The sexuality of a fetus would not change the right of a woman to abort. You have no idea what you're talking about.

And I repeat my question: Why should the sexual orientation of a fetus change my feelings?

I think I'm gonna sit back and watch the comments fly on this one!

You know, just because a behavior isn't chosen doesn't mean it's genetic. It could be nature. Some things just can't be attributed to science. I'm sure most of the religious people here would agree with me. God works in myterious ways.

As for the actual abortion issue, I already shared my views last week or whenever that was. I'm with Ryan on this one. I'm going to watch the show.

I do not believe in abortion. But when posting on a discussion forum, I decided to take a "devil's advocate" role and suggested that the only circumstances I would consider for abortion would be if I knew I was carrying a gay or girl baby.

People had been posting all kinds of reasons why they would have an abortion and going on and on, blah, blah, blah, about how sacred their right to abortion is/was.

But I knew what their ignorant, ill-informed responses would be to me, and I was right. If you could hear the screaming you'd be deaf.

I insisted that it was my right to choose just like anyone else - for any reason or no reason at all. After all, that is EXACTLY what they had been advocating. They were caught in a web that they had spun for themselves.

The posting went on for awhile, with others getting more hysterical in their postings.

Finally, someone complained to the host and I was
booted off. I really hope that at least one of them saw how ridiculous and flawed their reasoning was.

Maybe the preacher you mentioned is trying to lure the pro-aborts into the same trap.

Your article reminded me of a news report I saw on CNN years ago. Their reporter, Jeanne Moos, was interviewing a researcher who believed he would eventually find a gene that determined sexual orientation. Ms. Moos asked him about the possibility that some parents would have testing done during pregnancy and choose abortion if the gene was found. He replied that if that occurred, he believed it would be a violation of the child's rights.

Apparently, humanity and rights are only recognized for homosexual unborn children. Anyway, I only saw that report once--perhaps CNN management realized it conflicted with their general pro-abortion values.

Thanks for all your good work and the articles that you write.

Well, according to Rush Limbaugh, only the evil liberals get abortions. And seeing as how the evil liberals love gays more than anything, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Except, you know, more gay people. But as long as we continue treating them unfairly and denying them equal rights, all will be well with the world. Right?

Please note my extreme sarcasm in the paragraph above.

Ingrid, Alyssa, Samantha, Danielle, Leah, et al,

We have really been having good discussions on here for a while now and I would hate to see us revert back to name calling, and attacking.

This is a "touchy" subject as the article says. "A perfect moral storm".

I love it, because it is going to give all of us, on both sides of the issue, pause.

The pro-life side, for the most part, is often affiliated with Christianity, and as we all know (from the last post on homosexuality) we believe homosexual behavior is a sin.

Yet still, we would never condone demeaning a perons God given dignity due to their sexual orientation, by killing them in the womb.

On the other side, while finding nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, you are for the right of a woman to choose, for any reason, to end the life of the child she is carrying.

Our side is horrified that a woman would ever abort her child, but doubly horrified that they would abort it because it is not "perfect" (ie down syndrome, club foot, autism, and yes even homosexuality).

Your side is horrified that anyone would take away your right to choose when and why or if you should carry a child to full term, but being comfortable with homosexuality, I'm sure this makes you stop and think, because this probably feels like discrimination.

Such a quandary.

Either way, I'm beggin' everyone to please use caution when opining, because this could be either a great opportunity to learn, or an easy opportunity to attack the "enemy"...

MK

"We have really been having good discussions on here for a while now and I would hate to see us revert back to name calling, and attacking."

You may want to have a look at Jill's article on Michael Corleone (dated March 1) and the last but one comment. I may quote His Man's comment: "Jill,

I don't know how you put up with these idiots."

My comment is this: Since Adam and Eve made their ill-informed, freewill choice, we humans all have been suffering from an STD [Ge 2:15-17].

Sin and imperfection were inherited from our first parents' first sin [Ro 3:23; 5:12].

Homosexuality, if it can be genetically inherited (and that's a BIG IF) is just another genetic defect; it is certainly a moral defect and has been since sinful man has existed.

