heterosexual and would prefer their children be heterosexual.

I do not need an education and I damned sure don’t need one from you. But I will congratulate you on your accomplishment of committing at least 4 logical fallacies in one inane post

First, you moved the goal posts. First you said that many people would abort a gay child if they could. When I pointed out the stupidity of that, you changed your assertion to “ . Most people still today would not prefer their children grow up gay.” Maybe yes and maybe no but they are very different matters. Yes, you did later repeat that there would be many abortions, but without any evidence.

Secondly, the whole abortion thing that you started is a red herring logical fallacy because it is intended to divert the conversation away from the issue of genetics. You are obviously ill equipped to deal with genetics so you seek to fling whatever excrement that you can to avoid it

In addition, you throw more dung around by bringing up Downs Syndrome and other diseases –another Red Herring to avoid the real topic and also a False Equivalency logical fallacy Being gay is not a disease or defect

As far as this assertion goes,

“I didn't say pro abortion people don't want any restrictions. Note what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said. I said, "the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd"

I have to ask what the difference is? And its one more Red Herring

As for this

“Many parents tolerate homosexuality, but if they had the choice would opt to treat it. Face reality, most people are heterosexual and would prefer their children be heterosexual”

I’m going to call Non Sequitur on that one. You conclude that parents

“tolerate homosexuality” and would “treat it”

is not supported by any premise or evidence that you presented to support it. I could make the argument that most parents love and are supportive of their gay kids, but that too would not be a valid argument in the absence of supporting evidence

The only time you came close to making sense is when you said “

Gay people still face a lot of stigma”

No shit. The question is why, and I will tell you why. It is because they are discriminated against, dehumanized and marginalized. The solution is not to abort or cure gay kids, the solution is to eliminate the moronic bigots who cause them to be stigmatized. If you’re suggesting that gays suffer from stigmatization just because they are gay, independent of the social environment and legal structure you have committed you another logical fallacy-false cause. Hey that makes 5! Good job slick

Your grade f minus for debate ability

Several attempts from you to sound erudite fell rather flat. In addition, the fact that you wander off into arguing debate style instead of dealing with what is in front of you is very telling. You chose, after all, to get involved in this discussion, so deal.

1. I said that many people would abort a gay child if they could. That is true, because there are many people who have no objection to abortion and who would elect to abort a baby if they knew he/she was going to be gay. That's what cheap abortion has brought us. If you can believe that the child growing inside the woman is not a human and can be destroyed for any reason at all, it follows logically that many would abort a gay child because they don't want one. And why not? Children are aborted now because they would be inconvenient to a career woman who doesn't want to take time off to care for a child. They are aborted because a test revealed that they have a birth defect of some kind. They are aborted for every reason under the sun. The assertion didn't change, BTW. That was you making a fallacious leap of illogic.
2. Identifying a gay gene leads logically to when that gene could be identified, and that naturally leads to what would happen if we could predict with a great deal of certainty that a child would grow up gay. I do believe it is you that desperately wants to avoid discussing the natural consequences of a gay gene and where it would lead. That's okay, you don't have to.
3. I bring up Down's because many people do view homosexuality as an abnormality, and if it could be identified before the developing baby is granted legal status as a human being, there could be no objection to the destruction of said baby. After all, if there is no objection to abortion because somebody doesn't want stretch marks, who could object to this?
4. I will tell you what the difference is between the two groups of people since you obviously didn't think this through very well. One group is hard core pro abortion and do not believe there should ever be any objection to abortion for any reason at all. And yes, we've heard from them. The other group supports abortion but are willing to impose restrictions such as parental involvement, limits on the age of the baby, that sort of thing. Seriously, you didn't know there are people like that?
5. Absolutely most parents would prefer their children be heterosexual, and why would they not? Most parents are themselves heterosexual. Do you deny that? Most people have an instinctive negative reaction to homosexuality. Do you deny that? Most parents would like their children to have children of their own to carry on the family line. Do you deny that? Therefore, it is completely logical to state that most parents would treat homosexuality if they could.. I really don't have time for this nonsense.

Holly fucking shit! Yoiu did not get anything that I said! You have decended into Gish Gallop. You see the issue from deep inside your bubble where you see homosexuality -and believe that most others see homosexuality- as an abnormality and as undesireable. You are still just throwing shit at the wall wishing that something will stick

THE TOPIC IS GENETICS! Deal with it. Why are people gay?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not making a political or cultural point here...just sharing an article that I found interesting.

I have been of the mind that sexual preference is not a choice based on the fact that I could not choose to be attracted to a dude. But this study seems to imply that there is more to sexual preference than biological imperative...

Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors — a figure similar to the findings of smaller studies.​

​

“This is a solid study,” says Melinda Mills, a sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who studies the genetic basis of reproductive behaviours.​

​

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality

Nearly half a million genomes reveal five DNA markers associated with sexual behaviour — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual.

www.nature.com

​

​

It would certainly would have been convenient for parents if there was a gay gene. After testing confirms it, they could dress their little boys like junior homos.

