Male Sexual Orientation Influenced by Genes?

The article speculates that the gene may increase fertility in women, and that it can only passed on to males from the mother. That doesn't mean it's a mutation. In fact, the article implies that the area in question may have been around for a very long time. Besides a mutation doesn't always indicate a negative consequence. Sometimes mutations are beneficial, sometimes they cause harm, and sometimes they're neither harmful nor benficial. Therefore, your attempt to spin this story into an article about genetic problems is irrelevant.

 

Yeah, that's why they're fighting for same-sex marriage rights... because all they really want to do is keep (*)(*)(*)(*)ing as many guys as they can as many times as they can.

 

I can often tell a dude is gay by his eyes - many gay men have naturally feminine facial features.

 

I bet you're wrong more often than not. Many straight men have what might be considered feminine features. Many gay men are masculine. Did you just make that up? Look into my eyes

 

Take it easy! I just asked a question.

 

Of course, of course, my bad. So now you've got your answer.

 

Really? Check out the Bears and Daddies. You'd think you were at a monster truck rally.

 

Gay men typically self report 10 to 100 TIMES AS MANY SEX PARTNERS as straights. They ARE NOT BRAGGING. They are disposed to casual and nearly random sex. Were they similarly disposed and straight they'd better be Wilt Chamberlain to get the same action.

The Gaystapo is not comfortable advertising this aspect of gay male promiscuity. Or smoking. Or drugs. Or disease. Or many other social pathologies.

 

Equine excrement! Where do you get this information from? Pre Stonewall back room, underground bath house behavior? Did it occur to you that as gays are integrated into the mainstream of society, and their relationships validated, these stereotypes are no longer valid ? Let me tell you something. I'm a straight male. I've can't even begin to guess how many sex partners I've had, both as a single and later , as a recreational sex hobby with my wife. I'm not bragging either. Being gay is no more about sex than being straight is. And what the hell does that have to do with the issue of genetics and homosexuality, or, for that matter, anything else having to do with homosexuality. Your post is just moronic flam baiting,

 

The CDC puts out the pathology data. The frequency surveys are all over.

Gay <> Straight. Wishing won't make it so.

 

Again I ask. What is the point? What is the relevance ? This is nothing but moronic flame baiting and trolling. Do you have anything useful or intelligent to add? I think not.

 

Even if I were to believe you (the only site I could find that offer any statistics are right-wing and religious), they're perfectly within their right to be as promiscuous as they like. Besides, if this were such a concern of yours, wouldn't you want to encourage their monogamy by any means possible, such as same-sex marriage? I mean, it doesn't guarantee monogamy, but it surely doesn't discourage it.

It's also interesting to note that all these statistics focus entirely on gay men. I couldn't find any information on lesbian promiscuity. I know there rate of disease is among the lowest of any sexual orientation, which conservatives tend to overlook, preferring instead to highlight disease rates in gay men; I wonder if there's a reason why their promiscuity has been overlooked as well.

 

I'll say it again:

Gay <> Straight. Wishing won't make it so.

The gay male population is collectively MUCH less healthy and sexually unlike anything the straight world can grasp.

The entire Gaystapo agenda is EQUALITY built with any lies necessary. I know the fraud they are perpetrating. Gays may gain equality in some laws but they are decidedly unequal on many pragmatic metrics. And that is politics, the nub of this forum.

You buy the lies. Enjoy!

.

 

Me going to my car is. Walking is natural. That doesn't make it genetic. how many times must you be disproved on this point?

Just so you know not every action that occurs in nature makes it natural.

But lying about me saying cars are natural is nothing new.

You've GOT to be kidding. If rape and incest are natural where is your genetic evidence Poly? Start there.

 

The recent liberal news yes. But contrary to your belief the liberal side isn't the only side. It isn't even the majority side based on the votes.

You are the one looking for new law and you can't justify it with the Constitution anywhere where it says only 2 person adult homosexuals can marry while excluding all other marriages who would make the same argument. Period, end of story. You can't do it. This is why you keep loosing the argument.

 

I almost feel sorry for you. So much hate and fear! It must be eating away at your gut right now.

Thanks be to the goddess that I am not you.

 

Votes are irrelevant regarding civil rights.

I can't help that your interpretation of the constitution contradicts mine and judicial interpretations across the country. I've already told you that I support polygamy, and traditional marriage isn't threatened by same-sex marriage. As has been pointed out dozens of times here by several people, pedophilia and bestiality should continued to be banned because children and animals cannot consent. We don't have to allow for all marriages just because you say we do.

