First, we don't know a gay gene doesn't exist, you can't make such a statement. Second, this was written by a right-wing republican completely against abortion and completely against marriages. So if you were looking to compare, you completely missed it, if you were looking to contrast, well, good job.

I agree. I am not against abortion (despite being a registered Catholic. Meh, there's tons of stuff I go against.) as such, but I find it unnecessary. Erion is right, there are tons of people who would give up a lot to get a baby through adoption. Abortion should really be a last resort unless it is proven that the baby will have an almost crippling illness that would detrimentally affect their ability to live happily.

This law however is pathetic. If there wasn't stupid doctors looking for something as riduculous as a 'gay gene' there would be no problem.

This law is merely a way to pit two minortiy groups (gays & womens rights)against each other. You are playing to the homosexuals by saying its wrong to abort a fetus because you think its gay and to the pro life crowd by making abortion illegal. By playing to gays politicians are able gain more support for making abortion illegal.

There are plenty of children to be adopted, it just that certain couples have a specific child that they want leaving many to go unadopted.

Woman's rights are the MAJORITY.

Umm... No, it wasn't writen by a right-wing republican from what I've been told in another thread. It was written by the same man moving to make Gay Marriage LEGAL.

And, there is absolutely NO proof that a gay gene does exist. I guess the mapping of the human genome and the COMPLETE AND UTTER ABSENCE of this mythical "gay gene" in said map isn't proof enough. Hell, after spending a few hours looking at articles, the only real way to prove it, due to a lack of it's existance in the human genome, is comparing gay twins. And a lot of that only goes to show it's most likely social - roughly half of identical twins in which one is gay, both are.

So, were you trying to look like an idiot, or look smart? Because if you were trying to look smart, you completely missed it.

Go to the god damn website, you ignorant little child. I guess the BIG BOLD PRINT reading "THE PRO-LIFE ALLIANCE OF GAYS AND LESBIANS" just SCREAMS "RIGHT-WING NUTJOB", now doesn't it?

EDIT: This is to Singollo, not Daganev.

As just to further my arguement, no self-respecting true right-winger would argue that there IS a gay gene. That means it's unreversable - that the arguement that it's innate and not so much a lifestyle, that one cannot change that like one cannot change being born black or white. Which would mean denying two gay men marriage would be like denying a black man and woman the right to marry.

Woops! I guess you look stupid now.

Doesn't... thinking about babies... in reguards to their sexual preference sound a bit... screwed up?

Yea. =\\ I find the concept of someone seriously getting an abortion because their kid MIGHT be gay. What the hell? I mean, it's your kid, you're SUPPOSED to love them NO matter what.

But, from my own experience, that's not always true, sadly. Some people just want to put up safeguards. I can see the logic, but. Eh. I'm also the sort of person that views things like genocide as an innate means of population control... sooo...

Well ultimately if any scientist "discovers" a gay gene, the whole idea would come under fire so fast, that honestly this current bill wouldn't do jack. Let's say Scientist A suddenly says he's found a gene that pre-disposes a baby to being gay... suddenly you'd have people arguing what pre-disposed means, Congress would insitute a nice little emergency law that stops the gene from being used in regards to such considerations until proven. Honestly, the bill seems to be more geared towards getting said submitter into the spotlight than any huge humanitarian effort. Oh well, as for Bush, I think he's really starting to come into his own. He had so much pressure on him the first session. Someone's definitely been coaching him, his drawl is nearly unheard nowadays. Sad to say that the way he speaks rather than what he says sways the public's opinion of his intelligence.

He doesn't seem to say a whole lot worth noting...

Sorry to dissapoint you, but the bill was written by a Republican who is against changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples and is also against anybody having an abortion.

The idea for the bill was raise by Rush Limbuagh as an attempt to make people think about these issues on a non partisan line.

The question basically is, which is more important. Abortion or Discrimination.

