the "GAY" gene is referd to as a defective gene bec. it is non-reproductive, gay's are a minority bec. they wont reproduce, therefore spreading that gene"if there was one" or hobby of being gay
It does not mean that the gene should be called a defect. There is nothing from this "gene" that makes the human unnatural in any way. Or would people now want to bring morality into this discussion?
but the heterosexual woman population is much higher than the homosexual woman population.
So? Do you mean to imply that the homosexual population in women is so low that they fail to represent the full range of body types?
sigh, you just like to argue, whether it gets you anywhere or not.
I honestly don't see what you mean. You made a few points and I pointed out how I thought they were irrelevant. If you had said the average height of homosexual males is lower than the heterosexual average, you would be making a point. As such, I don't see how the factoid you presented was relevant.
testosterone makes men more attracted to women. estrogen makes women more attracted to men. get it yet?
Evidence? Seriously, I'm curious: I've never heard this before and I would like to read up on it.
FloydTC I have read through all your points, arguements and conclusions. I'm all for freedom of opinion, but when the individual is simply shooting in the dark without anything to support them I must ask them to shut up. So do everyone a favour and shut up. I have a number of homosexual friends (I'm straight) and the gay gene sounds plausible, but I support the idea it is most likely a chemical difference in the brain of the individual which, for those of you who think otherwise, is irriversable.
I'm all for freedom of opinion, but when the individual is simply shooting in the dark without anything to support them I must ask them to shut up.
I have already explained that they are theories. and they are my theories, so of course there would be no evidence for them.
but I support the idea it is most likely a chemical difference in the brain of the individual which, for those of you who think otherwise, is irriversable.
A theory is an ideo which has evidence to support it. Otherwise it's just and IDEA not a theory. And unless you plan on forcind the individual to take chemical balancers then it is iriverable, also to the extent of my knowledge they don't know the exact chemical combination.
I think conjecture is the word you're looking for. I think.
A theory is an ideo which has evidence to support it. Otherwise it's just and IDEA not a theory. And unless you plan on forcind the individual to take chemical balancers then it is iriverable,
Force has nothing to do with it. Anyway, I'm no scientist, but I think it is, theoretically, reversible. I think it's theoretically possible to alter personality traits in individuals, including sexuality. So they could, maybe, in the future, get rid of ADD, depression and other "undesirable" traits. Things get more Orwellian from there.
The day man forces an idividual to be a product of what someone desires that individual to be, we have lost our humanity. Just as Orwell implies in 1984.
Ultimately every emotion we have is the result of a biochemical reaction. Does that necessarily lessen the human or moral aspect of anything we do? I do not think so.
Being gay isn't a gene its a sexual/emotional desire for the same sex. It has nothing to do with genes. Gene's decide your physical makeup (the way you look). Not the way you feel.
