Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, February 14, 2014

A study of gay men in the U.S. has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight. A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behavior -- though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome. Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation -- though again the precise mechanism is unclear.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

HeliumRat

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Researchers have speculated in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men may have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile. This may be the case for genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men exclusively from their mothers.

Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Illinois, set out the findings to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago on Thursday. "The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation," he said. The work has yet to be published, but confirms the findings of a smaller study that sparked widespread controversy in 1993, when Dean Hamer, a scientist at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, investigated the family histories of more than 100 gay men and found homosexuality tended to be inherited. More than 10% of brothers of gay men were gay themselves, compared to around 3% of the general population. Uncles and male cousins on the mother's side had a greater than average chance of being gay, too.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Well, I misspelled chromosome in the title.

I blame my parents genes.

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-02-14 02:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Were they Lee or Levis, Helium?

#2 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-14 02:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

#3 is too dense to understand biology. Or to read the article.

I blame his upbringing (dropped on his head as a child, no doubt).

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-02-14 03:22 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"More pseudo science bs to try and make people accept gays by saying they were born that way."

One good thing about Christianity is that it's very pliable. The science astronomy at one time was in conflict with so called deeply held beliefs. As was burning the mentally ill at the stake, ownership of slaves, the genocide of indigenous people or mixing of the races. At some point they came around and admitted they were wrong. I suspect issues like gay marriage and contraception will fall just like all the other times they were wrong.

#5 | Posted by Species8472 at 2014-02-14 07:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#3 | POSTED BY MCMLCXX AT 2014-02-14 03:14 AM | FLAG: IQ of lint, born that way

#6 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2014-02-14 08:23 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If male infants are born that way, do they push away their Mothers Teat?

#7 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-14 08:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

"More pseudo science bs to try and make people accept gays by saying they were born that way."

We're willing to accept stupid people like you and attribute it to genetics so why can't you be as accepting?

#8 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-14 09:10 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"If male infants are born that way, do they push away their Mothers Teat?"

#7 | Posted by wisgod

By implication, are all girl infants lesbians?

#9 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-02-14 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

I can accept that genes may influence male orientation but that still leaves socialization as an influence that may affect male orientation as well?

#10 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2014-02-14 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

A LOT more research needs to be done in this area before these type of broad proclamations are accepted within the general scientific community. This is a good start, but they have yet to nail anything down. I hope they do. And when they do I will point to it. But it is still just a work in progress.

#11 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-14 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

More pseudo science bs to try and make people accept gays by saying they were born that way.

#3 | POSTED BY MCMLCXX AT 2014-02-14 03:14 AM | FLAG:

When did you decide your sexual orientation?

#12 | Posted by 726 at 2014-02-14 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

One good thing about Christianity is that it's very pliable. The science astronomy at one time was in conflict with so called deeply held beliefs.

#5 | Posted by Species8472 at 2014-02-

Actually, Copernicus was in conflict with Ptolemy. One sceintific paradigm against the other.

You've begun yet another fundamentally dishonest debate.

As to the rest of it, down to and including slavery and the subjugation of native races, scientists taken up the defense of both. Often fanatically.

Can I cite a scientist who burned someone at teh stake? No. But I can name some who vivisected living human beings, and then published papres.

I've never been understand where you kids are coming from on this stuff. You've repeated it to yourselves so often that you've lost sight of the obvious holes.

Neither science or religion is the problem. People are.

Read science; read the Bible. Everyone should take a turn at both.

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2014-02-14 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

#7, and if they did would it be because of the XX chromosome, the estrogen chemical, or the phallic shape of the teat?

#14 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-02-14 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

More pseudo science bs to try and make people accept gays by saying they were born that way.

#3 | POSTED BY MCMLCXX AT 2014-02-14 03:14 AM | FLAG:

You just decided to be gay? Was it for all the special treatment and advantages in society?

#15 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-02-14 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

was that a lecture? pretty boring one at that.

#17 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-02-14 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

All people choose their sexual orientation. Some are influenced by psychological factors but all choose. For example last born males or boys with domineering mothers and no dad figure. Statistically speaking these are undeniable. Certainly no one would suggest a last born male is more like to have one of these genes.

Of course the article never points out which gene they claim is the cause of homosexuality so no one can prove them wrong.

#18 | Posted by mcmlcxx at 2014-02-14 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[3] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[4]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.[5] Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat", and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.[6]
en.wikipedia.org

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course the article never points out which gene they claim is the cause of homosexuality so no one can prove them wrong.

Which gene determine eye color, height, or skin pigmentation?

#20 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-14 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

All people choose their sexual orientation.
#18 | POSTED BY MCMLCXX

--------.

