Gayness Hereditary but not a "gene" (New Theory)

[Exquisition]

The fact that the self righteous church goer's feel that it is immoral behavior and should be thought of as a sin, makes it important. If it is proven to be genetic, than it is not a choice, it becomes an imposed behavior. God made you that way, you are blameless.

So discovery of 'The Gay Gene' would be the disarming of the church.

You'd like to think so, Mikey but truth is they'll always find a way to justify something that 'doesn't fit'/

If your sexuality is genetic then it is probably 'a test from God'.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Not hardly :-/

There are already plenty of churches spouting the line that it's not sinful to be gay, you're just not allowed to act on it. There are others that are already making a fortune offering ineffective "cures" for homosexuality - something like this would just encourage them.

One of the certain signs of a head-game is the 'persecutor' role or the 'victim' role or Superman or Dudley Doright trying to smite Snidely Whiplash and save poor Nelle. Nazis and Evangelicals are always hiding under the bed, waiting to ambush gays et al.

And if Dudley saves Nelle's bacon she rewards him by washing her balls with her tongue out in Americas livingroom.

 

[njlauren]

One of the certain signs of a head-game is the 'persecutor' role or the 'victim' role or Superman or Dudley Doright trying to smite Snidely Whiplash and save poor Nelle. Nazis and Evangelicals are always hiding under the bed, waiting to ambush gays et al.

And if Dudley saves Nelle's bacon she rewards him by washing her balls with her tongue out in Americas livingroom.

Ever hear of the case that spawned the Supreme Court's "Lawrence Decision"? It is exactly as you say, Evangelicals hiding under the bed waiting to ambush gays. The good citizens of Texas (also known as the Nutjob Republic), all fine and proud evangelicals with a small minority of people actually born with working brains, had a law making homosexual sex acts a crime, punishable by a fairly long stretch in jail. A cop knocked on the door of an apartment of two gay guys, soliciting funds for some brotherhood of cops or something, the cop somehow noticed a sex act going on in the bedroom and they were arrested, charged under the sodomy law and sentenced to jail. The Supreme court threw out the law as both a fundamental violation of the right to privacy and also as a violation of the equal protection clause, since it made sex acts illegal for gays that were legal for straights.

In the dissent, the non evangelical but just as Nazi's clique of hard core catholics, led by scalia, in their dissent said the state had the right and duty to regulate private morality via the law...so gays are paranoid how when a majority of states had laws like this on their books?

Course, Texas once again came out the butt headed losers as usual. At the time they wrote the law in question (and no, it wasn't old, it had been passed a couple of years before the case in question, it wasn't from the 19th century and dusted off), they also legalized sex with animals, as long as the animal was your own.

 

[njlauren]

You'd like to think so, Mikey but truth is they'll always find a way to justify something that 'doesn't fit'/

If your sexuality is genetic then it is probably 'a test from God'.

There will always be people like that, but there are also a lot of people who have some rationality left, if their priests and other ignoramuses have been telling them it is a choice, that it is a sinful choice, etc, and evidence shows it is part of the natural variation in animal sexuality and sociology, they will be swayed.

In the real world, even if it was a choice, it shouldn't matter, the same douchebags that want to demonize gays, put them in concentration camps, proudly go around saying how the US is the land of the free and the home of the brave, how we cherish freedom, how a man "has the right to live his life by his own convictions, by gum"...and don't even see the irony, saying 'that's different'. The same people who talk about getting government 'off our backs' wants government to decide who we can have on their back in our bed. It is like the good Christians and such who claim having organized school prayer is freedom of religion for them, because to them freedom of religion is the right to force their faith down everyone's throat.

The irony is even if being gay was a choice, they espouse the mightiest freedom of them all, freedom of religion, which is 100% a choice, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that wires us to be catholic or protestant or jewish or any specific faith, that is something we choose (or have chosen for us by our family, but still choice), but with sexuality? Uh, uh, no choice there, better be hetero couple having vaginal sex to make babies, or god and the state will get you.

 

[njlauren]

If you own a dog you know that animals do sex with their siblings and progeny. Their motto is, ANY PORT IN A STORM.

Pedophilia didnt really exist in America till the 1920s. People made distinctions tween rape and birds & bees, cuz they hanged rapists and allowed preteen girls to marry adult males. Kids are sexually curious and active starting about age 5. Most States still allow 13-14 year old teens to marry. So! An argument can be made that sex before majority (sui juris) is natural, and that its a bad idea for many reasons.

You must be a product of the fine Texas school system, because no one else could make a statement like this.

First of all, pedophilia existed long before the 1920's, pedophilia, people praying on children for sex, is recorded in written history, and even the earliest criminal codes we know of had penalties for those having sex with children (interestingly, as far as I know, neither the old or new testaments has any mention of having sex with children....not surprising, given that they thought of children as property).

Secondly, laws on the age on consent to have sex have been on the books a long, long time statutory rape (having sex as an adult with a child) has been outlawed for many centuries, because it was recognized that children do not have the capability to say no, any more then they can legally sign a contract. Whether a child is sexual or not is irrelevant, an adult cannot have sex with them because they cannot consent, the adult has too much power.

Your comments about children being sexually active and curious is a distortion. Before puberty, children can notice that certain body parts have sensation, a young boy can have an erection, for example, a young girl can feel sensations in her vagina (as far as I know), but they don't connect it to sex, that happens at puberty, that is when the other feelings start developing.

