There Is No "Gay" Gene

I'm not sure where I fall on that cake issue honestly. If that was what you wanted to dig up and debate here you could have added something to your copy paste effort of a first post.

I would've gone to someone that wanted to make my cake and fuck that cake shop. Prop up the other shop near by.

But the use of religion to discrimanate aginst someone or some group... does it stop at cake? Does it stop with gays? You tell me. Originally Posted by Trey

The facts of that case are that the baker in question had no problem with selling to his off-the-shelf products to homosexuals; so, there was in fact no "discrimination". It was the subsequent demand by the homosexual couple for particular modifications to his art and craft that he objected to.

The mantra that the baker should be forced to bend -- by state dictate -- his artistic talent to conform to the whims of their sexual identification is what he didn't and couldn't agree with. Such a demand is coercive and is in violation of the 1st Amendment on more than one point.

I would've gone to someone that wanted to make my cake and fuck that cake shop. Prop up the other shop near by. Originally Posted by Trey

Agreed, me too

But the use of religion to discrimanate aginst someone or some group... does it stop at cake? Does it stop with gays? You tell me. Originally Posted by Trey

I'd argue the opposite. Freedom of religion and freedom of choice mean you shouldn't have to sell cakes to people who are gay if you don't want to. Government should keep its nose completely out of this. What if this went the other way? People get together in some community and decide they're going to ban gay businesses? Or maybe like Sudan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, they punish homosexuality by death?

This is part of the Libertarian philosophy, keep government small and out of people's hair. And I'm a Libertarian, at least until 2021. Then I may go back to being a Republican.

The facts of that case are that the baker in question had no problem with selling to his off-the-shelf products to homosexuals; so, there was in fact no "discrimination". It was the subsequent demand by the homosexual couple for particular modifications to his art and craft that he objected to.

The mantra that the baker should be forced to bend -- by state dictate -- his artistic talent to conform to the whims of their sexual identification is what he didn't and couldn't agree with. Such a demand is coercive and is in violation of the 1st Amendment on more than one point. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Then why didn't you just by the cake the guy offered you IB? You could have put whatever you wanted on it. Congrats to you and your husband. You should have know there would be trouble when you insisted that Jussie be your best man

Then why didn't you just by the cake the guy offered you IB? You could have put whatever you wanted on it. Congrats to you and your husband. You should have know there would be trouble when you insisted that Jussie be your best man Originally Posted by themystic

Whereas, in your case, there is no such thing as a "gay gene", mental retardation is hereditary. Such a low-intelligence condition can lead to traumatic experiences that some doctors might associate with triggering homosexuality. You'd be a perfect specimen for study by a doctor in that field.

While there is no "gay gene" is believe there are combination of inherited factors that make a very small percentage of the population homosexual. I believe in "nature and nuture." That nature part is way overblown by the current gay activists who insist that a significant part of society is homosexual. For example, the large amount of homosexual activity by the Spartans was cultural. Prison populations the homosexual activity is artificially increased. It used to be that supposedly 10% of the population is gay, it's more substantiated that 2-3% is.

That small percentage is noisy, just like the "trans" population.

As unscientific as this might be...What I know is.....

Lady Gaga turns me on

While there is no "gay gene" is believe there are combination of inherited factors that make a very small percentage of the population homosexual. I believe in "nature and nuture." That nature part is way overblown by the current gay activists who insist that a significant part of society is homosexual. For example, the large amount of homosexual activity by the Spartans was cultural. Prison populations the homosexual activity is artificially increased. It used to be that supposedly 10% of the population is gay, it's more substantiated that 2-3% is.

That small percentage is noisy, just like the "trans" population. Originally Posted by gnadfly

they have a Napoleon Boneparte complex. napoleon was 5'0". he's small and noisy. so therefore the homo/trans population is small, and noisy. they have that complex.

https://www.ripleys.com/weird-news/t...eon-bonaparte/
Napoleon Bonaparte was average height for his time
People were shorter and smaller in his time - many factors caused this.

While there is no "gay gene" is believe there are combination of inherited factors that make a very small percentage of the population homosexual. I believe in "nature and nuture." That nature part is way overblown by the current gay activists who insist that a significant part of society is homosexual. For example, the large amount of homosexual activity by the Spartans was cultural. Prison populations the homosexual activity is artificially increased. It used to be that supposedly 10% of the population is gay, it's more substantiated that 2-3% is.

That small percentage is noisy, just like the "trans" population. Originally Posted by gnadfly

I agree with the bulk of what you say and Im convinced that some people are born gay. Yes it is a very noisy minority. A lot like Trump supporters

While there is no "gay gene" is believe there are combination of inherited factors that make a very small percentage of the population homosexual. I believe in "nature and nuture." That nature part is way overblown by the current gay activists who insist that a significant part of society is homosexual. For example, the large amount of homosexual activity by the Spartans was cultural. Prison populations the homosexual activity is artificially increased. It used to be that supposedly 10% of the population is gay, it's more substantiated that 2-3% is. Originally Posted by gnadfly

I believe it's nature over nurture. And nurture in some instances plays little or no part. In order of decreasing importance, this is because,

1. The scientific evidence, while not definitive, supports nature over nurture.

2. Knowing friends and acquaintances I've grown up with who are male homosexuals and knowing their families, I don't think their parents did anything that would cause them to be more likely to be gay.

3. The final reason is related to your thoughts about prisons and the Spartans. If you locked me up, I absolutely would not take it up the ass, nor could I maintain an erection long enough to shove it up some other guy's ass. So maybe I'm wrongly assuming most other heterosexual men are like me. This is something that I'd dearly like to post in a poll here, to get to the bottom of this. It would be something like if you were locked up in prison do you think you would become gay or bisexual. If most people responded "no, I would not," then we'd know once and for all it's nature, not a response to environment. However, I've got a crush on Brainy Busty Beauty, and based on a couple of her posts here, she would not approve a poll about butt fucking. If I posted one, she'd probably see it, and any chance I'd have with her would be long gone.

Since my first desire for another human being it has been women and that wasn't a choice...I guess I was born that way and I could never have the desire for a man...that's not by choice.

.

No, Scientists Have Not Found the ‘Gay Gene’

The field of epigenetics is littered with the corpses of statistically underpowered studies like these, which simply lack the numbers to produce reliable, reproducible results.

Unfortunately, the problems don’t end there. The team split their group into two: a “training set” whose data they used to build their algorithm, and a “testing set,” whose data they used to verify it. That’s standard and good practice—exactly what they should have done. But splitting the sample means that the study goes from underpowered to really underpowered.

There’s also another, larger issue. As far as could be judged from the unpublished results presented in the talk, the team used their training set to build several models for classifying their twins, and eventually chose the one with the greatest accuracy when applied to the testing set. That’s a problem because in research like this, there has to be a strict firewall between the training and testing sets; the team broke that firewall by essentially using the testing set to optimize their algorithms....

So, ultimately, what we have is an underpowered fishing expedition that used inappropriate statistics and that snagged results which may be false positives. Epigenetics marks may well be involved in sexual orientation. But this study, despite its claims, does not prove that and, as designed, could not have.

(Atlantic)

the Atlantic, a lefty media, is trying to debunk/poo poo the study. they do not want that idea to gain currency.


the scientists theory does make some sense.

The real question is Does it matter , who cares ?

The real question is Does it matter , who cares ? Originally Posted by rexdutchman

When the LGBT crowd weaponizes the tools of the state to force others to conform to their "opinions" -- not science -- it matters.