Gay marriage

[Nataki Yiro]

Mutations are typical caused in protein coding sequence and it is either over duplicated, inverted, or deleted. Genes are not necessarily damaged.

Retarded genes are typically damaged and very dysfunctional.

I laughed at your Creationist comment. What does my belief in the origin of creation have to do with how genetics work?

This is text book knowledge (peer-reviewed) not something I just made up...

Results 1 - 10 of about 288,000 for retarded genes. (0.29 seconds)
(all the sources I found where normal geneticists)
Results 1 - 10 of about 397,000 for mutated genes. (0.16 seconds)
(take into account that popular things like X-men are in there somewhere because of "mutated")

You guys may need to take genetics again...

[Dapper Tom]

You guys may need to take genetics again...

Alternatively we could just need to take nothing you say seriously ever again.

[MeDeFe]

Mutations are typical caused in protein coding sequence and it is either over duplicated, inverted, or deleted. Genes are not necessarily damaged.

Retarded genes are typically damaged and very dysfunctional.

I laughed at your Creationist comment. What does my belief in the origin of creation have to do with how genetics work?

This is text book knowledge (peer-reviewed) not something I just made up...

Results 1 - 10 of about 288,000 for retarded genes. (0.29 seconds)
(all the sources I found where normal geneticists)
Results 1 - 10 of about 397,000 for mutated genes. (0.16 seconds)
(take into account that popular things like X-men are in there somewhere because of "mutated")

You guys may need to take genetics again...

I don't know what you used to search with, but I get 353 results for "retarded gene" on google and 429 for "retarded genes". Exchanging 'retarded' for 'mutated' gives me 148k and 78k respectively. At least on the internet retarded genes do not seem to be a very common concept. btw, I looked for the exact phrase by using " ", so as not to get all results for "genes" and all results for "retarded".

[PLAYER57832]

I really don't feel like teaching you genetics. Especially if you get bad grades, because we all know that when you get bad grades in college it's because you didn't read the book and if you did it was the night before the test.

I'll try to sum up because I'm tired and really want to be in bed.

Except some of us have already PASSED our classes ... and put in a good deal of time within the various fields. I am definitely not an expert in genetics, but I have a hard time believing this is what your professor or textbook actually taught you. It is wrong. I may be a little fuzzy on some of the more technical aspects, but you are nowhere near that technical. This is stuff you should have learned in HIGH SCHOOL or even upper elementary, not college!

To be specific:

When a gene is retarded you get a defect.

First, the term you appear to be seeking is "repressed", not retarded. That is the term for a gene that is present, but not expressed. The other term you might be seeking is dominant -- the gene that is expressed. The term for the expression of a gene, or allel is phenotype. The term for ANY change within or to any of these proteins is mutation, not "defect".

Since genes are linked in proteins, when one gene is defective the others are effected. Most defects hamper brain function (this is because our genes are assorted on the homologs [allele pair]) and the chances of you hitting something involved in brain function is pretty high. Like I said not all of these defects effect the brain, but we are talking about behavioral defects.

WRONG! You have taken a little bit of correct information and expanded it into something that is completely wrong.

MOST mutations are either neutral -- have no effect OR have a negative effect -- that is, result in death or extreme ill health of the subject. "Defect" would mean only a specific phenotype with a negative outcome... a subjective term, unless specifically meaning something resulting in death or a particular negative outcome such as loss of hearing, sight or, yes, brain function.

Genes affect all kinds of things in all kinds of complex ways. NO ONE knows exactly what even a large percentage of either human or animal genes do. It was only within the past couple of years that scientists in the genome project finished mapping human genes -- that is registering what more or less goes where. We do know the expression of some genes, but not very many -- yet. the brain is EXPECIALLY complex and unknown.

We DO strongly suspect that most behavior is based on a combination of factors. These include genes, but ALSO include introduction of chemicals and hormones (those produced within the womb and from outside -- be it through food, the air, skin or some other unkown source), diet and chemical exposures post birth (some of which WILL actually affect genetics, more of which will most certainly affect the development of a child's brain -- lead & mercury are prime examples, AND the environment, etc. ... PLUS there is a good chance there are yet other factors no one really understands yet. (magnetics, for example -- understand I am not saying that I know magnetic fields affect childhood development, I am saying it DOES affect animals and some people think it might affect humans ... whether it does or does not is yet to be determined).