#21 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#19 Corky, what the hell does your post have to do with the subject of the thread?

You've turned into a lunatic.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-14 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight. " - FTA

I don't agree or disagree with the idea, but what is wrong with this statement?

National Cancer Institute, investigated the family histories of more than 100 gay men and found homosexuality tended to be inherited. More than 10% of brothers of gay men were gay themselves, compared to around 3% of the general population. - FTA

Nature vs Nuture, how was this accounted for? What would be interesting is a study on adopted children by gay men......

#23 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-02-14 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL!

#24 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-14 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

i love it, clown

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-14 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

-You've turned into a lunatic.

Some of us can still read, Clownsh...

One good thing about Christianity is that it's very pliable. The science astronomy at one time was in conflict with so called deeply held beliefs.
#5 | Posted by Species8472 at 2014-02-

Also see #13

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you post an entry about flat earth?

Dude. I hate to say but you get triggered too easily.

And I've given up on Zed. I just skip reading his posts.

#27 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-14 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#27

I hate to say, "dude", but your Drudge Nanny act stinks.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Drudge nanny? I'm the guy thats against moderation and plonking.

Look man, we will never agree on religion.

Your post has nothing to do with the topic.

Zed is way off in the deep end when it comes to religion.

And Species8472 post basically says Christianity changes it point of view to reflect society's understanding of the world.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-14 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#29

And I responded to his post with an example of how that is not true.

Which facts, btw, I doubt you were familiar with.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey remember in the gospels when Jesus said his favorite country by far is America because they're like the only ones who really "get" him?

On topic: Being gay isn't a choice. It's like being Jewish. Why would anyone choose to be that? They're born that way.

#31 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-02-14 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yea i'm oblivious of facts. But I have faith in what I'm saying, so that should be good enough for you.

And by the way, the notion of Christians believing the earth is flat earth is nothing new. It was taught to us in School in the 90s. Galileo's excommunication from the church for suggesting the earth isn't the center of the universe is taught in school as well.

Seems your problem is with liberal schools and their agenda to indoctrinate our youth.

bravo. [...]

#32 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-14 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

-the notion of Christians believing the earth is flat earth is nothing new. It was taught to us in School in the 90s.

lmao!!

www.drudge.com

You are myth-informed yet again. [...]

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Well, we better shut down public school because they are all teaching flat earth.

and genetics.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-14 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Remember in gospels when Jesus found all those moneychangers buying and selling stuff in the temple courtyard and got REALLY angry and then individually helped each one of them learn how they could maximize profit and cut waste on things like wages and benefits?

That's why I vote Republican.

#35 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-02-14 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

on topic...

www.google.com

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-14 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I love the part of the bible were Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first rock" and then proceeded to bash the ----- head in with a boulder.

Forgive my paraphrasing oh blessed lord.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-14 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, I suppose just as some people are predisposed to like savory or sweet, some people are predisposed to like to penetrate certain orifices or to have certain orifices penetrated. Even ants are known to have a genetic basis for such preference (savory or sweet, not the gay stuff).

I dunno why a genetic basis for such preferences is earthshaking or getting some people's panties into such a bunch. As for the utility of such a sexual preference, my guess is that bisexuals had a leg up on the competition, evolutionarily speaking of course.

#39 | Posted by censored at 2014-02-14 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

If this is true and homosexuality is detectable in genes, you can bet the gay population will decrease in the future.

Not many straight couples will want to keep a baby if they know there is strong likelihood it will be gay.

I don't care how they feel about gay rights, gay marriage, etc.

I strongly believe given the choice most straight couples will privately opt out.

#40 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-14 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

#39 | POSTED BY CENSORED

The "gayness is based on environement" crowd are up in arms because they are fully aware that there is no choice involved when it comes to people's genetics. Their entire premise surrounding homosexuality is predicated on the notion that the sexual preference is based solely upon choice, and therefore can be altered, much like that of alcoholism or addiction.

A genetic basis for homosexuality, or in other words the "biological" argument, completely undermines the idea that homosexuality can be changed.

Which, really, is incredibly dumbfounding when you consider that those holding the "environment" perspective would never consider the possibility of choosing to have sex with someone of the same gender. So it's really only a choice for "the afflicted," but when it comes to the behavior of the "non-afflicted," it's simply natural and not a choice.

#41 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

GATTACA!!

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-02-14 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

If this is true...

It is true!

I know that when my Genes are too tight I always seem to orient to the right.

#43 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-14 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not many straight couples will want to keep a baby if they know there is strong likelihood it will be gay.

