Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So is it safe to say that being gay is a birth defect? Surely a man is not suppose to be born with the dna that would cause him to be attracted to and prefer a man as a sexual partner over that of a woman and vice versa.
Not supposed to-- supposed by whom? If that's what's in his DNA, then that's what's in his DNA.
Quote:
The same as any other birth defect such as down syndrome. Its something that is not natural.
Down Syndrome is completely natural. 100% natural. It's not generally considered desirable, but that's a completely different thing.
You can keep tilting at windmills and trying to make people find their sexual and emotional attachments inferior, but they, and most of the rest of us, will merely keep laughing at you.
GLEE is too mature of a television program for a 7 year old.
If my kid was leaning toward having romantic fantasies about men because he's identifying with a gay character on t.v., television would not be available for him to watch.
Do you think straight children don't have equivalent thoughts about TV characters?
Do you think gay and straight children didn't have crushes on people before there was television?
On the contrary, if gayness is genetic than after generations of openly embraced gayness eventually you will go extinct. The gay community already sees normal humans as 'breeders' who are killing the planet with over population. There is absolutely no trend of gay people having children, nor any glimpses on the horizon of one.
If however it is learned/chosen behavior and not a born condition, well...we will know soon enough wont we.
Since I'm not gay, the WE in my post was referring to all humans... and as I said, it's very unlikely HUMANS will be going extinct any time soon.
Btw, "HiFi," I think you're confusing inherited-genetic with INHERENT-genetic. Basically (as I understand it), one is a trait directly passed from a parent, while the other is just a predisposition you have from birth - whether it comes from your parent or not. For example, there is a difference between getting red hair from your father, and having an innate talent for art even though nobody else in your family has it. So no, even if it is proven genetic, that doesn't mean they will go extinct. Keep dreaming.
Youngsters have nothing to do with homosexuality unless they are abused. Suggesting that a youngster is a homosexual is abuse by suggestion, a youngster has not even reached puberty. These are public forums and can be read by anyone.
You are here in this entry charged along with others with a need and desire to connect and associate specifically with children in discussions with an illogical, perverted sense of sexual hoping in outcome, in the future sexuality of children in society.
"Abuse by suggestion??" Bwahahaha... I sure hope you don't have aspirations to become a lawyer or cop! And if you already are one or the other, I suggest forfeiting your credentials ASAP.
Now to address what you're attempting (poorly) to say, is it "abusive" when parents talk about little Johnny being a "flirt" with the ladies - or when they see two opposite-gender kids holding hands, and declare "Oh look, little Susie has a BOYFRIEND!" I hear stuff like that all the time, but nobody considers it sexual or abusive. So what's the difference? There is only a difference if you are prejudiced against gays, plain and simple.
Proof that the majority of the gay community sees straight/bisexual people like this.
Again, false.
There's plenty of avenues to have children, even if the entire world was gay. Heck, there's even progress in the field of not needing men in order to get pregnant.
Neither men nor women will be needed to create offspring soon, except as a source of stem cells.
Japanese researchers have produced mouse eggs from stem cells that bred healthy offspring, a breakthrough that may one day help treat human infertility.
In previous efforts, scientists — including the current group — have been able to create sperm and egg cells in the lab, but they weren’t able to produce healthy offspring from those cells. In the current study, published in the journal Science, the researchers first added growth factors and proteins to the stem cells to turn them into primordial germ cells. These cells were then combined with somatic cells from mouse ovaries to make “reconstituted ovaries,” which they transplanted into the mice. Four weeks later, the scientists removed them again, isolated immature egg cells from the ovaries and allowed them to mature in a dish. The mature eggs were fertilized with mouse sperm in a test tube and the resulting embryos were transferred into female mice, leading to the birth of healthy, fertile pups that went on to reproduce themselves.
The level of ignorance and bigotry on display in this thread is staggering, even for City-Data.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
