Aborting Potential Gay Babies Choice or Bigotry?

[homersapien 11,377]

Also, if this gene was found in the test subjects to reveal a 30-40% guarantee that the subjects would be gay, shouldn't this gene be found in all gay people? And, what about the other 60-70%? What about gay people that don't have this gene? Are they gay because of a choice?

From you own linked article: ""The thing that's consistent is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest."

30% is fundamental and the other 70% is society or environmental.

Just because environment may have played a major role doesn't make it any less a core part of a gay person's self identity, Weegs. An overview of the field of epigenetics would be a good study for you.

Seriously.

And while you're at it, look up "sophistry".

[AuburnNTexas 7,148]

I am Pro-Life this means I believe it is a human being from the moment of conception so abortion is not an option. As a Pro-life person this means I am against the death penalty also. I have a friend who is Pro-Choice but against the death penalty because he doesn't believe we have the right to kill another person that logic defies me. You may not agree with me but at least my logic is consistent.

[homersapien 11,377]

So, in essence, since homosexuality cannot be proven to be an inherent trait in the womb, you would be more inclined to believe that it is behavioral correct?

Behaviorial? Certainly not.

We are very much shaped by environmental factors, Weegs. You didn't really have much say in the concentrations of the hormones you were exposed to in the womb, did you?

Because, unless a "trigger" is applied, homosexuality may never surface, correct?

Possibly.

It is impossible for you to declare that with certainty.

No, it's quite possible and rational to declare that with certainty.

[Weegle777 78]

Ok. If the "trigger" is never applied, and the individual lives and dies without ever being attracted to the same sex, how would you know?

The same way I know you and I are straight. Asking them. We can't read hearts and minds, Weegs. We can detect some indicators, but this is a gray area. We can't say for certain whether a given individual will be gay, but the research does indicate there are biological factors beyond their control that play a role.

If it is never triggered by an outside influence, the behavior will never materialize.

Possibly.

Your post was somewhat contradictory. If a trigger was never applied, you wouldn't know by asking them because they wouldn't know.

[Weegle777 78]

So, in essence, since homosexuality cannot be proven to be an inherent trait in the womb, you would be more inclined to believe that it is behavioral correct?

Behaviorial? Certainly not.

We are very much shaped by environmental factors, Weegs. You didn't really have much say in the concentrations of the hormones you were exposed to in the womb, did you?

Because, unless a "trigger" is applied, homosexuality may never surface, correct?

Possibly.

It is impossible for you to declare that with certainty.

No, it's quite possible and rational to declare that with certainty.

Explain.

[homersapien 11,377]

Ok. If the "trigger" is never applied, and the individual lives and dies without ever being attracted to the same sex, how would you know? If it is never triggered by an outside influence, the behavior will never materialize.

How would you know what?

[homersapien 11,377]

So, in essence, since homosexuality cannot be proven to be an inherent trait in the womb, you would be more inclined to believe that it is behavioral correct?

Behaviorial? Certainly not.

We are very much shaped by environmental factors, Weegs. You didn't really have much say in the concentrations of the hormones you were exposed to in the womb, did you?

Because, unless a "trigger" is applied, homosexuality may never surface, correct?

Possibly.

It is impossible for you to declare that with certainty.

No, it's quite possible and rational to declare that with certainty.

Explain.

Like Ben, I am quite certain that it is possible for a person who possesses the biological factors of homosexuality to never become a homosexual.

Of course, that certainty comes from appreciating the science rather than personal experience.

[homersapien 11,377]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I beg your pardon. "Pro Choice" is most certainly not a non-committal position.

I ultimately believe that a woman has the right to rule her own body.

That includes the ultimate right to an abortion for any reason she deems appropriate, at least in the first trimester. Later term abortions should be discouraged but the health of the woman remains paramount.

That's not fence sitting.

[alexava 6,973]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I beg your pardon. "Pro Choice" is most certainly not a non-committal position.

I ultimately believe that a woman has the right to rule her own body.

That includes the ultimate right to an abortion for any reason she deems appropriate, at least in the first trimester. Later term abortions should be discouraged but the health of the woman remains paramount.

