raid517

But you did imply it was a defect, indeed as I have reprinted twice now, this is exactly what you said:

I'm afraid I still don't understand what you're trying to say - other than that a statistical minority some how implies a genetic fault. If that is the case then why not classify all minorities as being the subject of genetic faults? And who are you do decide which aleged genetic fault is 'good' and which is 'bad'?

Then to argue your point you use a web site (not a very good one) where some woman - whom has no visible credential whatsoever and who quotes no credible research papers - and sites nothing else than her own extremely loaded 'opinion' on the subject (yes even allegedly gay people can have opinions too) bangs on endlessly about things that have nothing to do with whatever point you were trying to make.

So to argue that there is a genetic element (or fault) to the gay condition, you use a woman of questionable credentials who spends all her time arguing that there is no such genetic element? I mean, again - how exactly does that work?

I wonder can you even see why I might be a little (or indeed very) confused?

This woman is in any case a notorious feminist - and one who argues consistently that people shouldn't need to make excuses or look for genetic reasons for the 'choices' they make, just so that they can pander to the political right.

What she is saying is even more extreme than those who do claim that there is a genetic element to gayness - in so much as in a truly 'liberal' society everyone should be free to make whatever choices they want. She thinks that telling other people gayness is genetic might dissuade other people from trying it - because they think they don't have the gene and can't.

Besides being at a loss to understand how that fits with any right wing anti-gay agenda, there is one small hole in that piece of logic. And that is that unless they were predisposed to try it - given that all of our personality traits have a genetic origin - then it would simply never happen. We have gone over this a million times already - but to understand this question you must ask, is it likely that you personally will ever become gay? If the answer is no then clearly you must accept that this is not a choice for you - and if it is not a choice for you, then why should it be a choice for anyone else? If you think that such a choice is virtually impossible to make (as it is in my own case) then surely this must mean that there is something about gay people that makes it an easier choice for them? Ultimately therefore there must be something 'in their personality' that enables them to make this choice - and if it is 'in there personality' it is likely to have some kind of genetic element to it.

Well anyway that's her assertion. As for your assertion that it is a genetic defect find me one single scientific paper that supports your view - and not something written by your mate who lives a few streets away from you - and then maybe we would have something to talk about.

Unfortunately, for all the reasons I listed above, you are simply not going to find any. Geneticists have conclusively rejected social engineering as an ideology - and have branded it criminal and unethical. In any case the only way you could 'cure' this genetic default would undoubtedly be if you were to round every gay person you found up, and force them to accept treatment - in a kind of 'final solution' for gay people. And how do you think America would be seen in the world if you ever did that? Evil? Yes! Despicable? Undoubtedly! Monsterous? Beyond all doubt!

I can guess that your next response might be that you didn't mean to imply it was an illness - but you did call it a 'defect' - and as far as I understand defects they often require correcting. So in implying it is a defect, you are in essence advocating a final solution type scenario for gay people where they may be forced to accept 'treatment' by a small section of society, regardless of whether they feel they need it or not.

And if you are now saying you think it is merely a genetic 'difference' - well there you are then. That is what I have been saying all along.

But as I said, it is not at all clear to me what you really were implying.

GJ