Could you picture the clash if they not only discovered a gay gene but developed a prenatal test for it? The gay and abortion at all costs at any time for any reason lobbies would be at it hammer and tongs. And then to develop treatment that nullified the gay gene in the womb. They would go bonkers.

None of that makes a god damned bit of sense!

Did you just miss it? If we developed a prenatal test for a gay gene, parents would know that their developing baby would be gay and many would abort such babies. That would make the gay lobby extremely angry that gay babies would be targeted for destruction. They would seek to restrict abortion for the purpose of destroying a gay baby. But the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd can't handle ANY restrictions on abortion at all, so they would fight the restrictions. It would an epic slapfest. Then, if we were to not only develop a prenatal test but a gene TREATMENT for the gay gene, many parents would opt to treat their baby and the gay lobby would go bonkers. You seriously didn't get that?

Your entire rant is predicated on several moronic assumptions that would only be entertained by someone living inside their far right bubble. The first is that "many" people would be so freaked out about the prospect of haaving a gay child that they would want to abort it.

Secondly, you assume that a "gay lobby"-if such a thing exists-woild concern it self with the number of gay kids who are born. Gay people either support or oppose abortion for many reasons just like everyone else

Third, you stupidly assume that people who identify as pro choice do not want any restrictions what so ever on abortion which cannot be ferther from the truth

Lastly, and pehapps the most obsurd is your assumption that "many parents" would see gayness as an illness that is in need of treatment.

You really need to get out more and get an education

Okay, here's an education for you.

1. Most people still today would not prefer their children grow up gay. Gay people still face a lot of stigma from their peers, no matter how many times Hollywood tries to boost homosexuality.
2. Many people abort babies with Down's Syndrome, even though those children can grow up and lead fulfilling lives. All things being equal, there would be a lot of gay babies aborted.
3. If you are deaf and know that most deaf babies are aborted, if you are blind and know that most blind babies are aborted, if are <fill in the blank> and know that most babies like that are aborted, you would want them spared.
4. I didn't say pro abortion people don't want any restrictions. Note what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said. I said, "the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd", and that is out there. There are many who clamor that there be no restrictions whatsoever on abortion, and you know that.
5. Many parents tolerate homosexuality, but if they had the choice would opt to treat it. Face reality, most people are heterosexual and would prefer their children be heterosexual.

I do not need an education and I damned sure don’t need one from you. But I will congratulate you on your accomplishment of committing at least 4 logical fallacies in one inane post

First, you moved the goal posts. First you said that many people would abort a gay child if they could. When I pointed out the stupidity of that, you changed your assertion to “ . Most people still today would not prefer their children grow up gay.” Maybe yes and maybe no but they are very different matters. Yes, you did later repeat that there would be many abortions, but without any evidence.

Secondly, the whole abortion thing that you started is a red herring logical fallacy because it is intended to divert the conversation away from the issue of genetics. You are obviously ill equipped to deal with genetics so you seek to fling whatever excrement that you can to avoid it

In addition, you throw more dung around by bringing up Downs Syndrome and other diseases –another Red Herring to avoid the real topic and also a False Equivalency logical fallacy Being gay is not a disease or defect

As far as this assertion goes,

“I didn't say pro abortion people don't want any restrictions. Note what I actually said instead of what you wish I had said. I said, "the abortion at all costs at any time for reason crowd"

I have to ask what the difference is? And its one more Red Herring

As for this

“Many parents tolerate homosexuality, but if they had the choice would opt to treat it. Face reality, most people are heterosexual and would prefer their children be heterosexual”

I’m going to call Non Sequitur on that one. You conclude that parents

“tolerate homosexuality” and would “treat it”

is not supported by any premise or evidence that you presented to support it. I could make the argument that most parents love and are supportive of their gay kids, but that too would not be a valid argument in the absence of supporting evidence

The only time you came close to making sense is when you said “

Gay people still face a lot of stigma”

No shit. The question is why, and I will tell you why. It is because they are discriminated against, dehumanized and marginalized. The solution is not to abort or cure gay kids, the solution is to eliminate the moronic bigots who cause them to be stigmatized. If you’re suggesting that gays suffer from stigmatization just because they are gay, independent of the social environment and legal structure you have committed you another logical fallacy-false cause. Hey that makes 5! Good job slick

Your grade f minus for debate ability

What makes you think that Homos are discriminated against at all in America? From this vantage, it seems obvious that they are glorified. If you don't like it, you you told to shut up, but homos are free to attack their critics at will.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think being gay is a choice. OW, why is there no gay gene and why is it an abomination (in religious and moral terms)? It's just a different type of sex for perverted pleasures. Can a gay person become heterosexual again? If it is a choice, then they can but they probably have an addiction to it so it won't happen overnight. Those psychologists who do not listen to liberal (gay) politics will have a field day

Thank you for that brilliant, indepth thesis on the the complexities of human sexuality. You must have advanced degrees from the finest institutions of higher lerning in fields as diverse as genetics, sociology, pediatrics and early childhood development . Please continue to share your extensive knowledge and wisdome. You clearly enhance the level of intelectial discourse on the USMB. God bless you!