I believe it is a first step legistlation to help get people thinking about what it means to know what your baby will be by some type of genetic mapping. Because most people who are not of a religious nature will think it possible to be born with a 'gay gene' but not be gay.


And there is a mass murder gene. Its called XXY.. but its not really a gene, its more of a extra set of chromosones.

I think that fact that less then 90% of all identical twins have the exact same charachter traits, tells you something about the ability for a person to have self determination.


Also... To me, I do not think it matters who proposed the bill, or what the intention of the bill is/was. whats important is how the bill is worded.


And... My Brother in law who is in the Air-force once hinted to me that Bush would act one way during his first term and another way during his second, because during his second nobody is 'campaigning'. I wonder if his 'texan accent' was an act in the first place and only now he is speaking more normally. *shrug* After all, he hasn't been in texas all that long.

Yes, it was a Republican Conservative who wrote up the bill, and he is completely opposed to it. He's petitioning to have it denied. The point of the bill was to A] Make people think that there is a gay gene, so that gays could possibly be distinguished as "genetically different" than straights, meaning not completely human (and inferior) so not subject to any equal protection rights, and B] For his opposing view to show to people that its okay to abort babies that will be gay, but not babies that will be straight. In other words, kill off all the gays when they're young, so we don't have to deal with them.

Its disturbing. And he has a lot of people listening to him. Which is even more disturbing.

Umm that sounds like BS to me. If there was a gene that would force them to have more protections because everyone has different genes, and everyone is just as human as everyone else.

So I'm wondering where you got the idea that those are his intentions.


Everything I have heard on this has said that he wants to open up the debate between feminist liberals and gay libereals and see them duke it out. He is also supporting this bill, but he was against the gay marriage bill. He would like to outlaw abortions in general, and thinks this is a good first step.

Sorry Erion, next time you want to get insultive and flippant check your facts.

You obviously have little or no background in genetics, or you would know that while the human genome is mapped for base sequences, relatively little is known about those little thyamine, adanine, cytosine and guanine nucleotides and how they all fit together to form the phenotypes, or characteristics about man. So, in all possibility there may be a gay gene, it might have an environmental trigger, it might be something like puberty that eventually becomes accentuated at certain times and is different in every person, we simply don't know, so we can't deny it. It would work out extremely better for you and the gay population if it were a gene, because then you could file discrimination charges like nobody's buisness since your acting on your nature.

I won't get into the Republican sponsering this bill, since Daganev did check his facts this time, and is correct that this is a very right, though not extreme right, Republican.

I voted yes, but under the premise that that was the same conditions that would be afforded to feotuses who weren't found to have that gene, so if that's not the case, change it to no. They should have as much protection as any other unborn child, no more, no less.

Meh, Singollo, I was going by solely on a few articles I've read argueing against a gay gene, and the link Daganev posted. Which seemed extremely left-wing (I guess the big GAY AND LESBIAN right to life crap threw me off)

Shrug, so, I was wrong. Oh well! I can't imagine why a Republican would be argueing FOR a ban on abortion for babies with a gay-gene. I guess it might be an attempt to get a forceful minority against abortion in general. Dunno, and, frankly, don't care that much.

Aye, thats the point Erion. This type of legistlation has some conservative groups shouting "Your going to ruin America!" and some conservative groups shouting "Ooooh, nice one!"

It also hasing some liberals shouting "Don't Discrimiate YAY!" and some liberals shouting "DOWN WITH THE MAN!"

Or it has the true blood liberals saying "No, this bans abortion." Its pretty transparent in that aspect.

I just think that if the sole reason of a mother to abort is "omg my baby could be gay" then the baby should be given in adoption right after birth, and the mother esterilized and put in a psiquiatric clinic.
I think usually there're many reasons behind an abortion, it isn't a trivial matter like "oh, I just will miss my toenails if I don't see them for the last three months" and making a law for just a specific case as silly as this one is just out of place.
I mean, we're talking about being gay, not being a mass killer or something like that, or having a terminal birth malformation. No mother can possibly decide on the life of her baby based on that.