[–] Bilbo_Swaggins 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Homosexuality is a genetic issue and I think it's unfair to regard genetic issues as moral ones. It's better to practice eugenics upon carriers of "the gay gene" than it is to pretend that we're morally superior to people with severely fucked up hormones.
[–] eagleshigh 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
But goy. There is no gay genes. Maybe it's pleiotropic, but wouldn't they have noticed that? Like, if one gene, for instance, selects for hair color, and also made you gay, they'd have noticed that right? For instance, how height and IQ are pleiotropic, more than one gene work in concert, both effecting height and IQ. If that were the case for sodomites, they'd have noticed that those certain genes do more than one thing, faggotry included.
There is no gay gene.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/12/despite-what-you-may-have-read-theres-no-gay-gene/
But yea bro. It's environmental. I hate faggot propaganda. There is tons more on this. I have way more sources on the PC, but this link is amazing. A look at 20 years of meta data on both sides of the debate, over 10000 papers. Read the summary. Have your mind changed.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.htm
You're more versed on genetics than I am, so question.
If it was genetic as is claimed, why would evolution select for faggotry if they can't pass on their genes?
I have read one theory that the fag men had extra care taking to those with similar genes in their clan, which could explain why it's still around if is genetic (it's not, read the link and tell me what you think).
Will link more after work. That my genes link is my go to 'faggotry is environmental' source.
Also, in that linked study, what was controlled for? Sexual abuse leads to higher rates of faggotry, which is an environmental effect.
[–] Bilbo_Swaggins ago
You should read the study, it's good. In any case, the genetic observation doesn't rule out the environmental hypothesis for two reasons:
1) The supposed gay gene, which we have not discovered, may not have 100% penetrance. So it is with the Alzheimer's gene: having the gene makes you more likely to get the disease but it doesn't mean you will without a doubt, and you can have the disease without the gene.
2) If epigenetic factors are at play then someone with methylated DNA will be more likely to have gay kids. This constitutes an environmental factor for the parents and a genetic one for the kids.
Most likely homosexuality lies at the confluence of genetic and environmental factors imo.
Anyway, if women with the gay gene have tons of kids then it'll get passed on even though the men who get it don't have kids. And the mothers and aunts of gay men are more fertile.
[–] eagleshigh 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
I agree, brother.
He wrote a piece a few weeks ago talking about muh minority placement or some shit like that.
Of course he did. Him, being a sodomite has no stake in that right?
eyeroll
[–] POOTdisHERE 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
you're a bigger faggot than he is, apparently