[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 27, 4:51*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:37:28 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to





Reason!" wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn

wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

You don't need it to be "never". More rarely work quite nicely in
evolution.

What about that whole random thing?

That's part of it. As long as you have two populations, one of which
breeds better than the other, the worse will eventually die out. I
think we can agree that homosexuals have a poorer breeding record than
heteros. This observation alone should be enough to convince that
homosexuality isn't an inherited trait.

I disagree. As long as there's discrimination there's a reason to hide
one's orientation. Look at all the "conservative republicans" who have
been outed, yet have families. Ditti those in the military. And those
are just two examples.

In a vacuum your argument might even work. It doesn't in real life
though.