|
Re: homosexual Marriage: Who Cares?
From: jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com (Jenn)
In article <iivd76lv8j3tdte70et7kvc8f60m0rsmjo@4ax.com>,
flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
<jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com> wrote:
In article <9htd76lulep5ob2l6fibsbgjout0d2271l@4ax.com>,
flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
<jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com> wrote:
In article <4c76d51a.153638770@news.eternal-september.org>,
spam@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@removethishotmail.com> wrote:
Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:
Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.
I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.
Graham
A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.
d
That might be true if homosexual people never parented children.
Not really because it could be recessive.
True.
There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.
Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.
That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.
The oxymoron " homosexual marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.
As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.
;-)
| Subject |
 | |
|
