What if scientists found a "gay gene"...

You don't buy into scientific research?

If you don't believe me or the scientists who conducted that research, then expose yourself and your family to all the BPA you want and see if I care.

Them people up in Canada sure are gullible, aye?

Terribly gullible, almost as bad as Americans.

That's funny!!

If BPA was the cause we'd have an epidemic of homosexuality, it would be far higher than the 2% that it is. They do these scare studies because they get money to do them. There is far less problems with the BPA than there would be in cans without it. They always overdose in animal studies. If you compare the dosage in the studies with equivalent dosages in humans, you'd find the problem.

Before you buy into so much of the studies like this, research what they did with DDT and how millions of people have died of malaria because of this same kind of scare. It's very simple to do to people and can have devastating outcomes.

Then by all means, expose your family to generationally accumulating genetic damage and eat all the bpa laced food you want, it's no skin off my balls. I was just giving you the heads up.

Forget it, there is no gay gene.

How do you know? What makes someone gay?

Male Homosexuality Study: Gay Men Have Evolutionary Benefit For Their Families, New Research Suggests

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

then it would definitely make a difference in my mind about gays.

It should not take that to open your mind!

Why? I'm not really into the Gay thing, if that's what people choose...and I'll be hearing it from all the Gay rights again by saying it's there choice...so if there's some proof that it's in our human programming, then it will change my thinking.

Even if they did, they would hide the research. It would get put underneath a shelf in the back of the room. Just like all the research that uses math to completely destroy Darwinian Theory. It's there. Do they teach it? Do they even talk about it? ..........Nope!

I just couldn't support that!

If scientists found a "gay gene" and more women started aborting their children, my opinion would not be changed. That is in fact her choice and I won't speak against her right to abort the child, but I would be irritated with the fact that someone would abort their child just because it is homosexual.

If scientists found a "gay gene" millions of homosexuals would turn pro-life over nite!

I believe so.

The pro-life movement could certainly use the help of these people. Why they aligned themselves with the feminists is beyond me.

Feminists have set women back hundreds of years. If women are equal in all ways then they wouldn't need government making laws, now would they? They'd come out and take it for themselves. When you replace the traditional father and husband with government you haven't come a long way baby!

If there was ever a case FOR abortion - that b'tard was it.

Well, the question is just about a gay gene but abortion has been added.

If a gay gene was found it would help to explain. I thought I saw years ago a Time magazine cover saying they found a gene?

No, they haven't found any definitive medical explanation.

A femmie, or Lezzie gene, I would like to see the science behind that, and who's funding that science.

As to abortion, I am an atheist, and I am anti abortion, in fact I am very disappointed that more of my fellow atheists are too cowardly to openly discuss this issue without getting politically correct, atheist and abortion are an oxymoron.

I am interested in hearing what atheism and abortion have to do with each other.

The majority of atheists that are publicly known are pro abortion, however they don't represent the majority of atheist.

Why would an atheist be pro-life?

The better question is why would an atheist not be pro-life? An even better question is why are any religious people pro-life? According to religious people God will automatically grant an aborted child a spot in heaven so going by that theory what difference does it make?

I am atheist, and I am anti abortion, anti war, and anti government executions, so I do consider myself pro life in every way that counts. By the way, most people who call themselves pro life I don't take seriously because they're really just anti abortion. If you're pro war, and pro government executions you're not by definition pro life!

Why do you pose that question?

So you don't think the government has an obligation to protect it's citizens?

I would prefer for governments, and corporations not to exist, however that's wishful thinking. Ever since humans started forming governments, we have never had any semblance of freedom.

I think we've been down that long twisted road before!

You'll forgive me if I forget, which thread?

It was a long time ago but I remember your whole idea of government, or should I say lack of it. I guess it's good to have a plan :)

What I advocate for is a technological egalitarian economy, I have studied the egalitarian model, and I believe in it because it's a proven model.

I don't think you can prove a more successful model than the US, even in your utopian dreams.

Okay as I've stated before I am against all governments, so I don't care any pro argument for any given country, I want to see them all collapse.

Second all of these things called countries operate on the monetary system which is a cancerous economic system.

3rd I don't like the term utopia because the term describes something that's not technically possible, in fact if I were in charge of the encyclopedias, I would remove that term from the encyclopedias.

Nationalism is a sickness, it's just another form of a cult, and it's sad the the majority of my fellow humans around the planet suffer from it.

What I like about the egalitarian model is it's an economic system that unlike the monetary system, feudalism, barter, and chattel slavery does not in any way create dependency, and does not waste resources, egalitarianism is based on resource management NOT management of people, that's a fundamental difference from all the cancerous economic system including the one that's in place around the world now, they're all based on managing people, and no attention is given to managing resources.

...That's not what she is purposing we all do. She is saying that what if some women choose to abort their baby because of this? It's not an impossible scenario: if a gay gene is ever discovered, then this may occur. In fact many women choose to abort today because they do not want to have a daughter. I believe she is asking, Would you still support abortion if this occurred? It's a good question

Thanks for the support. That's exactly my point ;)