You have many kinds of disorders (Autosomal, X or Y-Linked, etc.) but typically Multifactorial or Polygenic Disorders are the cause of hampered brain function without a having a million other things wrong with you. Like you being a shem, being infertile, being a vegetable, etc.

This is just plain wrong. Very few disorders have been directly and firmly linked to specific genes. Downs happens to be one, dwarfism is another. In MOST cases, it is strongly suspected that not only a combination of genes is required, but a combination of other factors (as noted above) is necessary. Most infertility, specifically, has nothing at all to do with genes.

These genes are passed down through family, so you would see constant evidence of it occurring in a blood line and not just randomly. Have you ever met a whole family of gay people?

You still think it is genetic? I can keep going if this topic interests you... but it will have to be in the morning because I'm going to bed.

Some of the best evidence supporting (notice I did not say "proving") the idea that homosexuality is genetics is that identical twins, even when raised completely separately (adopted at birth) are most often (the overwhelming majority -- exceptions are very few) either both homosexual or both heterosexual. Also, homosexuality is found within normally heterosexual wild animals and farm animals both. And, though you generally don't find a "whole family" of homosexuals, there is a slightly greater chance of siblings being homosexual than those in the general population.

NONE of this is absolute proof. BUT, it is pretty strong evidence that at least part of the "homosexual equation" is genetics.

FURTHERMORE, there is a lot more to biology than just genetics. A child who is exposed to lead absolutely loses brain function, but that is not a genetic cause. So too do some scientist postulate that children exposed to certain hormones -- either produced by the mother or from the "outside" -- might lead to homosexual tendencies.

To add further mud to the muddy waters, you are completely ignoring the segment of the population that is born without clear female or male genetalia. They are BORN with any combination of male and female parts. A LOT of the evidence for genetic sexuality comes from these children. In the past few decades, parents of these children were basically instructed to "pick" a sex -- based on which seemed "dominant" and then act as if their child were fully that sex. This is EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY complicated and a very emotional subject, but one thing is clear -- that sex and genetics and hormones are nowhere near as clear as the appearance of outward genetillia would suggest.

OVERALL --- you need to do a better job of checking your facts ... and I mean in JURIED, REPUTABLE science journals, not whatever appears at the top of the "Google" search. A LOT of science is accessible within the internet, but a LOT MORE isn't. Why? BOTH because a lot of this research was done back in the dark ages of, say, 10-20 years ago, when the internet was in its infancy. AND because science research publication takes money -- LOTS of money. The information most easily accessible is that put forward by large companies becuase they have a profit stake in the outcomes and groups with specific agendas and interests they wish to put forward. Hardly the most unbaised sources. This thread and others provide the best proof yet of why children need to learn EARLY basic critical thinking skills. You demonstrate again and again that you cannot distinguish between evidence put forward by scientists practicing good scientific methodology and those who start out with an agenda they want to prove. And no, I am not naively stating that even all good science it completely unbiased. But, let's get real ... when your funding source is an oil company, you are far more likely to accidentally or intentionally overlook all but the most serious anti-oil evidence.

[Nataki Yiro]

Repressed genes are more relative to recessive genes. Recessive genes are commonplace and have nothing to do with defective or retarded genes.

Yeah I see what you mean about Google. I think it is because it is expressed as retardation also so some of them won't have retarded which would give you a much lower number. I'm sure you know you are going to get an insane amount of Google hits because their are a tons of shows/books/etc about mutation.

I would look up a journal for you but then you guys would just give some lame excuse. I'm not trying to argue this with, just trying to get you some info...

Here are some links than may help you... I wouldn't know because I haven't read them. But you seem to have plenty of time so tell me what they are about okay?
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/ ... 1595a.html
(It's European though... lulz...)
http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0703/56.htm
(I do know this one is about mental retardation genes mutating. This implies that the gene was retarded THEN mutated.)

[Nataki Yiro]

Sorry triple-post...

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

^^^ What you were talking is included in this...

[PLAYER57832]

The first two links talk about genetic links to retardation (NOT "retarded genes") .. a point which no one disputes. BUT they also don't dispute that there are many, many factors that lead to retardation. ... and that has litte or nothing to do with homsexuality, except to illustrate an example of something MUCH more clearly understood and that yet STILL has a lot of questions.

We DO know SOME causes of mental retardation and some are genetic, some are other biology, some are even taught (a child that is denied language won't learn it and will be "retarded" no matter their innate ability).

The LAST link is by yet another group with a specific agenda.

