Also this from a London Times article from today about Lord Tennyson's great-grandson.
"Margo and I had a tremendously happy marriage and our sexual relations were adequate. Indeed, my wife thought they were more than adequate."
Insanity is hereditary. You get it from your kids.
Which idol will they remain beholden to when people start aborting babies with the gay gene for that reason alone. Will they hold true to the abortion at all costs crowd, or will they hold true to the gay activists?
It is going to be fun to watch how they try to straddle that fence.
Either there is no "gay gene" or evolution as a theory is wrong. Pick one, libs, and wake me up when you decide what you believe.
Oh, you mean, this guy isn't working toward that goal? His agenda is not to help, but to justify this tragic ailment? Drat.
Of course sexuality is genetic. Teenagers have always been tryin' to get in each others jeans...........
Since gay activists also tend to be pro-abortion-for-any-reason activists, I wonder what their stance would be if straight couples started to routinely abort fetuses with the "gay gene" markers?
It seems like many people think the "genetics vs choice" issue will answer all questions regarding "gay rights" policies. I say, not so fast!
Many behaviors may indeed have a genetic component - left-handedness, obesity, alcoholism, etc. Some behaviors are discouraged, others tolerated. Some are deemed to be health risks.
Let's say there's a "gay gene." That does not necessarily answer the many questions currently being discussed. Not by a longshot.
And I'm uncomfortable with the idea that our behavior (whatever it is) is largely the sum of our genetic makeup. Apart from the generalized desire for self-preservation, etc. - don't we have brains for a reason? What about personal responsibility?
I just want to know how they went about deciding which Oregon rams were exclusively gay?
Even if you believe the numbers in this statistically insignificant study, it still shows the environment plays an equally important role as genetics.
"....If enough independent phenomena are studied and correlations sought, some will of course be found. If we know only the coincidences and not the enormous effort and many unsuccessful trials that preceded their discovery, we might believe that an important finding has been made. Actually, it is only what statisticians call 'the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances'....
Carl Sagan - Norman Bloom, Messenger of God - from Broca's Brain
It occurred to me one day when I was twelve or thirteen that girls weren't a dead loss after all, whereupon I became, er, preoccupied, for several years. I suppose the sap could have risen up the other branch just as well, and I've never seen the fact that it didn't as any credit to me, or any shame to those in whom it did.
To tell the truth, I find sexual deviancy a little boring; there are more important things to worry about, some of which have the virtue of actually being our business.
Further fuels discrimination??? What a load of crap. The real reason this man does this is to fuel the we-hate-being-called-for-what-we-are crowd. Gays seek nothing more than legitimization for their actions in all ways possible. They are on average more affluent, educated and traveled than the general populace, are less than 2-3% of the population but CONTROL more politicians than any sub group except for the AARP types. They seek legitimization by infiltration of all churches to make gay pastors and priests simply to be able to say "See, even the Church of XXXXXX says were normal."
In this process they tear down societal norms, destroy rights of association guaranteed under the constitution and claim discrimination to a greater degree than do Blacks or Women and yet have not one shred of peer reviewed, valid and convincing study that supports their genetic predisposition claims. Its always a "gay researcher" who comes up with the next great study.
Look at the recent film out in the theaters. Gays and gay supporters laud this movie as some new high water mark in society all the while failing to show the film for what it does...legitimizes an adulterous affair of two me who while married and with families cheat on their wives with each other. Oh, that is such a wonderful thing to do in the name of your so-called "sexual orientation." Their sky-is-falling rant and raving about how oppressed they are falls on mostly deaf ears because it is built on a mountain of lies. Making claims to being born that way while denying those who have LEFT homosexuality shows their willful desire to do nothing more than make it acceptable.
Those of us "outside the scientific community" think this because real life provides many such examples that contradict the "gay gene" theory. People don't buy "it's all genes, never choice" when they observe things like the "lesbian until graduation" phenomenon at certain colleges. They don't buy it when they see lesbianism and bisexuality becoming ever more popular with college age women. Have our genes suddenly changed that quickly? They don't buy it when they observe (like I have) identical twins, one gay the other straight. How can genes alone cause this? They don't buy it when they read history and learn how, for a certain period, the upper class men of Athens all preferred to have sex with boys. Did they all just get the gay gene while few of the lower class men in the same city had the same gene? And so on.
The situation just isn't that cut and dried. I imagine that homosexual orientation is a result of a combination of genes and environment and has many different causes which vary from person to person. I don't think very many people consciously choose to have same-sex attractions, but I do think some people are exposed to environmental factors that lead to them becoming gay unconsciously. Perhaps if these factors had not been present, these people would not have SSA. In other cases some people might be physically and genetically constituted in such a way that they will turn out gay no matter what environment they are raised in. We just don't know.
Discovering the cause or causes of SSA doesn't affect arguments concerning the morality of it one way or another. Those who have no moral qualms with gay sex can't justify this stance by saying "it's all genetic." So what? Having a genetic or innate disposition towards something doesn't mean the behavior is necessarily moral or immoral. Just because things are a certain way doesn't mean they ought to be this way.
Likewise those who hold that gay sex is immoral shouldn't have a problem if it turns out SSA is totally genetic. Genes do not equal morality. All the discovery of a gay gene would show is that some people have a genetic tendency to desire to engage in immoral behavior. This is probabably the case for other immoral behaviors too, like addiction. So what? People can still choose to act on their desires or not act on them. That's where the real moral concerns come in. I don't think many conservatives think it is morally wrong simply to have a gay orientation - it's when people choose to act on it and promote such behavior that conservatives get upset.
Not saying it's wrong or right, it's simply a fact. In large parts of the world the destruction of this gene will be mandatory, and in the rest of the world people will do it secretly, the way they have abortions now.