BTW, the law does not make sex before majority illegal, the age of consent (with the exceptions of a couple of states in the great mess of the bible belt) applies to when a person can consent to have sex with an adult, when they have the maturity to be able to say yes consensually. It is not meant to, except thanks to the bible thumpers, meant to stop two teenagers from having sex, there is nothing unnatural about two kids that age having sex, because they are both kids, like I said, only in a few states can a16 year old boy be charged with having sex with a 15 year old; the law was meant to stop a creepy man like you from having sex with a 13 year old, not two kids. Despite what the evangelicals think, two kids having sex is not traumatic, it doesn't cause harm, and is quite natural (it has consequences, but so does everything we do).
If the law made sex between two teenagers illegal, a lot of boys and girls would be in jail, given the percentage of teens who have sex (and prob always have; your vision of chaste virgins was crap even way back when)

The age to marry is a totally different issue, though it does interact with the age of consent/statutory rape. A 50 year old man could marry a 13 year old girl and have sex with her, and thanks to the vestiges of the old girl as property crap once promoted by church and state (think about this one, churches would gladly marry child brides to husbands well into majority, boy were they moral guardians in the good ole days, huh?). The thing about marriage is it is a legal contract, and there is a separate age to marry.

You are wrong, a 13 or 14 year old in any state cannot legally get married without a parent's permission or a judge's order (usually because it is a girl that has been knocked up). The age to be able to marry without parental permission I believe is 18 in most states, some may allow it as young as 16 or 17...but any younger then that, and a parent has to give permission, they in effect are giving the consent (which is sick, any parent who would allow a 14 year old to marry an adult needs severe medication)...a lot of that is based in very old law, when girls as young as 9 would be married off (and yes, folks, would often have sex, despite what defenders of the church who married them would tell you).

Nice try, but the law makes differentiation between natural and what is not allowed, and they do so based on harm. a 14 year old can have sex and if it is with another 14 year old it is quite natural and relatively harmless in legal eyes; but a 14 year old and an 18 year old would be rape, and rightfully so. The law doesn't make it rape because it is unnatural, it makes it rape because it is harmful, pure and simple.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You must be a product of the fine Texas school system, because no one else could make a statement like this.

First of all, pedophilia existed long before the 1920's, pedophilia, people praying on children for sex, is recorded in written history, and even the earliest criminal codes we know of had penalties for those having sex with children (interestingly, as far as I know, neither the old or new testaments has any mention of having sex with children....not surprising, given that they thought of children as property).

Secondly, laws on the age on consent to have sex have been on the books a long, long time statutory rape (having sex as an adult with a child) has been outlawed for many centuries, because it was recognized that children do not have the capability to say no, any more then they can legally sign a contract. Whether a child is sexual or not is irrelevant, an adult cannot have sex with them because they cannot consent, the adult has too much power.

Your comments about children being sexually active and curious is a distortion. Before puberty, children can notice that certain body parts have sensation, a young boy can have an erection, for example, a young girl can feel sensations in her vagina (as far as I know), but they don't connect it to sex, that happens at puberty, that is when the other feelings start developing.

BTW, the law does not make sex before majority illegal, the age of consent (with the exceptions of a couple of states in the great mess of the bible belt) applies to when a person can consent to have sex with an adult, when they have the maturity to be able to say yes consensually. It is not meant to, except thanks to the bible thumpers, meant to stop two teenagers from having sex, there is nothing unnatural about two kids that age having sex, because they are both kids, like I said, only in a few states can a16 year old boy be charged with having sex with a 15 year old; the law was meant to stop a creepy man like you from having sex with a 13 year old, not two kids. Despite what the evangelicals think, two kids having sex is not traumatic, it doesn't cause harm, and is quite natural (it has consequences, but so does everything we do).
If the law made sex between two teenagers illegal, a lot of boys and girls would be in jail, given the percentage of teens who have sex (and prob always have; your vision of chaste virgins was crap even way back when)

The age to marry is a totally different issue, though it does interact with the age of consent/statutory rape. A 50 year old man could marry a 13 year old girl and have sex with her, and thanks to the vestiges of the old girl as property crap once promoted by church and state (think about this one, churches would gladly marry child brides to husbands well into majority, boy were they moral guardians in the good ole days, huh?). The thing about marriage is it is a legal contract, and there is a separate age to marry.

You are wrong, a 13 or 14 year old in any state cannot legally get married without a parent's permission or a judge's order (usually because it is a girl that has been knocked up). The age to be able to marry without parental permission I believe is 18 in most states, some may allow it as young as 16 or 17...but any younger then that, and a parent has to give permission, they in effect are giving the consent (which is sick, any parent who would allow a 14 year old to marry an adult needs severe medication)...a lot of that is based in very old law, when girls as young as 9 would be married off (and yes, folks, would often have sex, despite what defenders of the church who married them would tell you).

Nice try, but the law makes differentiation between natural and what is not allowed, and they do so based on harm. a 14 year old can have sex and if it is with another 14 year old it is quite natural and relatively harmless in legal eyes; but a 14 year old and an 18 year old would be rape, and rightfully so. The law doesn't make it rape because it is unnatural, it makes it rape because it is harmful, pure and simple.

No. Youre both confused and make assumptions that werent implied.