ALL go far further to prove MY points that:

1. You need to do a better job of educating yourself in science, particularly genetics.

2. Nothing you have said in any way proves how legalizing marriage will somehow harm the rest of us.

BUT, as I said in an earlier post .. your mind is made up, why bother confusing you with facts.

[Nataki Yiro]

Insulting me isn't going to make me believe you more...

If there was a gay gene, then through human pedigree it would have been bred out...

It is true that we don't know everything about science but then again it would be science if their was nothing to discover. However to our current knowledge and theories there is no way homosexuality is genetic since you preferences aren't genetic.

I'm assuming you're still in school? Go to your biology professor or genetics professor and ask them if homosexuality is genetic. They will a) tell you no or b) tell you yes but have no proof...

[Frigidus]

OK, maybe you're just thinking of a different term. I'll tell you right now, there is no scientific term "retard gene" or "retarded gene". This is primarily because although genes may be the cause for traits undesirable in certain societies or perhaps a hazardous medical condition there is no "incorrect" genetic structure. For lack of a better term lets call them undesirable mutations. That out of the way, lets look at your original claim

Genetics do not affect behavior except in cases of when genes are retarded. Are you saying homosexuals are retarded?

Even if there were "retarded genes" they wouldn't be genes that make you retarded. No matter which way you look at it, being gay is a result of either nature or nurture. If it's nature then it can not be helped. You pointed out that parents might have an abortion if they saw their child had a gay gene. This actually might be true for some families, but an abortion is an abortion. The motives aren't particularly important when you consider the end result (unless it threatens the health of the mother, naturally). I suppose it comes down to whether you are for or against abortion. This would also mean that gays can't help being who they are and shouldn't be discriminated against. If it's nurture then it is a choice they made, just as one chooses their religion (call me an optimist, I like to think it's actually a choice). If there is a legitimate church who is willing to form a union between two consenting people then the government must recognize that union. That is a definitive case concerning freedom of religion. Legitimate is stressed for a reason. This excludes, for example, churches who attempt to marry kids fresh out of junior high to 35-year olds. On that off topic note, I find myself less appalled at the church itself than I am appalled at the parents who allow it. What the hell kind of a person would give their child to a clear-cut pedophile?

[Neoteny]

I really don't feel like teaching you genetics. Especially if you get bad grades, because we all know that when you get bad grades in college it's because you didn't read the book and if you did it was the night before the test.

I'll try to sum up because I'm tired and really want to be in bed.

When a gene is retarded you get a defect. Since genes are linked in proteins, when one gene is defective the others are effected. Most defects hamper brain function (this is because our genes are assorted on the homologs [allele pair]) and the chances of you hitting something involved in brain function is pretty high. Like I said not all of these defects effect the brain, but we are talking about behavioral defects.

You have many kinds of disorders (Autosomal, X or Y-Linked, etc.) but typically Multifactorial or Polygenic Disorders are the cause of hampered brain function without a having a million other things wrong with you. Like you being a shem, being infertile, being a vegetable, etc.

These genes are passed down through family, so you would see constant evidence of it occurring in a blood line and not just randomly. Have you ever met a whole family of gay people?

You still think it is genetic? I can keep going if this topic interests you... but it will have to be in the morning because I'm going to bed.

Best post evar! Why did PLAYER have to get to it before me?! Damn you!

[Frigidus]

http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0703/56.htm
(I do know this one is about mental retardation genes mutating. This implies that the gene was retarded THEN mutated.)

No, that's about a particular mutation that causes mental retardation. The gene isn't retarded (seriously, I can't even think of what that would mean), it causes people to be retarded.

[PLAYER57832]

No matter which way you look at it, being gay is a result of either nature or nurture.

Most likely, it is both .. and, as I described above, "nature" involves a lot more than just genetics.

If there was a gay gene, then through human pedigree it would have been bred out....

Not at all, particularly when more than one gene is involved. Sometimes there are actually benefits linked to even the most negative of causes. Sickle Cell Anemia has not been "bred out", because if you have only 1 set, (not from both parents), you have a slightly increased resistance to Malaria. A similar link has more recently been found between tuberculosis and cystic fibrosis (link: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/199 ... osisG.html).

Homosexuality is often considered some kind of "confusion" of sexes. Even the most strongly male human has some "femal" traits and vice-versa. To name one example, look at how men relate to children, look at how aggression plays out. Love for a man's children will cause him to work harder to support them, fight harder to defend them -- very loosely "male" traits. YET, if that aggression is too much, it can turn against those very children.

