Open question to Pastor Dave and his ilk:

[Born_again]

Given that geneticists can now produce lesbian worms, how would you deal with the situation of being told that the foetus of a member of your flock has been positively identified as carrying dominant homosexual genetic traits?

Abortion?

Genetic manipulation? (Presume it is available to all and sundry)

Blame the Devil, but prepare a prescribed hatred [authorised by proxy] for such an abomination, in Gods eyes?

Indefinitely postpone the 'Christening' of such a child; excommunication?

Blame the parents for invoking the wrath of God, and still hate the child?

Blame the parents for invoking the wrath of God, but 'lay hands on' the abominable child in the time-honoured fashion, as often prescribed by men of the cloth? After all, Faith heals all .... does it not?

Invite God's ire by loving the child?


Like it or not, this scenario is likely going to be a very real conundrum that you will be faced with in the very near future, so as they say in the military, "Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance".

Any thoughts?

[steven lloyd]

Given that geneticists can now produce lesbian worms, ...

Any thoughts?

That's quite fascinating. There is other evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is not a choice, but this is pretty strong.

[Born_again]

Steven Lloyd, since childhood I have always suspected that there is a strong correlation between genetics and homosexuality, as well as social environment. As time has passed me by, I've become less convinced that environmental conditions are so relevant. Historically the prevalence of homosexuality has not significantly changed, and more-so the documented cases of 'natural' homosexuality displayed in species other than *bleep* Sapiens cannot be ignored.

[steven lloyd]

Steven Lloyd, since childhood I have always suspected that there is a strong correlation between genetics and homosexuality, as well as social environment. As time has passed me by, I've become less convinced that environmental conditions are so relevant. Historically the prevalence of homosexuality has not significantly changed, and more-so the documented cases of 'natural' homosexuality displayed in species other than *bleep* Sapiens cannot be ignored.

I agree. In upper level psycholgy courses we considered both the genetic component and the possible evolutionary purpose of homosexuality. For myself (being the rampant heterosexual that I always was), I could not imagine any environmental condition that would sway me toward homosexual behaviour. Obviously (I thought and still do), homosexuality had nothing to do with choice. I mean really? You see some of those girls on TV? (even at 52 I notice these things)

[normaM]

I'm not " his ilk"
don't think it is a choice but genetics and given there are so many variables it seems to be getting harder and harder to even determine sex - I've been reading about the sex tests and its messy and not nearly as simple as who is XX or YY. Then of course there times doctors assign the wrong sex to a baby - going so far as to perform surgery to make the child what they think that child should be.. murky waters

[WhatThe]

Let's not forget the third sex, hermaphrodites, obviously a genetic mutation. Would that make them gay , straight, somewhere in bewtween? like Norma said it's blurred. Since when in life is anything black and white? Homosexuality is a natural phenominon with precedence in the wild world, I don't believe it is a choice at all,not any more so than my affection for women. We have a choice to act on sexual desires but no choice on what causes those desires.

[Born_again]

I'm not " his ilk"
don't think it is a choice but genetics and given there are so many variables it seems to be getting harder and harder to even determine sex - I've been reading about the sex tests and its messy and not nearly as simple as who is XX or YY. Then of course there times doctors assign the wrong sex to a baby - going so far as to perform surgery to make the child what they think that child should be.. murky waters

I'm not sure what you have been reading, normaM, but I've always thought that sex determination is very precise. Are you sure about YY? From memory, the Y chromosome contains less than 1%(?) of the DNA that makes up the coding for a human being -- so that would be a remarkable 'creature' that it produced:

XY = male
XXY = male
XYY = male
XX male = male(very rare)

XX = female
XXX = female
XXY female = female(very rare)

I have heard of inconclusive or incorrect ultrasound interpretations, especially when the scanner technology was new. Obviously, ultrasound determination of sex would be completely irrelevant in this case anyway; as we are talking about genetics.

[normaM]

I'm not " his ilk"
don't think it is a choice but genetics and given there are so many variables it seems to be getting harder and harder to even determine sex - I've been reading about the sex tests and its messy and not nearly as simple as who is XX or YY. Then of course there times doctors assign the wrong sex to a baby - going so far as to perform surgery to make the child what they think that child should be.. murky waters

I'm not sure what you have been reading, normaM, but I've always thought that sex determination is very precise. Are you sure about YY? From memory, the Y chromosome contains less than 1%(?) of the DNA that makes up the coding for a human being -- so that would be a remarkable 'creature' that it produced:

XY = male
XXY = male
XYY = male
XX male = male(very rare)

XX = female
XXX = female
XXY female = female(very rare)

I have heard of inconclusive or incorrect ultrasound interpretations, especially when the scanner technology was new. Obviously, ultrasound determination of sex would be completely irrelevant in this case anyway; as we are talking about genetics.

Not according to what I was reading - there was an interesting article in the G&M.. determining if the medal winner is indeed a woman.

[Born_again]

I forgot to mention that there is another solution ...... or is it?
Youtube: *bleep* no More

[servant]

Given that geneticists can now produce lesbian worms, how would you deal with the situation of being told that the foetus of a member of your flock has been positively identified as carrying dominant homosexual genetic traits?

Abortion?

Genetic manipulation? (Presume it is available to all and sundry)

Blame the Devil, but prepare a prescribed hatred [authorised by proxy] for such an abomination, in Gods eyes?

Indefinitely postpone the 'Christening' of such a child; excommunication?

Blame the parents for invoking the wrath of God, and still hate the child?

Blame the parents for invoking the wrath of God, but 'lay hands on' the abominable child in the time-honoured fashion, as often prescribed by men of the cloth? After all, Faith heals all .... does it not?

Invite God's ire by loving the child?


Like it or not, this scenario is likely going to be a very real conundrum that you will be faced with in the very near future, so as they say in the military, "Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance".

Any thoughts?

Well, let's see. Knowing human nature, there will probably be some sort of genetic test that will determine if a woman is carrying a child with a gay gene. Some will abort on that account.

We would oppose that...why? ALL human life has value. Period.

Now...here's a question for you...would you oppose abortion for a woman carrying a child with a gay gene? Why or why not?

[strwbrrydvl]

Well, let's see. Knowing human nature, there will probably be some sort of genetic test that will determine if a woman is carrying a child with a gay gene. Some will abort on that account.

There already is an experimental drug treatment to "prevent lesbians":
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=26530&p=738251#p738251
It is quite disturbing.

[CatherineC]

I'm not sure what you have been reading, normaM, but I've always thought that sex determination is very precise. Are you sure about YY? From memory, the Y chromosome contains less than 1%(?) of the DNA that makes up the coding for a human being -- so that would be a remarkable 'creature' that it produced:

XY = male
XXY = male
XYY = male
XX male = male(very rare)

XX = female
XXX = female
XXY female = female(very rare)

I have heard of inconclusive or incorrect ultrasound interpretations, especially when the scanner technology was new. Obviously, ultrasound determination of sex would be completely irrelevant in this case anyway; as we are talking about genetics.

Genetics are far from the sole determining factor.
We've seen cases where 46 XY people were able to get pregnant and carry the child to term. http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/conten ... 007-2155v1

Intersex conditions like Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome result in a 46, XY female. The tissue doesn't respond to testosterone, the testosterone converts into estrogen and the body responds to it and develops more or less how a typical female body would develop.
And then there are dozens of other conditions which affect development.

I find it hard to see how any group can be taken seriously when they ignore scientific evidence.
It is undeniable that there is more out there than what is included in the traditional definitions of male and female and there is clear evidence that genetics alone do NOT define whether someone is male or female. You don't have to be well educated to understand this. It's pretty simple.

I know that the existence of intersex people complicates things, especially if you interpret the Bible literally, but just because a subject is complicated doesn't mean that religious authorities should be lazy about it. As far as I know, none of these homophobic churches have actually dealt clearly with this issue. All we have is a lot of sidestepping and ignoring.

Even the roman catholics. They have traditionally NOT allowed an XXY (typically male) person to marry a male, but a few months back they told an XXY person in the phillipines he cannot marry a female.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010 ... legal.html

I really don't understand it what is so difficult about joining the 21st century.

[CatherineC]

Well, let's see. Knowing human nature, there will probably be some sort of genetic test that will determine if a woman is carrying a child with a gay gene. Some will abort on that account.

Most XXY babies are routinely aborted. Something like 70%

[36Drew]

Well, let's see. Knowing human nature, there will probably be some sort of genetic test that will determine if a woman is carrying a child with a gay gene. Some will abort on that account.

Most XXY babies are routinely aborted. Something like 70%

Are you able to point to any studies/journals that discuss that?