That's not fence sitting.

this

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I am pro-choice and I don't see that as riding the fence of an issue that can have a million different circumstances. Women choose abortion for many different reasons. Pro-choicers see the reality of different circumstances and don't put women in a "baby killer " box. I cannot speak for all pro-choicers only myself. I'd hope that no one would chose abortion because of a gay gene, but if they do, it's their choice.

[quietfan 233]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I beg your pardon. "Pro Choice" is most certainly not a non-committal position.

I ultimately believe that a woman has the right to rule her own body.

That includes the ultimate right to an abortion for any reason she deems appropriate, at least in the first trimester. Later term abortions should be discouraged but the health of the woman remains paramount.

That's not fence sitting.

this

ditto!

I don't know when human life begins, I haven't seen any overwhelming consensus among experts on the subject (e.g., doctors, lawyers, scientists, theologians), and I certainly don't know the details of every pregnancy in the country. Therefore I am committed to not telling other people how to run their lives with regard to subjects in which I am ignorant. I am committed to not assuming the authority make decisions for others when I have neither the knowledge nor the wisdom to do so. I am also committed in my belief that the government/state is no more knowledgeable or wiser than I on the subject and should not make those decisions either.

[quietfan 233]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

[Weegle777 78]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I beg your pardon. "Pro Choice" is most certainly not a non-committal position.

I ultimately believe that a woman has the right to rule her own body.

That includes the ultimate right to an abortion for any reason she deems appropriate, at least in the first trimester. Later term abortions should be discouraged but the health of the woman remains paramount.

That's not fence sitting.

Ok, so back to the original premise, would you have an issue if a couple wanted to abort a fetus that had the "gay gene", or would you keep your stance that a woman has that right?

[Weegle777 78]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I am pro-choice and I don't see that as riding the fence of an issue that can have a million different circumstances. Women choose abortion for many different reasons. Pro-choicers see the reality of different circumstances and don't put women in a "baby killer " box. I cannot speak for all pro-choicers only myself. I'd hope that no one would chose abortion because of a gay gene, but if they do, it's their choice.

But it is ending a life correct?

[Weegle777 78]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

[Weegle777 78]

So, in essence, since homosexuality cannot be proven to be an inherent trait in the womb, you would be more inclined to believe that it is behavioral correct?

Behaviorial? Certainly not.

We are very much shaped by environmental factors, Weegs. You didn't really have much say in the concentrations of the hormones you were exposed to in the womb, did you?

Because, unless a "trigger" is applied, homosexuality may never surface, correct?

Possibly.

It is impossible for you to declare that with certainty.

No, it's quite possible and rational to declare that with certainty.

Explain.

Like Ben, I am quite certain that it is possible for a person who possesses the biological factors of homosexuality to never become a homosexual.

Of course, that certainty comes from appreciating the science rather than personal experience.

So you agree that the "gay gene" is not real?

[AUDub 11,149]

Ok. If the "trigger" is never applied, and the individual lives and dies without ever being attracted to the same sex, how would you know?

The same way I know you and I are straight. Asking them. We can't read hearts and minds, Weegs. We can detect some indicators, but this is a gray area. We can't say for certain whether a given individual will be gay, but the research does indicate there are biological factors beyond their control that play a role.

If it is never triggered by an outside influence, the behavior will never materialize.

Possibly.

Your post was somewhat contradictory. If a trigger was never applied, you wouldn't know by asking them because they wouldn't know.

Sorry, I thought you were asking how I'd know they were straight.

These things aren't the be all end all on what orientation a given individual will end up with, Weegs. Just like QF's breast cancer example.

[AUDub 11,149]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

O_o

...admitted straight person...

[homersapien 11,377]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I beg your pardon. "Pro Choice" is most certainly not a non-committal position.

I ultimately believe that a woman has the right to rule her own body.

That includes the ultimate right to an abortion for any reason she deems appropriate, at least in the first trimester. Later term abortions should be discouraged but the health of the woman remains paramount.

That's not fence sitting.

