- Nov 27, 2000
- 10,754
- 1
- 0
Question. If being gay is determined by genetics, wouldn't it be a suicide gene? Gays are less likely than straights to have children and pass their genes along, and therefore should gradually phase out, right? Granted, in the past they played out the role of being straight to fit in more often than today, but this is much less common now. It seems that we have had gays with us all through history, up til today, with the number of them apparently increasing, rather than the opposite. Logic would dictate that being gay either isn't that dependent on genes, or that the genes are not received hereditarily. If the later is the case, then being gay is the result of a mutation, and is not a normal Mendelian trait. What do you think?
While you do pose a valid question for debate, it appears that some of our members are not mature enough to carry on an adult conversation. Therefore this thread is locked before it gets too out of control, and the flaming begins.
The Watchful Mod
While you do pose a valid question for debate, it appears that some of our members are not mature enough to carry on an adult conversation. Therefore this thread is locked before it gets too out of control, and the flaming begins.
The Watchful Mod