This is getting even further from the original question. If you want to talk about how behavior is really affected by genetics, it should be in another thread. My basic point is just that these things are EXCEEDINGLY complicated. And that the more we learn about genetics, the more we realize that very, very few things are simple expressions of one gene or even a combination of genes -- ESPECIALLY in human behavior.

[detlef]

On the whole nature v nurture thing, one very major element is missing from the discussion. That being how many people are latent homosexuals. That's likely where the nurture part comes in if at all. In other words, was this person who was predisposed to attraction to the same sex raised in an environment that inspired them to come out. This doesn't mean that one would need totally accepting parents to have this happen as plenty do in rebellion to their parents. That is not to say that is why they are gay, rather that part of finding the strength to come out was inspired by a desire to piss off their parents.

If I had to guess, I would imagine that it is nearly entirely (if not completely) something one is born into and that there are varying degrees which explain why certain people are only turned on by the opposite sex, others are primarily turned on by the opposite sex but do find some allure in people of their same sex just not enough to overcome the hang-ups involved in exploring it, others still who find attraction from both and enough so to potentially act on it, and finally those who are simply only turned on by their same sex.

I really don't see how anyone could be taught to be turned on by one thing or another. It's been proven time and again that one of the most uncontrollable forces in nature is that of physical attraction. It makes us do things that completely defy logic. You can't decide who you are drawn to. The result of trying to will yourself or someone else into not being attracted to who they're attracted to can have horrible consequences. Just look at the number of priests who are found to have molested young boys. These are guys who, provided they were not repressed may have found a much healthier manner to explore their attraction to other males. However, since it was fought and kept in, it managed to manifest itself in a very unhealthy manner.

If it is a choice, it is a choice to be openly gay. That is where the choice part comes in. Despite what the paranoid right wants to say, society is not trending towards one where we are taught to be gay. Just because gender stereotypes are being broken down and guys aren't out there hunting and bring food home to women who are only cooking and raising kids does not mean that the next step is for guys to start wanting to screw other guys.

Hell, simply being a married person who doesn't want kids I'm made very much aware of how far out of the norm I am. I am reminded on a very regular basis that what people do is grow up, get married to someone of the opposite sex and make babies. That's how we roll. Think about it. Every single time any couple I've known has announced they're having a kid, they're greeted (at least to their faces) with unquestioned support and excitement. "How great for you guys!"

When someone asks me if I have kids or am planning to and I say no, nearly always, they ask why. Imagine what a faux pas it would be to ask a couple who just announced they were pregnant "why?" Ironic, really. Because not having kids is a whole lot easier than having kids. Not having kids is not an important decision that you should really think long and hard about because it's a whole lot easier to "undo". None the less, that's how it is.

We're so far from being so pro gay that otherwise straight people are somehow being conditioned to be gay it's silly.

[Napoleon Ier]

Oh come off it you cretins. I'm no scientists, but even I can clearly see that gayness doesn't "run in the family". I'm sure you can post me a load of bullshit about how homosexuals are discwiminated against and boo-hoo isn't it horrible that bigoted prejudiced bullies stop them from being able to have their little wedding ceremony in the town hall so why would they possibly choose to be homosexual, but the whole issue doesn't really mater in that context.

The question to all you gay-gene conspiracy theorists out there is this: if you can fabricate a gay gene, surely all other paraphilias are based on a gene as well? Are you therefore claiming that paedophiles are genetically pre-disposed to raping little kiddies?

[Dapper Tom]

I'm no scientists, but even I can clearly see that gayness doesn't "run in the family".

Great, good for you... now post some evidence and prove it instead of just trying to patronise everyone into submission.

The question to all you gay-gene conspiracy theorists out there is this: if you can fabricate a gay gene, surely all other paraphilias are based on a gene as well?

That doesn't follow at all. It's quite possible that various differences in sexual preference could be founded on genetic or non-genetic basis. Just because one particular preference has a genetic root doesn't mean that all behaviour concerning sex can only stem from genetics. Sorry.

Are you therefore claiming that paedophiles are genetically pre-disposed to raping little kiddies?

Not at present; but what relevance could it possibly have to this discussion whether we were or weren't?

[Neoteny]

No matter which way you look at it, being gay is a result of either nature or nurture.