Ok, so back to the original premise, would you have an issue if a couple wanted to abort a fetus that had the "gay gene", or would you keep your stance that a woman has that right?

I repeat: I ultimately believe that a woman has the right to rule her own body.

That includes the ultimate right to an abortion for any reason she deems appropriate, at least in the first trimester. Later term abortions should be discouraged but the health of the woman remains paramount.

Isn't that clear enough to make your own deduction?

[homersapien 11,377]

So, in essence, since homosexuality cannot be proven to be an inherent trait in the womb, you would be more inclined to believe that it is behavioral correct?

Behaviorial? Certainly not.

We are very much shaped by environmental factors, Weegs. You didn't really have much say in the concentrations of the hormones you were exposed to in the womb, did you?

Because, unless a "trigger" is applied, homosexuality may never surface, correct?

Possibly.

It is impossible for you to declare that with certainty.

No, it's quite possible and rational to declare that with certainty.

Explain.

Like Ben, I am quite certain that it is possible for a person who possesses the biological factors of homosexuality to never become a homosexual.

Of course, that certainty comes from appreciating the science rather than personal experience.

So you agree that the "gay gene" is not real?

I do not accept the existence of a simple "gay gene". The article you posted had a misleading title.

I do accept there are biological factors that play a role in one's sexuality.

[homersapien 11,377]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

Sorry to interrupt, but we define homosexuality by a person's declared sexuality and/or their behavior which reveals their sexuality consciously or not.

A self-declared "straight" person who "chooses" to engage in homosexual sex is either:

1) bisexual

2) kidding themselves about heterosexuality or

3) engaging in homosexuality as a temporary substitute for heterosexual sex.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I am pro-choice and I don't see that as riding the fence of an issue that can have a million different circumstances. Women choose abortion for many different reasons. Pro-choicers see the reality of different circumstances and don't put women in a "baby killer " box. I cannot speak for all pro-choicers only myself. I'd hope that no one would chose abortion because of a gay gene, but if they do, it's their choice.

But it is ending a life correct?

If you believe that life begins at conception, yes. If you don't then no it isn't.

[quietfan 233]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

I don't know what you mean by "homosexual lifestyle".

But I presume you mean a self-described heterosexual person engaging in homosexual sex acts, in which case I would say:

1) If the person enjoyed it or felt sexually aroused by someone of the same sex, then the person probably has a least some homosexual tendencies.

2) If the person felt no arousal, there could be other reasons he/she participated in the act: Money, curiosity, pity, blackmail, peer pressure, adventure, etc., etc,. etc., and gender orientation is irrelevant.

and most importantly:

3) I don't know for sure, it's none of my business, and I don't know why any third party should care.

[alexava 6,973]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

I don't know what you mean by "homosexual lifestyle".

But I presume you mean a self-described heterosexual person engaging in homosexual sex acts, in which case I would say:

1) If the person enjoyed it or felt sexually aroused by someone of the same sex, then the person probably has a least some homosexual tendencies.

2) If the person felt no arousal, there could be other reasons he/she participated in the act: Money, curiosity, pity, blackmail, peer pressure, adventure, etc., etc,. etc., and gender orientation is irrelevant.

and most importantly:

3) I don't know for sure, it's none of my business, and I don't know why any third party should care.

you forgot prison.

[Weegle777 78]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I beg your pardon. "Pro Choice" is most certainly not a non-committal position.

I ultimately believe that a woman has the right to rule her own body.

That includes the ultimate right to an abortion for any reason she deems appropriate, at least in the first trimester. Later term abortions should be discouraged but the health of the woman remains paramount.

That's not fence sitting.

Ok, so back to the original premise, would you have an issue if a couple wanted to abort a fetus that had the "gay gene", or would you keep your stance that a woman has that right?

I repeat: I ultimately believe that a woman has the right to rule her own body.

That includes the ultimate right to an abortion for any reason she deems appropriate, at least in the first trimester. Later term abortions should be discouraged but the health of the woman remains paramount.

Isn't that clear enough to make your own deduction?

I was going to thank you for the clarification, but after the smart ass remark, nevermind.