Really? HAHAHAHA! Projection is a ------' bitch, aint it?

#44 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Rsty,

Just sayin'

You know good and well most straight people would prefer a straight child given the choice.

I'm sure there are exceptions but I am quite sure the exceptions are low enough that the gay population would decrease in numbers and percentage of population.

I'm not projecting. I'm predicting.

#45 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-14 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

You know good and well most straight people would prefer a straight child given the choice.
#45 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

More projection?

Hmmmmmm......

#46 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rsty,

Have I hit a nerve?

#47 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-14 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

The argument about whether homosexuality is a "choice" is stupid regardless of genetics. Many things that are called choices aren't based in choice at all. If I choose to eat a certain kind of food, it's not because I chose to like it better, I just do. If I choose to buy warmer clothes, it's because I'm cold, not because I chose to be cold. Likewise, if I then choose not to eat pie or not to dress warm, I'll sill want to eat pie, and I'll still shiver.

The only choice is your actions

Either way, whether or not it is genetic is irrelevant. It's just like asking if my favorite foods are genetic. It's only relevant in the effort learn the mechanisms behind things.

"I strongly believe given the choice most straight couples will privately opt out."

That's an interesting thought. It may cause some abortions, but I wonder how many. Many who are against homosexuality are against abortion as well. Would that mean in the future most gays will be born to religious parents?

Another outcome is that people, looking at what the genes actually do, might search for a way to counteract the effect of the gene. That will lead to some interesting ethical questions no doubt.

#48 | Posted by LEgregius at 2014-02-14 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Have I hit a nerve?
#47 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

When and if you hit one of my nerves, you will be sure of it. The fact you're inquiring about it should give you a clue to the answer that which you seek.

#49 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Would that mean in the future most gays will be born to religious parents?

Interesting thought indeed.

#50 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

A genetic basis for homosexuality, or in other words the "biological" argument, completely undermines the idea that homosexuality can be changed. [...]So it's really only a choice for "the afflicted," but when it comes to the behavior of the "non-afflicted," it's simply natural and not a choice.
#41 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 03:36 PM

Well, the preference may not be a choice, but acting on it certainly is. For example, I like salty food ( I mean, I really love salt! I put it in everything, including my icecream and my coffee), but if I knew that someone were going to torture me for indulging in my salophilia, I'm fairly certain that I could and would stop eating salt lickety-split, although it would probably literally kill me.

Anyhow, even if someone could be persuaded, through torture or other methods of persuasion, to only penetrate and have penetrated that which the anti-gayites prefer, why is it so important to them to deprive others of that which brings them joy? We have no K-Y Jelly or population shortage that I am aware of, so what gives? Is it the "My invisible sky-fairy likes only one type of sex" thing? If that's it, then even the homophobes have to understand that is not a very good reason as not everyone worships their invisible sky fairy. Perhaps they need to find a new hobby.

#51 | Posted by censored at 2014-02-14 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I knew that someone were going to torture me for indulging in my salophilia, I'm fairly certain that I could and would stop eating salt lickety-split, although it would probably literally kill me.

Not exactly the type of choice I was referring to. I'm sure people will, and have, been forced to have sex with someone just to show that they were not homosexual. There's an episode of Shameless that taps into what I'm talking about, if you're interested.

If that's it, then even the homophobes have to understand that is not a very good reason as not everyone worships their invisible sky fairy.

That's not something the homophobes want to acknowledge, so they ignore it and demand everyone to bend to their moral beliefs.

Perhaps they need to find a new hobby.

Agreed, but the fear will keep them comin' back to the homophobe hobby shop.

#52 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Leg,

"Many who are against homosexuality are against abortion as well. Would that mean in the future most gays will be born to religious parents?"

I've seen statistics that indicate regardless what you believe about abortion, the percentage of people having them either liberal or conservative isn't as far apart as you might think.

In other words, conservative Christians have abortions too.

Also, I saw a statistic once that indicated girls of a very young age who have abortions, a very high percentage are from conservative families.

Regarding your question about "religious parents". I believe conservatives who are anti-abortion would be the first in line aborting unwanted gay children.

You asked and that's my answer.

#53 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-14 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

You asked and that's my answer.
#53 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

And it's a good one! Well thought out and seems quite probable.

#54 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If that's it, then even the homophobes have to understand that is not a very good reason as not everyone worships their invisible sky fairy."

That's not something the homophobes want to acknowledge, so they ignore it and demand everyone to bend to their moral beliefs.

The nature of Christianity and Islam is that it is in their mission statement to convert you to their way of thinking in order to justify and reinforce their own belief in the Great Bamboozle. That is what makes them so dangerous sometimes.

