Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (108324)	4/11/2009 11:37:49 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 541373

Even approaching the issue using the term "gay gene" should be cautionary. The latest theories are that it is a complex and varied set of factors (which would explain the low population) that involves certain DNA from both parents, and some environmental conditions, but there are still no absolute answers. So arguing against a Gay Gene is a waste of time right now, since there is no proof there is one. You can find arguments on reconditioning and Christian sites that argue against the early findings in the '93 study, but the latest studies are taking a different approach in their research. I know so many wonderful young men from normal, loving families, who knew early on they were "different". You will never convince me that it is an absolute choice in any way. And, you know what, if there is some choice involved at all, so what? If you lean that way for whatever reason, why should you have to deny it to satisfy some definition created by others of what you SHOULD be? I like tall guys with brown eyes and curly hair and great senses of humor. I don't know why.