Great strides have been made to mitigate the effects of other defects, while failing to mitigate the worst defect of all, death [Ro 6:23] Heroic efforts have been made to assist its victims to live as normal a life as can be lived in an impaired condition.

Sadly though, proponents of homosexuality choose to rationalize the defect as "normal," just as most in Christendom rationalize death as normal [1 Cor 15:26; Joh 17:3; Joh 5:28,29; Re 20:14].

Unrecognized by most, the culture of death permeates the whole world, with Satan as its master [1 Joh 5:19; Ge 3:4,5].

This whole discussion is absurd.

First of all - if stem cell research remains restricted, any sort of gene therapy or research that would identify or alter a "gay gene" is an impossibility.

Second of all - Something not being a choice doesn't automatically mean there is a specific, identifiable gene in the DNA screaming "HEY IM GAY!!!", in fact, its far more likely to be related to hormones and proteins in the brain and reproductive organs.

Thirdly - lets pretend for a second that they DID somehow identify a magic gene. Finding that gene in a fetus would require an invasive procedure, akin to amniocentisis, that has intrinsic risks to harm the fetus. This is not a test that anyone could just decide to have, because if there is no medical reason for it, it would not be covered by insurance.

The experimentation that would be needed to alter or remove the gene would undoubetdly harm many fetuses, not to mention the ethics questions raised by doing gene therapy experiments on a fetus in the womb would never get by any reputable IRB in the U.S.

Just by virtue of the size of a first trimester fetus, nothing could be done until at LEAST the second trimester, and even most Pro Choicers believe that second trimeser abortions should not be legal "on demand" without some sort of medical or psychological reason.

and lastly, anyone who claims to be pro life, but who is enough of a bigot that they would even consider aborting ONLY because the child might be gay shouldn't be having children anyway. If you're hateful enough that you could judge your own kids for whatever reason, don't have them.

((sigh)) Yes, MK, it looks like the nice we-can-all-agree post is overwith. But hakuna matata.

"The pro-life side, for the most part, is often affiliated with Christianity, and as we all know (from the last post on homosexuality) we believe homosexual behavior is a sin."

Just be careful not to speak for all Christians. Unitarians, for example, generally have no problem with homosexuality.

Don't even speak for all Catholics. My host mother--my goes-to-mass-every-Sunday, actively-right-wing, rather conservative host mother--is not only in favor of equal rights for homosexuals, but she is pro-choice.

Ciao!

Interesting column today, Jill. I do enjoy them. You have a perspective that we rarely see in others.

I, too, was intrigued by the implications of Al Mohler's comments about ethically treating pre-born babies should they be proven one day to be victims of hormonal (not genetic, to be clear) homosexual influences in utero.

I have read about this research already. There could be something to it, particulaly pertaining to some males who might have homosexual tendencies.

Females are more likely than males, according to studies, to experience same-sex attraction if they are childhood sexual abuse victims, specially if they also have estranged relationships with their fathers.

The daddy connection and temperament, according to NARTH and others, also factors heavily into male homosexuality. A boy might be slightly effeminate (due to hormonal factors prior to birth... or whatever?), but not necessarily gay later in life.

Parenting has a lot to do with it. Some fathers emotionally reject boys they perceive as weak sissies. That can help bring on the sexual identity confusion, according to lots of analyses I've seen.

Even if we might prove the hormonal connection, I like what Linda Nicolosi (she and her husband Joe head NARTH), had to say in an article at the NARTH Web site about it: "Does born that way mean designed that way?"

We are playing with fire, in more ways than one, by attempting to play God. I think Mohler has opened a real can of worms. It was already open, really. He just put an evangelical face on it.

Keep up those great commentaries.

Leah... hakuna matata... lol... :)

came back to check the comments. Looks like most everyone is getting along. What a refreshing change =)

An interesting article about "What If...?"

What got my attention was the wording of Tyler Gray as to the weight of public shame for having a gay child versus the private sin of terminating (ABORTION) a pregnancy.

I think that no sin is private, i.e., all sin has an effect on society, it being only a matter of degree, and most likely proportional to the extent and/or habit of commital.

I can be a private drunk in my own home, but this causes internal problems with my family who then go outside the home in their daily activities carrying the negative effects into their societal relationships, which in turn can result in further negatives - as the ripples in a pond after dropping the stone in the water.

This idea of private sin has been foisted on the public by the radical-liberal "progressives," and unfortunately the standard bearers for morality have failed miserably to confront them.

Personally, I believe homosexuality is a choice. Influence is a factor too - whether or not the a homosexual identity is nurtured during a adolescent's development. I have no problem with gay people or their lifestyle. I have problems with homosexual people using their identity as sort of a social crutch, if you may. "I'm gay, therefore my life is tough and you must help me" and "you wouldn't understand because you're not gay".

The truth is, we all can make a choice to better our own lives no matter what the circumstances.

I couldn't resist. I can already feel a wave of comments coming =)

I'd like to make an addendum to my previous post: I DO have a problem with the homosexual lifestyle, but I have nothing against the people that choose it.

Okay. Let’s grant the premise. There’s a gay gene.

Would not the theist/Darwinist/naturalist/evolutionist/leftist
crowd lecture us that "natural selection, acting on random variations to produce all the life forms on planet earth" was the origin of species?

Using their own definitions and reasoning, would not natural selection ace the gay gene out of the gene pool on the first go-around?

If the gene is not there to improve the species - the survival of the fittest and all that - how would a gay gene get passed down? It wouldn’t. All mutations are regressive.

But that’s an inconvenient truth that gets ignored by the Darwinists/evolutionists.

The gays would argue that social pressure forces some gays to have children and hide their sexual preference to explain how the gay gene gets passed along.

But that would be in today’s world. Back at the "dawn of man" there would have been no social pressure if "gays" evolved alongside heteros. There would be no moral or social pressure to have children. Gay would be seen as natural as hetero, right?

Edd,

WOW - that's a very interesting observation.

Thank you for presenting the perfect conundrum for those who live on situational ethics.

Perhaps this "perfect storm" will at least bring out the fact that it is not 10% of our population that has a homosexual predilection, and that such a figure is grossly exaggerated.

I can also hope that this juxtapositioning of two diametrically opposed concepts will aid people who face that issue in their own lives to see that while we are what we were born as and what life we lead makes us, we still have the ability to choose what actions we take and what we do with our lives.

It is this latter, that I think explains the fact that some homosexuals do, in fact, choose to leave a painful lifestyle and pain it has caused them and most of those around them.

I am a retired Marine, but I am now and always will be a Marine, and I am proud of that.

I also know that had I pursued a different course when I made the crucial decision in 1975, I could today be a physicist, an intellectual achiever with no connection at all with the Marines, with war or any of the many other things that come, part and parcel, with being a Marine.

The decisions we make in life are a substantial part of what and who we are, and many of those decisions are made in weakness rather with a will to serve a purpose.

I chose to pursue the life of a mechanic and every path that leads to it and away from it. I made that choice before I was five, and each year past then has served to reinforce that decision.

It would have been practically impossible to turn away from that line of work when I was 15 because I had my entire life invested in that choice.

I think the same can be said about many homosexuals who make an easier choice extremely young, frequently due to being a victim of sexual assault.

For many, I suspect the prospect of having to learn to live an entirely different lifestyle is simply unimaginable, just as stopping taking apart every single thing I ever came across and didn't fully understand was a practical impossibility for me at any time past the age of eight or 10.

HMMMM,I'm not sure what I feel about homosexuality as far as it being a choice or a genetic defect.I have a gay friend that insists he was born this way.A friend of my mothers has a lesbian daughter, and she insists it is a chosen lifestyle.I guess you might say I'm on the fence with it.

PS I'd welcome someone to set me straight-[no pun intended.]

Don't the Chinese abort females to ensure their one and only child is a male? The point of gender selection also adds weight to your argument.

If choice is okay when it comes to abortion, just what choices are allowed? Can I hold out for
a boy who is probably going to be over 6 feet tall, dark haired an blue-eyed? Or one with a 120+ IQ?

Why not? If the "choice" to abort is arbitrary, why would I want to be burdened with a dumb kid, a short kid, a girl, a boy, fair skinned, dark skinned or any other blemish I want to apply to my choice?

The immorality of choosing to kill a baby makes all other distinctions moot. It's the "who do we throw out of the lifeboat?" exercise.

Who gets to choose?

And where are the parents - where are the Christians - to let the 14% take over? The rest say they believe, but in what, the other Jesus? Apostasy is here, truth is out.

Edd F. as a multi-science major I am appalled at your sheer lack of understanding of the biological concepts which form the premise of your post.

"Would not the theist/Darwinist/naturalist/
evolutionist/leftist crowd lecture us that "natural selection, acting on random variations to produce all the life forms on planet earth" was the origin of species?""
Umm, it depends. I am a Darwinist/evolutionist/
leftist/CHRISTIAN BIOLOGIST and I can assure you without a doubt that evolution and natural selection are absolutely real, and if you want to go stick your head in the sand, be my guest. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that a God who can create the universe cannot set in motion a natural process that leads to diversity of life. If you dont believe in it, maybe you need to do some research on the HIV virus.

"Back at the "dawn of man" there would have been no social pressure if "gays" evolved alongside heteros. There would be no moral or social pressure to have children. Gay would be seen as natural as hetero, right?"

Homosexuality was common--among pagans. But since God declared it a sin (ever read Genesis? Deuteronomy?) THERE WAS PRESSURE TO NOT BE GAY!!

Really, if you are going to go on here and try to make a point, make sure you know what youre talking about, okay?

"If the gene is not there to improve the species - the survival of the fittest and all that - how would a gay gene get passed down? It wouldn�t. All mutations are regressive."

I think you meant to say that mutations are RECESSIVE, and this is an absolute FALLACY. Go to www.pubmed.com and research dominant mutations.

For all of you people who that being gay is a choice, why do you think this?

Do you think that people enjoy having to worry who they tell? Wondering if some crazy person on the street might beat the crap out of them so acting "too gay?" Or what about two of my very good friends who get dirty looks every where they go when they hold hands? Or my other friend who is transgender who's family turned their back on her when they found out and who the frat boys harass every chance they get? Or what about the man who came to speak at a pride meeting who had trash cans set on fire in front of his dorm room door when students found out that he was gay and now has health problems because of inhaling the smoke?

Do you honestly think that anyone would CHOOSE that?

I know that I would have to think long and hard if there was a way to change a gene so that my child would not be gay. While I don't see anything wrong with a person being gay, I would not want my child to suffer in the way that these people suffer. I would not want them to be attacked because of who they LOVE. And if that ment choosing to make them not gay, I'd probably do it. Not because being gay isn't normal, but because of people who treat them like shit. Untill gays have more equal rights, I hope to the stars that none of my children will be gay.

there's a little-known fact about DNA ... it is a molecule that determines all sorts of things, but is itself (the DNA-structure) changeable to nutritional and radiation influencing. So removing the middle part of this equation ::: nutrition and radiation determines all sorts of things. The KEY aspect of prenatal nutrition here is zinc.

It also explains why homosexuality can arise from one generation to another,without necessarily being affiliated with DNA but being quasi-hereditary anyways. There is no genetic link but a lifestyle-link - nutrient choice within a family/culture, can and does have deep-seated (even prior to 5 yrs old) ramifications.

momof3,

Here's my theory. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. In fact, I find that absurd. I believe it is a behavior we are born with--however, not genetic.

What may be the case with your mother's friend's daughter, is that she is perhaps bisexual. I have a friend who "chooses" to be a lesbian because, as a bisexual, she finds herself (although attracted to both males and females) more attracted to females.

I believe it would be impossible to be a defect. If it is genetic, I would guess it is a rare and recessive gene. But I don't believe it is ... as I've said. I repeat myself.

There's my perspective. Take what you will from it.

Ciao!