Most likely, it is both .. and, as I described above, "nature" involves a lot more than just genetics.

If there was a gay gene, then through human pedigree it would have been bred out....

Not at all, particularly when more than one gene is involved. Sometimes there are actually benefits linked to even the most negative of causes. Sickle Cell Anemia has not been "bred out", because if you have only 1 set, (not from both parents), you have a slightly increased resistance to Malaria. A similar link has more recently been found between tuberculosis and cystic fibrosis (link: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/199 ... osisG.html). A similar connection has been found between Cycle Cell Anemia and Malaria.

Homosexuality is often considered some kind of "confusion" of sexes. Even the most strongly male human has some "femal" traits and vice-versa. To name one example, look at how men relate to children, look at how aggression plays out. Love for a man's children will cause him to work harder to support them, fight harder to defend them -- very loosely "male" traits. YET, if that aggression is too much, it can turn against those very children.

This is getting even further from the original question. If you want to talk about how behavior is really affected by genetics, it should be in another thread. My basic point is just that these things are EXCEEDINGLY complicated. And that the more we learn about genetics, the more we realize that very, very few things are simple expressions of one gene or even a combination of genes -- ESPECIALLY in human behavior.

Speaking of heterozygote advantage, (not really, but a similar concept) have you heard about the possible relationship between HIV resistance from descendants of plague survivors? It's interesting stuff.

Nappy, as far as genetics go, talk to GT, he'll make you feel better about behavioral genetics.

[got tonkaed]

to be very short....I find it difficult to believe that we are not "nutured" in quite a noticable capacity in regards to sexual preference. The multibillion dollar advertising industry would seem to suggest otherwise. The fact of the matter is, it doesnt take much of a historian to see that desired body types have changed over time. You could certainly attribute this to local preference, but that local preference is very likely to be taught.

It is primarily because we understand sexuality to be such a binary thing and we live in societies that are as understood to be heterosexual normalized that we see things in such a way.

[Napoleon Ier]

to be very short....I find it difficult to believe that we are not "nutured" in quite a noticable capacity in regards to sexual preference. The multibillion dollar advertising industry would seem to suggest otherwise. The fact of the matter is, it doesnt take much of a historian to see that desired body types have changed over time. You could certainly attribute this to local preference, but that local preference is very likely to be taught.

It is primarily because we understand sexuality to be such a binary thing and we live in societies that are as understood to be heterosexual normalized that we see things in such a way.

Exactly. So the "gay gene" stuff is a load of unsubstantiated bollocks with no sientific backing. Thought as much. As regards gay marriage, even if homosexuality is a genetic disease: so what? Surely that makes them even more unsuited to being granted a marriage?

That's the confusion most of the pro-marriage imbeciles are making: marriage isn't a question of "equal rights", it's a privilege confered upon individuals by society. No-one is actively preventing gays from doing anything, it isn't a libertarian issue, but rather one of how society makes it's institutions fucntion.

[got tonkaed]

I would probably not accuse myself of being an expert on the gay gene or into behavioral genetics, even though neoteny bravely accused me as such. Therefore, to take my post and claim it is the brave defense of what your saying, is kind of being silly. Your effort to make leaps and bounds of logic continues when you assume than anyone is suggesting if there is a genetic cause that it is actually a disease. Such an interpretation is culturally understood and can easily be understood in the context of your anti-gay rights animus, and can be disregarded as such.

Marriage when seen in the context of a values-norms society (which is what you argue) must be seen as a right, because marriage is a social approved of goal. In and of itself, marriage does not dictate who gets married, this can be understood by the widely different definitions and understandings of the term. Therefore your narrow definition can equally be rejected by someone who uses a more encompassing understanding.

While you may charge that people are making a mistake in categorizing an issue, if you make a mistake in your interpretation of each relevant point, at the end of the day you dont argue the point effectively.

Edit: Also worth noting: can we stop with this whole if its not nature or nuture then clearly homosexuality is wrong argument that some of you are advocating. Its like everytime someone discusses the issue from either side, you try and prove that your right by taking one of the sides. A lot of people fall on either side of the coin as far as nature and nuture go, and neither explanation would be complete in and of itself (though obviously social construction explanations are better, intrinsically). But seriously, its a silly and dishonest game to play.

[Dapper Tom]

if homosexuality is a genetic disease: so what? Surely that makes them even more unsuited to being granted a marriage?

