have you heard? massachusettes wants to pass a bill saying it is illegal to abort fetuses with the gay gene even though the gay gene has yet to be discovered. they say that with technology the way it is people will be able to know what there children are before they are born. they say that most people would choose to not keep the baby if they found out it was gay and that this is a way to protect them from death. what do yall think of this idea? is it crazy?
Abortion Rights proponents will NEVER let this pass. I don't know what I think about it. Its a very complicated issue.
its an intriguing way to protect homophobia from going to infanticide. it also could be a way to attempt attacks on abortion rights. there's an interesting though though... generally those who are anti-gay are also anti-abortion... so where does that leave one? (just a thought, and i know this is not every case, we're talking far right wing mentalities alligning themselves with political stances.)
i fucking hate this world. first off there is no 'gay' gene. it would have not survived. secondly, there should be a law protecting every unborn baby, regardless of what its eventual sexual preference will be. i fucking hate this world.
there have been studies that say the "gay gene" theory may hold some levels of realism for a multitude of reasons. (1) homosexuality exists in all animal species. (also sear for bonobo chimps.) (2) over the centuries many that are gay still have children (call it ppl's mentality to procreate and hide/deny sexulaity). (3) one theory suggests that the same gene (or collection of genes) passed through mothers to children, encourages high offspring ability in women and homesexulaity in men (its like gentic roullette), )i know this doesn't explain lesbianisn). (4) bisexuality. and onward.
Hmm, like the appendix, or sickle cell anemia in African-Americans, or the entire spectrum of genetic disorders that still exist today, as well as the entire spectrum of genes that still exist that are not necessarily harmful but also do not necessarily promote "survival of the fittest" ??? (ie albinoism, dwarfism, giantism, widows peak, etc) It IS a sexual orientation, not a preference. Preference is more like, do you prefer Coke or Pepsi . . . not, what biological sex are you attracted to, sexually. I agree that EVERY baby should be protected. I imagine that we would disagree on the definition of a baby, though. What a refreshing attitude!
I never heard of those studies, but I have thought of it before You could say that by forcing everyone into heterosexual mold societies allowed the "gay gene" to expand. In other words what you try to supress grows! I think it's just nature's way of regulating itself and to ensure human populations do not grow to unreasonable sizes.
