A Hypothetical:

_

saveuplife wrote:

Are you serious? Come on, man.... that's ridiculous.

Yes, I'm serious. Language is powerful way to disrespect people. Calling it ridiculous doesn't make it any less disrespectful.

saveuplife wrote:

You seriously are nitpicking.... a gay couple can not reproduce. That's what I meant.

I'm not nitpicking... I'm just not being closed-minded. There are many, many types of families and they are all legitimate.

_

saveuplife wrote:

I don't doubt that that could happen. But, it argues against the gay gene theory, and makes it more likely that it could be a choice.

How does it argue against "the gay gene theory"? Some genes are recessive. Even some dominant genes don't get passed on. Makes perfect biological sense.

decides2dream

urbanhippie wrote:

I don't mean to correct you d2d, but some things like eye and hair colour and the ability to roll ones tongue are directly determined by the genetic material of the parents. Two brown eyed people cannot have a blue eyed child. Red hair is a recessive gene and has to be carried by the parent etc


However I think you're perfectly right here. I'm comparing it to the discovery of the BRCA breast cancer genes, which may show a pre-disposition to the disease, but because of the multitude of other factors involved, cannot provide a definitive answer about whether the disease will develop.

The very most (if anything at all) that a genetic marker would be likely to show would be a possibility that homosexuality would be considered by this person. And thats a very intangible thing to be worried about for an unborn child.

i KNOW it's determined by the parents....it all is, no? i wasn't disagreeing with that....just that the fact that it IS in the genetics, does not mean it will necessarily manifest. if i was unclear with my point there....mea culpa. as to the red hair, sure...and that was my point. i KNOW the genes must be present, but it does NOT mean that the child actually WILL get it. or they may carry the gene onwards, but not physically display it. or the parent may carry the genes, not manifest it themslves, but will show up in their offspring. THAT's the whole point. even if a 'gay gene' existed, in and of itself....would not automatically mean one carrying it would be gay, or necessarily produce gay offspring. it's the combination of genetic material between both parents, and all the rest.

urbanhippie

decides2dream wrote:

i KNOW it's determined by the parents....it all is, no? i wasn't disagreeing with that....just that the fact that it IS in the genetics, does not mean it will necessarily manifest. if i was unclear with my point there....mea culpa. as to the red hair, sure...and that was my point. i KNOW the genes must be present, but it does NOT mean that the child actually WILL get it. or they may carry the gene onwards, but not physically display it. or the parent may carry the genes, not manifest it themslves, but will show up in their offspring. THAT's the whole point. even if a 'gay gene' existed, in and of itself....would not automatically mean one carrying it would be gay, or necessarily produce gay offspring. it's the combination of genetic material between both parents, and all the rest.

I agree and as I said, a multitude of other factors not even including genetics would have to be considered.

To say that any child found to have a 'gay gene' would automatically be gay is as ridiculous as those believing homosexuality can be 'caught' by having gay parents.

saveuplife

scb wrote:

Yes, I'm serious. Language is powerful way to disrespect people. Calling it ridiculous doesn't make it any less disrespectful..

First, it wasn't meant with disrespect and I think you know that. Second, it wasn't disrespectful.

scb wrote:

I'm not nitpicking... I'm just not being closed-minded. There are many, many types of families and they are all legitimate.

A gay couple can not procreate. That's not being closed-minded... it's being real.

Abuskedti

decides2dream wrote:

depends on your own personal morality, doesn't it?
right now, a woman may choose abortion simply b/c she does not want to complete the pregnancy, so while some may find that morally repugnant alone....and other factors, which also may be considered repugnant....would still be viable options. people abort for mental disabilities such as downs syndrome - and i am in NO way comparing homosexuality to a disability - just point out that having 'criteria' for abortion already exists. if abortion is legal, as it should be, it's up to the pregnant girl/women to decide. period.

If there is a gay gene, and I do not believe there is, then it certainly is a disability.

_

saveuplife wrote:

First, it wasn't meant with disrespect and I think you know that. Second, it wasn't disrespectful.




A gay couple can not procreate. That's not being closed-minded... it's being real.

Nope, sorry. It's disrespectful and closed-minded. The fact that you can't see that is just a symptom of being disrespectful and closed-minded.

pickupyourwill

~~~

Jeremy1012

Abuskedti wrote:

If there is a gay gene, and I do not believe there is, then it certainly is a disability.

Not in the 21st century it's not.

SoonForgotten2

saveuplife wrote:

The action (f'ing)... that's where it gets slippery. But, need I remind you, there's a consistency in the Catholic Church. People who have sex outside of wedlock also sin.

Ah, but they wouldn't deny heterosexuals the right to marry in the first place. Where does that leave same-sex couples then?