#55 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-14 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why all the hatred of homosexuals? Whatever floats your boat.

I think that is really something we true Republicans understand and most of you uptight repressed leftwingers still don't get.

No citation necessary

Walker '16: A big tent that welcomes everyone willing to put in an honest days labor.

#56 | Posted by BradfordWinston at 2014-02-14 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Donner,

"The nature of Christianity and Islam is that it is in their mission statement to convert you to their way of thinking in order to justify and reinforce their own belief"

And atheists don't??

I think most people regardless what they believe would prefer more people be like themselves and hold their values and beliefs.

That's the reason I believe what I do about straight parents and their children. Of course, we love our kids regardless but it's a different story when you know in advance.

I think most people prefer being around other people similar to themselves and who have similar beliefs, attitudes and what have you. And they would prefer their own children be like them too. Straight, that is. It's not even being homophobic. Just people.

Atheists tend to make friendships with other atheists. Christians tend to make friendships with other Christians. It's how we are.

And this idea that somehow only religious people try to spread their beliefs is just ludicrous.

(It's not something atheists want to acknowledge)

btw....your idea that these religions feel compelled to spread their beliefs to justify and reinforce is very secular thinking. As a Christian we feel compelled to spread our beliefs because many of us genuinely believe it is right. We aren't trying to prove anything to anyone.

#57 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-14 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I think that is really something we true Republicans understand and most of you uptight repressed leftwingers still don't get.
Walker '16: A big tent that welcomes everyone willing to put in an honest days labor.
#56 | Posted by BradfordWinston at 2014-02-14 04:35 PM

Well, the GOP powers that be (who care about tax cuts and nothing but tax cuts for the wealthy) figured out in 1960's, 70's and 80's or so that the only way they were going to gain power was to make a deal with the devil, in this case with the mouthbreathing religious southern fundamentalists. Thus, for the last few decades, the GOP has found itself in a marriage of convenience with these folks. So while "true Republicans" may believe in personal liberty and small government, the GOP has adopted a strategy of homophobia, racism and anti-abortion for many moons, now. Without placating Southern Xtian fundamentalists with anti-abortion, anti-brown, anti-gay talk, the GOP is screwed, as even Southerners will realize that an increase in minimum wage and taxes on the upper class is in their own interest.

#58 | Posted by censored at 2014-02-14 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

by saying they were born that way.

It's absurd to say anybody is born gay or straight. But we know things like personality traits, temperament, etc. which determine behavior are largely influenced by genes. This article is basically saying the same thing about orientation.

#59 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-02-14 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#57 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Tough to spread religious beliefs when you don't have any.

I'm just sayin'.

#60 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-02-14 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

And atheists don't??

Nope.

If you would leave atheists alone they would leave you alone.

Is this true for Christians and Muslims?

And this idea that somehow only religious people try to spread their beliefs is just ludicrous.

Is it? How many atheists are knocking on your door and asking you if you have a minute or two to discuss the Wonders and Glory of the Big Bang or String Theory?

#61 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-14 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

btw....your idea that these religions feel compelled to spread their beliefs to justify and reinforce is very secular thinking. As a Christian we feel compelled to spread our beliefs because many of us genuinely believe it is right. We aren't trying to prove anything to anyone.

#57 | Posted by BillJohnson

Of course, it is very secular thinking of me. I am not of the Religulous Persuasion. I think outside the box. I left the cave and now I have come back to tell you that the shadows you see on the wall are not what reality actually looks like.

Come out into the Sun and see Reality for what it is!

As a Christian we feel compelled to spread our beliefs...

It is the Power of Christ that compels you!

You are trying to prove you are right. So you can feel all yummy inside about making the right religious choice for your upcoming stint in Eternity even though you probably made no real choice at all and are just like a plow horse... you were just born into it and so you keep on doing as you are told and keep plowing.

#62 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-14 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Tim Tebow: "I'm a Christian."

Media: "Keep it to yourself."

Michael Sam: "I'm gay."

Media: "This man's a hero!"

#63 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-02-14 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

GreatAmerican: "I love straw men!"
Everyone Else: "Yes, we know."

#64 | Posted by censored at 2014-02-14 06:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 4

Great American: "..but, of course, you do not!"

Everyone Else: "Here we go...."

...LOL...

#65 | Posted by 1EyedMan at 2014-02-14 06:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't care who is a sock-cucker...I love strawwomen...

It's the fawning media hypocrisy that "sucks"

#66 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-02-14 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Were they Lee or Levis, Helium?