And you have a funny interpretation of losing the argument when same-sex marriage bans are dropping like flies all over the country. I mean, I couldn't care less about you or whether you change your mind on this issue. It's the stalkers who read the threads but never post who I'm more interested in. You can call your cute little anonymous internet victories all you want. I understand how some people really need this place for some sort of sense of accomplishment, and I don't want to get in the way of their therapy.

 

Gay marriage is not a civil right. It goes against the very nature of civil rights being genetic traits like race and gender with actual amendments in the Constitution passed protecting them specially unlike homosexuality.

but you keep ignoring that.

There is no interpretation of the Constitution anywhere that names or mentions homosexuality anywhere in it. That's the fallacy you can't except in your argument.

Once again you ignore your own argument. What you would use aka bastardize wording in the Constitution never mentions age of consent. You fabricated a requirement based on your own personal morality that doens't exist in the wording while chastising those who have a moral objection to homosexual marriage. Its the very height of hypocrisy.

Yes your liberal judges have bastardized the Constitution to force states and spit on the rights of the people to vote the way they like according to the Constitution but that will end with the Supreme Court.

Besides, its far easier to pick apart the gaping hole in your own argument when you laughably pretend the Constitution only applies to marriages you approve of while citing wording so general any group could use it to justify any marriage.

 

We've already addressed all this before. I've already offered counters to all these points in other threads to which you never replied. You just taking our discussion in circles over and over. You're entitled to believe what you want, but your just wasting both of our time at this point. I think we've just about covered every aspect of our opinions on this issue now. Sure, let's wait for the Supreme Court to decide the issue. Judging from their latest decisions on gay marriage and civil rights, I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

 

It has been explained to you exactly where and why in the Constitution- you just won't accept it.

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage even once- but the 14th Amendment guarantees Equal Rights to all Americans.

The State can only restrict those rights with a compelling state interest- preventing homosexuals from marrying is not a compelling state interest. Not in the eyes of 16 judges so far- with more sure to follow.

You believe that the State should discriminate against homosexual- in violation of the 14th Amendment.

I do not.

- - - Updated - - -

Equal rights is not a civil right- it is an American right- guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

 

And what will you do when the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you?

It didn't when it overturned DOMA;

It didn't when it refused to take the opportunity afforded by Prop 8 to rule in the States favor.

What will you do then?

 

Keep dreaming if you must. SCOTUS has already indicated where they are going with this with the Hobby Lobby ruling.

But it wont change the fact your argument doesn't hold water when you can't explain how the same passages you quote in the Constitution you claim allows for gay marriage can magically ban all other marriages when the wording is general enough for any marriage.

 

Wrong again Jeff. You can't justify it which is why you can't explain it.

Then all Americans can have any marriage they like. You continue to fall into the same trap over and over even when its explained to you in detail.

Your liberal opinion is noted. It doesn't change the fact you have no right to overwrite the will of the people in what laws they enforce on marriage since even age of consent is not universal.

You believe in fabricating rights that don't exist while refusing to go through the proper amendment process. I do not.

Once again Jeff you don't learn from your mistakes. If its an equal right for all Americans then all marriages must be accepted because the 14th amendment has no limits on age. You can't pick and choose after you use the general wording in the 14th amendment that never discriminates by age. That's the fallacy and your ongoing mistake in this debate.

- - - Updated - - -

If they do not I will accept it since there is no alterative.

What will you do when they don't agree with you?

And it was wrong in that case. That doesn't change the fact their ruling is the law now.

Accept it.

What will you do when they rule against you since the Hobby Lobby ruling has new indications they will not give into the tyranny of your far left position?

 

I have explained it.

Since I have read 3 of the 16 judgements against discriminatory marriage laws, I actually understand what the argument is.

You don't. You won't. You can't.

Regardless of how much you want the law to continue to discriminate against same gender couples when it comes to marriage, those days are numbered.

 

Your strawman fallacy? Never once have you proven me wrong because never once have I claimed it was genetic. Do keep up.

Yes it is.

Misrepresenting my statements is nothing new for you.

It wouldn't need to be evident in genetic coding to be natural. Behaviors aren't necessarily caused by genetics. One only need to look at the animal kingdom. Lots of animals do things we would call rape or incest. Where they trained by man, or possessed by a leprechaun? If both man or supernatural sources aren't the culprit one can only assume that it must be in the species nature.

Oh but you don't think that things in nature are natural unless they have genetic sources. So rocks, sand, water, and oxygen aren't natural because there isn't a genetic source.

You have the most rudimentary understanding of nature.