1. Disease is a very pejorative term, and it really doesn't best describe the state of affairs we're discussing. Please stop trying to inject prejudice into this discussion.
2. Would you apply your line of reasoning to Alzhiemer's sufferers? Should their marriage rights also be revoked because they're suffering from genetic diseases? I think not...

[savant]

Speaking of heterozygote advantage, (not really, but a similar concept) have you heard about the possible relationship between HIV resistance from descendants of plague survivors? It's interesting stuff.

read about this the other day, even though the principle was discovered in 1996.

a mutation in the CCR5 receptor gene (aka delta 32) makes it impossible for foreign bodies to enter human lymphocytes. people are that heterozygous to the mutation will be partially resistant where HIV (or the plague) will take over the immune system more slowly, giving more time for treatment and possible remission. people that are homozygous to the mutation are completely immune to the plague and HIV.

great stuff.

[got tonkaed]

if homosexuality is a genetic disease: so what? Surely that makes them even more unsuited to being granted a marriage?

1. Disease is a very pejorative term, and it really doesn't best describe the state of affairs we're discussing. Please stop trying to inject prejudice into this discussion.
2. Would you apply your line of reasoning to Alzhiemer's sufferers? Should their marriage rights also be revoked because they're suffering from genetic diseases? I think not...

yeah its a pretty slippery slope when you attempt to merge understandings of societies conferring privligies onto married individuals, and then attempting to define the individuals who deserve to be married. It is something however, that i do not feel he will really attempt to engage in.

[Neoteny]

I would probably not accuse myself of being an expert on the gay gene or into behavioral genetics, even though neoteny bravely accused me as such. Therefore, to take my post and claim it is the brave defense of what your saying, is kind of being silly. Your effort to make leaps and bounds of logic continues when you assume than anyone is suggesting if there is a genetic cause that it is actually a disease. Such an interpretation is culturally understood and can easily be understood in the context of your anti-gay rights animus, and can be disregarded as such.

Marriage when seen in the context of a values-norms society (which is what you argue) must be seen as a right, because marriage is a social approved of goal. In and of itself, marriage does not dictate who gets married, this can be understood by the widely different definitions and understandings of the term. Therefore your narrow definition can equally be rejected by someone who uses a more encompassing understanding.

While you may charge that people are making a mistake in categorizing an issue, if you make a mistake in your interpretation of each relevant point, at the end of the day you dont argue the point effectively.

Edit: Also worth noting: can we stop with this whole if its not nature or nuture then clearly homosexuality is wrong argument that some of you are advocating. Its like everytime someone discusses the issue from either side, you try and prove that your right by taking one of the sides. A lot of people fall on either side of the coin as far as nature and nuture go, and neither explanation would be complete in and of itself (though obviously social construction explanations are better, intrinsically). But seriously, its a silly and dishonest game to play.

I was hoping you would come out a bit more vocally anti-behavioral genetics. I don't even know why I try anymore.

[got tonkaed]

in the edit i at least point out that i think hard sciences are the suck and than meaningless soft scienes are the awesome.

[PLAYER57832]

to be very short....I find it difficult to believe that we are not "nutured" in quite a noticable capacity in regards to sexual preference. The multibillion dollar advertising industry would seem to suggest otherwise. The fact of the matter is, it doesnt take much of a historian to see that desired body types have changed over time. You could certainly attribute this to local preference, but that local preference is very likely to be taught.

It is primarily because we understand sexuality to be such a binary thing and we live in societies that are as understood to be heterosexual normalized that we see things in such a way.

Exactly. So the "gay gene" stuff is a load of unsubstantiated bollocks with no sientific backing. Thought as much. As regards gay marriage, even if homosexuality is a genetic disease: so what? Surely that makes them even more unsuited to being granted a marriage?

That's the confusion most of the pro-marriage imbeciles are making: marriage isn't a question of "equal rights", it's a privilege confered upon individuals by society. No-one is actively preventing gays from doing anything, it isn't a libertarian issue, but rather one of how society makes it's institutions fucntion.

Read my earlier posts

1. homosexuality, like just about everything behavioral related is almost certainly a combination of factors ... and genes (multiple, not single) are likely part of it.

2. There IS evidence... from the wild kingdom, from farms, from studies of identical twins, etc. suggesting that homosexuality is at least partialy genetic.

3. "biology"/"nature" involve far, far more than just genetics.


Finally, you STILL have not answered how homosexuality HARMS us so much that they should not be allowed to make their already existing families legally official.