Scientists cannot prove the "born homosexual" theory

http://christiannews.net/2014/06/23...homosexuality-impossible-to-determine-by-dna/

HYPERLINK above has full story

snip of the story is below

Pro-homosexual activists have long claimed that homosexuality and abnormal “sexual orientations” are primarily caused by genetic factors. They argue that individuals with a hereditary “gay gene” are predisposed toward same-sex attractions and thus unable to appreciate traditional marriages.

However, scientific findings released earlier this year during the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago call this premise into question. During the meeting, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University unveiled comprehensive research results which suggest that genetics alone do not determine “sexual orientation.”

In his research, Bailey and other scientists examined the DNA of 400 men who described themselves as homosexual. Ultimately, the researchers concluded that homosexuality cannot be traced to specific genes.

“The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay,” wrote Ian Sample, science correspondent for The Guardian..................................

Alan Sanders, a Northwestern University professor who led the recent study, confirmed that the “gay gene” theory is largely unfounded.............................

“Without a genetic causation, sexual preference in behavior is clearly a choice, a choice which no one is compelled to make,”


hmmm, I find this to be quite interesting and contradictory to the spin being forced down our throats about the "born homosexual" theory

Given that it appears that living the homosexual life is in fact a choice, why did the POTUS find the need to extend benefits to people based on a sexual lifestyle?

HYPERLINK below takes you to a news story about an Obama executive order

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-extends...-151642060.html;_ylt=AwrBJR8fmalTgHYABzvQtDMD


I believe it is nothing more than pandering to a far left group, those living a homosexual life. As you can see by the study, there is no scientific evidence to support extending benefits to homosexuals. It is being done for a group who live a lifestyle and has nothing to do with race, gender or species.

Given that science cannot support the "born homosexual" theory, do you believe that special consideration should be given to those who choose that lifestyle?

 

http://www.lgbtscience.org/alan-sanders/

^^ The doctor the article cites, Dr. Alan Sanders . Hmmm, his take on it seems vastly different than what is being portrayed in the article. But that is a pretty standard thing for the right to do, take a study and then completely ignore the analysis of the finding and create their own bastardized version of the study and analysis.


And wow, talk about completely trying to fool the reader.

Look at sec trying to imply that Dr. Alan Sanders made the statement in bold:

Except he didn't make that statement, that statement was made by Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association.

 

I don't know sec. Is there an ice cream gene, or a steak and eggs gene? I tend to prefer those things. people are born with personality traits, desires, likes, dislikes. Science can't prove that love exists, or why I like baked potatoes. I couldn't stop liking baked potatoes if I tried. Its just a thing. Being gay would be no different. Personally, I don't care if someone's gay or not. But if they try to shove gayness in my face I get pissed.

 

do you understand what it means when you place ....................... at the end of lines ?

 

Oh look, another gay thread by sec where the article he cites doesn't say what he claims it does

Why are these blatant fabricated threads permitted?

 

I do, do you? And its supposed to be ". . ."

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm

It was a nice try, but your 'right to life article' is 100% crap which ignored what they wanted from the study and bastardized it to fit what they wanted it to say.

 

YES - People CHOSE to be homosexual in Nazi Germany because they WANTED to be sent to the concentration camps. I heard that they were wonderful places to hang out.
YES - People CHOOSE to be ridiculed, beaten, and sometimes killed. Who wouldn't want to be?
Apparently, people CHOOSE that lifestyle.

 

or smoking, or gambling etc. Some are bad habits and other things are what we find we like along the way. As a child, my family was not a pizza family and it wasn't until my teen years when I discovered the amazement which is pizza.

I too could care less if someone wants to engage in homosexual sex. Where I draw the line is when it's pushed forth that their sexual lifestyle choice is more than that, and that it's some form of gender/species or sex.

 

I didn't like tomatoes or beer/wine/liquor as a child....did my "DNA" change?

 

Strange that they seem to overlooked the fact that children that are gay already act differently even at very young ages and the idea of making any sexual choices is not even on their radar yet, some may claim that it is due to outside influences but that arguement is easily shot down when one looks at the families many gay children grow up in which can often be very unaccepting of a gay person. No one Choses to be gay they simply are, whether it is genetic or simply the way some people are hardwired it does not matter it is the Natural state of being for them.

 

They have already been subjected to NUMEROUS external influences, from birth.

 

and science cannot prove that assertion you just made; thus the thread and the article

 

At least you aren't asking loaded questions.

Your hundreds of threads about homosexuality haven't supported the "homosexual lifestyle" theory, by the way.

 

Neither this, nor the contrapositive can be proven. The most popular opinion seems to be that sexual preference is a combination of genetics, brain structure, and social factors, while I think it'd be interesting to find a root cause, I feel like it's like trying to sort out why some people like chocolate and others don't. Who cares?

Seems like a lot of you care a great deal about the ongoings in other people private lives.

 

when the govt extends protections and creates laws about a sexual lifestyle choice then it is a concern

 

As usual, the absence of proof proves nothing.

 

I am quite dubious of that claim.

 

If you say so then that must be it, LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Why? Why does it concern you that a gay couple can get married and enjoy the same benefits you do? Explain

 

The fed govt should not be in the marriage game at all

state govt's should not force a baker, a florist a photographer to perform services because of a chosen sexual lifestyle.

 

You really do not get it do ya, because they have not been able to explain it yet, does not change the fact that it happens and has been since the dawn of Man. Always amazing to watch someone that says they are against the Nanny state believe the government should be telling concenting adults what they can do in their home and who they can marry, the Hypocracy is just sad since you do not see it.

 

It is only in it because there are so many benefits tied to marriage. But see here is your problem, you say it is not the governments job, I assume you believe it is a religious issue, what say you to churches that do marry gay couples do you want to shun them as Christians because they do not support your set of beliefs?

 

The drive to procreate (aka; HETEROSEXUALITY gasp!!! ) can most definitely be proven as inborn.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you claiming that NEWBORN "homosexual babies" behave differently? Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

So you have only had sex to "make a baby"? That's your only motivation?

 

Well Grok is no Benjamin Franklin, and for that matter neither am I.

 

That is the primary purpose of sex, correct.We're discussing SCIENCE, not "romance".