#2 | POSTED BY DIABLO AT 2014-02-14 02:58 AM | FLAG:

Probably Dickies

#67 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2014-02-14 07:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#56 | Posted by BradfordWinston at 2014-02-14 04:35 PM | Reply

Let me know where that is in the GOP platform. I'll wait.

#68 | Posted by morris at 2014-02-14 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Not many straight couples will want to keep a baby if they know there is strong likelihood it will be gay.

You don't seem to realize the world you're living in. Plenty of straight couples would have no problem if their child was gay. A majority of Americans support gay marriage. Our culture is full of positive portrayals of gays and families with gays in them. Gays are encouraged to be themselves and supported when they face bullying and mistreatment.

This isn't the bad old days any more.

#69 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-15 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rcade,

"Plenty of straight couples would have no problem if their child was gay."

I think you're in denial.

Sure, people love their kids. A lot of parents are learning to accept their kids when they come out. What I'm saying is something else.

If they knew a particular gene indicated a high likelihood their child would probably not have children and would have to deal with the issues associated with being gay, most people would not want to go through that for themselves or other family members.

My point is that given the choice, I believe most straight couples would choose to abort if genetic markers became reliable for homosexuality.

Abortion is easily available and the stigma attached to it is decreasing. Of course, most women wouldn't run around telling their friends they had an abortion either.

Obviously you have a vested interest in promoting the idea that homosexuality is on it's way to being normalized.

I don't.

#70 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-15 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#40 | Posted by BillJohnson
"Not many straight couples will want to keep a baby if they know there is strong likelihood it will be gay."

Bill, on what do you base this assertion?
"Straight" couples? They're hopeful parents wanting children, the orientation of the parents is not relevant.

You write as though there is some "straight vs. gay" battle line drawn, that only gay parents would want gay children, and straight parents would only want straight children.

#71 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-02-15 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thetom,

"You write as though there is some "straight vs. gay" battle line drawn, that only gay parents would want gay children, and straight parents would only want straight children."

Well...I think that's what I'm saying.

There aren't too many straight couples out there who would actually say, "ooohhh...I sure hope my son will be a homosexual".

I'll tell you something else.

I even believe most gay couples that adopt or have children through surrogate means probably (but they won't admit it) hope their child will grow up straight. Sure they'll love and accept them either way. I'm just saying what they probably secretly hope for.

I mean...you gotta be pretty messed up to actually wish hardship on your child.

So...if a straight couple could be informed their pregnancy will likely produce a gay child, well....you know what I believe.

#72 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-15 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thetom,

"Bill, on what do you base this assertion?

Just my opinion.

#73 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-15 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Male Sexual Orientation Influenced by Genes"

It certainly influenced Mr. "T"

"Hey Boy, you mighty cute in dem jeans"

#74 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-15 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously you have a vested interest in promoting the idea that homosexuality is on it's way to being normalized.

What I have is an ability to recognize that times have changed. It's sad that you don't.

I think you have an exceptionally low view of people if you think "most" straight couples would abort a healthy and wanted child solely because he or she has a gay gene. Most straight couples wouldn't abort a healthy and wanted child for any reason.

#75 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-15 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rcade,

My original statement was that the gay population would decrease and that the percentage of gays would drop if a reliably accurate genetic test existed that indicated a baby would be gay.

Are you saying you don't believe that is a true statement?

#76 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-15 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rcade,

I will agree that "most" might be a strong word, but considering 90% of down syndrome babies are aborted, wouldn't gay babies be at least a third of that or more? Who knows.

Neither you nor I believe being gay is remotely similar to downs syndrome (mentally challenged), however homosexuality is not the "norm". It's just not.

Straight men want straight children.

There is no point in continuing this debate considering it is purely subjective, but I still believe human nature would win out over political correctness.

I'm done.

#77 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-15 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Great now parents can do a DNA test to see if the child will be gay and have an abortion if it will.

Pro Choice groups will be so happy over this.

Its a great day in the abortion movement.

#78 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-02-15 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

... homosexuality is not the "norm". It's just not.

The view that homosexuality is abnormal is quickly receding into history in the U.S. and many other countries. You can assert that it's "just not" normal, but you sound like Texans of my youth in the '70s who said the same thing about interracial marriage.

#79 | Posted by rcade at 2014-02-16 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rcade,

ahhh....I did not say homosexuality is abnormal.

I said it is not the "norm".

It is not typical.

It is not what the overwhelming majority of people are, always have been and always will be.

I am not saying homosexuals are abnormal the way you are implying.

#80 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-16 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

definition of "norm":

"an authoritative standard"

Heterosexuality is the standard society has always functioned around.

That's not going to change regardless how many tv shows are aired showing happy gay couples.

#81 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-16 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort