The simple truth is that most men have at least incidental same-sex attractions throughout their lives.

I’d be interested in knowing how you know this.

Not really, because it’s pretty much irrelevant. Kinsey’s 5 acknowledges the fact that some men who were predominantly heterosexual actually did have incidental sex since they reached adolescence. On the other hand, Kinsey found that approximately 50 per cent of all males have neither overt nor psychic experience in the homosexual after the onset of adolescence. HOMOSEXUALITY: WHAT KINSEY REALLY SAID Make of that what you wish in regards your assertion that “most men have at least incidental same-sex attractions throughout their lives.”

This is a misstatement (or misinterpretation) of what has been observed. For men, there appears to be a fairly strong bi-modalism: most men are either strongly heterosexual (Kinsey 0 or 1) or strongly homosexual (Kinsey 5 or 6) with far fewer men being bisexual (Kinsey 2 through 4). It’s similar to handedness–most people are either right-handed or left-handed with very few being ambidexterous.

With women, it appears that the curve is a bit flatter. Otherwise stated, the percentage of women who appear to be bisexual, in relation to the hetero/homo extremes, seems to be a bit higher than with men.

Kevin accuses me of living in a fantasy world? after saying/believing the above? ROTFLMAO

#42 – Synova, exactly so. What we’ve seen in this thread is a lot of hysterical “The Right would gladly kill us!!!!!” from the usual suspects. (And, per my previous entries, let me emphasize: the USUAL suspects. Certain characteristic language in this area was/is another part of the “Steve” tipoff.)

Such commentors are in denial, as ever, as to where our true peril lies. Secular leftists already believe in abortion and “the woman’s right to choose”, already judge people by group-identity concerns (rather than individual character) and already show lots of hypocrisy on all these issues. They will be the ones who have no qualms about terminating gay fetuses – once that test is available.

Christian conservatives will be the ones, I predict, who continue to maintain their principled objections to abortion in any form. I belong with neither camp. But, if forced to choose, I would gladly deal with a Christian conservatives over soulless, narcissistic and unprincipled secular leftists, any day of the week.

In real life, though, I definately agree with going with nature. (GATTACA ?) Part of the fun, actually, of reproduction, is discovering who that new individual is and the more kids you have the stronger the feeling of discovery because you realize just how different each child is.

the day is coming soon where the gay gene(s) will be discovered. that will mark the end of homosexuality. the religious “right” will suddenly change their stance on abortion to allow for it in the case of a gay fetus.

Highly unlikely. Even if a gene or genes are discovered that indicate a propensity for homosexualty, that doesn’t mean that, if a fetus has such genes, after birth it will actually grow into a homosexual. Example: in twin studies involving mono-zygote twins (they have the same genetic structure), even if one of the twins is homosexual, the likelihood of the other twin being homosexual is only on the order of 50%. The likelihood that dual-zygote twins–which do not have the same genetic structure–will both turn out to be homosexual is somewhat less, on the order of 30%, which is not in the “noise.” Obviously, a number of things are going on that determines sexual orientation, not just genetics.

I wouldn’t want to make such a choice for a child’s future. I would just leave that up to nature, nurture, whatever. But there are many out there who would want to try to use these gene therapies or “cures” on kids, and I think people should be concerned about that, instead of just using the issue as a political cudgel against the left or the right.

Move over RIW, Kevin just arrived from SleazyLand and wants to stake a homestead with you in StupidVille.

You may not like the religious conservatives in this country, but guess what RIW, they are part of the majority and we ain’t getting jack on gay rights progress as long as flamer-Lefts like you take pot shots at them.

I called it right, rightiswrong… that flamer-Left flank notion of yours is two steps inside the city limits of StupidVille.

Let’s stick to the thread’s topic rather than try to prove you’re a religious bigot AND Citizen of the Year in StupidVille, ok?

And let’s get real…even if outlawed, abortion will alwasy be available to the rich and powerful. Wonder if Barb or Jenna ever got impregnated during one of their drunken binges…

Science fiction is good for stuff like that… what if we could choose all the details about our children… taller than me, a bit faster metabolism, skip the kidney weirdness, keep the hair and eyes, skip the family tendancy to diabetes and joint problems… avoid deafness or blindness.

If people can choose… they could choose to have homosexual children. If you could, would you?

If it weren’t for the HUGE success (NOT) with “fixing” the sex of children born with some mix up (and I forget what that is *called*) I’d probably say that the person wouldn’t know the difference so why not? (Like curing deafness, which there is a strong lobby against for some reason.)

That sort of manipulation of genes is… almost unimaginable. Far more likely are in-vitro screening and tossing the rejects… or else in-vivo screening and abortion. I oppose those for anything that doesn’t qualify as a horrific degenerative disease.

Not everyone in the world is going to be having babies in facilities where you will be able to tell whether your child has the gay gene. Not all parents will want to abort a child based on this factor. But yes, I do think that a lot of people will try to push for gene therapy or for abortion of children who might grow up to be gay, even those who claim to be pro-life.

-Try to “cure” the little fellas, maybe, but kill them?-

The problem is what is the definition of cure? As in the link I posted earlier in the thread, some people are already talking about homosexuality as something that can be fixed at birth. Do we really want to open the door where homosexuality is treated like that? Who knows what kind of consequences could come from fiddling with genetics or from trying to find a “cure”.

RIW –”…the religious “right” will suddenly change their stance on abortion to allow for it in the case of a gay fetus. then, it’s only a matter of time before gay people go the way of the dodo…extinction.”

OK, you were kidding, right? That assinine nonsense HAS to push the whole gay concentration camp thing off the table… RIW, you’ve written some real real real dumb things but now your fingers are writing checks your brain can’t cash. Damn, that notion is two steps inside StupidVille.

I also find it very interesting that the huge and serious burden and possible medical issues of having an abortion is supposed to make women who are merely uncomfortable with having a gay child decide to keep it, when the whole feminist abortion “thing” is predicated on the *absolute fact* that having an abortion is no more significant than having some unwanted tissue removed. Medically safe. Emotionally irrelevant.