 

[Fueri]

Stands to reason. Nature has no reason to create a gay gene. A gay gene obviously doesn't propagate as well as other genes. It gives the host no evolutionary advantage that I can see.

maybe as an uncommon aberration, it exists in some form here and there, but from a biological/evolutionary perspective, I've never understood why some people seem to think it's common.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Stands to reason. Nature has no reason to create a gay gene.

Every behavior that exists was "created by nature", though. An interesting read:

Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality

There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behaviour, which is common in many species of animals

www.newscientist.com

 

[Polishprince]

Stands to reason. Nature has no reason to create a gay gene. A gay gene obviously doesn't propagate as well as other genes. It gives the host no evolutionary advantage that I can see.

maybe as an uncommon aberration, it exists in some form here and there, but from a biological/evolutionary perspective, I've never understood why some people seem to think it's common.

The appeal of Homosexuality is that pisses off Normative folks. Every time the public bends on it and says "I don't give a shit", the Gay Community pushes the envelope.

It isn't a coincidence that the Tranny Lifestyle boomed right after the Supreme Court said the Abomination of Gay Marriage was officially ok.

As Trannies become mainstream what's next? Bestiality? Pedo? I see the libs really unconcerned about Pizzagate crimes that have been alleged, its becoming acceptable

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As Trannies become mainstream what's next? Bestiality? Pedo? I see the libs really unconcerned about Pizzagate crimes that have been alleged, its becoming acceptable

The agenda to normalize pedophilia is already becoming obvious. If you call them out who are behind it, they will angrily deny it, but they are not doing well at hiding it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As Trannies become mainstream what's next? Bestiality? Pedo? I see the libs really unconcerned about Pizzagate crimes that have been alleged, its becoming acceptable

The agenda to normalize pedophilia is already becoming obvious. If you call them out who are behind it, they will angrily deny it, but they are not doing well at hiding it.

You are delusional.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The agenda to normalize pedophilia is already becoming obvious. If you call them out who are behind it, they will angrily deny it, but they are not doing well at hiding it.

Quod erat demonstrandum…

You are delusional.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The agenda to normalize pedophilia is already becoming obvious. If you call them out who are behind it, they will angrily deny it, but they are not doing well at hiding it.

Quod erat demonstrandum…

​

You are delusional.​

​

​

In English. Don't be a pussy. Be clear.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Stands to reason. Nature has no reason to create a gay gene. A gay gene obviously doesn't propagate as well as other genes. It gives the host no evolutionary advantage that I can see.

maybe as an uncommon aberration, it exists in some form here and there, but from a biological/evolutionary perspective, I've never understood why some people seem to think it's common.

What the hell are you blathering about? Evolutionary advantage? What does that mean? Does nature "reason" ? Is there a disadvantage? And don't bother bloviating about reproduction. Gay people actually have chilren, form families nd are parents.The fact is that as far as we know, homosexuality has been a a contant in the human population for all of history with no detrimental outcomes.. No one is saying that it is not rare. Yes it is. So what? Being left handed is also rare.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Stands to reason. Nature has no reason to create a gay gene. A gay gene obviously doesn't propagate as well as other genes. It gives the host no evolutionary advantage that I can see.

maybe as an uncommon aberration, it exists in some form here and there, but from a biological/evolutionary perspective, I've never understood why some people seem to think it's common.

The appeal of Homosexuality is that pisses off Normative folks. Every time the public bends on it and says "I don't give a shit", the Gay Community pushes the envelope.

It isn't a coincidence that the Tranny Lifestyle boomed right after the Supreme Court said the Abomination of Gay Marriage was officially ok.

As Trannies become mainstream what's next? Bestiality? Pedo? I see the libs really unconcerned about Pizzagate crimes that have been alleged, its becoming acceptable

You are truely rediculous!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The appeal of Homosexuality is that pisses off Normative folks. Every time the public bends on it and says "I don't give a shit", the Gay Community pushes the envelope.

How exactly. ? By expecting to be treated as equals, with the same rights as others? Answer the fucking question!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It isn't a coincidence that the Tranny Lifestyle boomed right after the Supreme Court said the Abomination of Gay Marriage was officially ok.

It is no coincidence that the bigots went after the transgender population as soon as they lost the fight on same sex marriage, Transgender people have been around a long time a the population didn't boom at that point. They just became more out and became a target of the bigots