Everyone,

Just wanted to say...amazing...I was gone for a few hours came back and you all had a civilized, respectful, enlightening and thought provoking conversation going on without me.

I am soooo proud...

And so bummed I missed it.
MK

Science isn't for most people. It is for me.
I read two very interesting books called Genome and The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. He explains sexual evolution in humans, more specifically in the latter book. He cites a few studies that show homosexuality is not necessarily genetic, nor is it a choice or a form of socialization.
For homosexual men, studies have show they tend to be the younger brothers of males. After having one male child, the mother becomes aware and partially immune to the testosterone produced in the womb during pregnancy. During the second male pregnancy, lower amounts of testosterone are typically detected. He cites this as a possibility, but not a complete explanation, for homosexual tendencies.
So, it's not testable, and it's not a choice either. Hopefully more studies on this theory will elict some better information.
Regardless, no study or survey ever justifies the marginilization or dehumanization of homosexuals, and just because you are pro-choice doesn't mean you are so just because you want to exterminate gays. Since pro-choicers tend to be more liberal, that seems counter-intuitive.

God says it better than I ever could in Chapter 1 of Romans as follows:

"18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.* 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too."

God doesnt say anything in Romans. Paul does. Paul was no differently affected by the Holy Spirit than a woman ordained by the Methodist Church is today.

Samantha T:

If God does not say anything in Romans as you so eloquently claim in your last post, then we can't believe anything in the Bible. It would just be a collection of opinions in 66 books written by different people over 6,000 years all pointing to Jesus Christ.

Here is what the Bible says about itself in 2 Timothy 3:16:
"16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

So Sam, if I may call you that, I will take the liberty to teach, rebuke, correct and train you so that you don't speak lies to the whole world on this web-site and apart from repentance damn yourself to hell.

Paul was an Apostle. He was appointed as such by Jesus Christ Himself on the road to Damascus. You can read the account in the Book of Acts. I am tempted to agree with you that it is possible that the Methodist minister you talk about is not from God based on some in that church that teach that homosexuals can be ministers of God. I have no problem with women or men being ministers of God as long as they meet scriptural requriements. I can assure you that Paul was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak God's words. No one can go from a murderer to an apostle overnight apart from the Holy Spirit. To ignore this is to commit spiritual suicide.

Sam, please look at the following Scripture and read it and ask God if maybe this is describing you. Again from the the Book of Romans, Chapter 1:
"28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God�s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too."

Sam, I'm not sure who you are listening to and therefore, by your own words, for which you will be judged, fail to acknowledge God. Perhaps a Methodist minister hurt you in some way and you are bitter about that. If that happened you are correct in rejecting that person as God's representative but only hurting yourself by not forgiving. God loves you and doesn't want to hurt you. Satan came to kill, steal and destroy. God came to give life and that more abundantly. God says that if you seek Him with all your heart that you will find Him. I suggest that you try that and then come back to this web site and tell the world what happened. Have you got the courage to do that? Do you love yourself enough to take the narrow road that leads to life or are you so filled with self hate due to unforgiveness that you don't care if you go to hell by continuing in your rebellion against God and His Word? Please choose life.

Abortion is murder and abortionists are murderers.

Dear Samantha T,

First…there was a mis-edit of my post. It’s just a fine point, but it’s supposed to read atheist/Darwinist/naturalist/ etc.,
not theist.

Now then. As you are a self-described “multi science major”, and are “appalled” at my “sheer lack of understanding of biological concepts“, etc. I have to wonder: are you equally
appalled at the rapidly-growing number of your biologist collegues that now say Darwinian evolution does not speak for their views? Just curious. (List upon request)

And you say “I can assure you without a doubt that evolution and natural selection are absolutely real”. Thank you….I agree. Natural selection makes my point. A “gay gene”
wouldn’t be considered an improvement in our species. Maybe as a CHRISTIAN BIOLOGIST, (CAPS yours. I’m not sure if that’s different than a Christian Biologist) you may be able to point out where being gay is good for, or would be “naturally selected” to improve our species.

As a CHRISTIAN BIOLOGIST, you’re probably aware
that the CDC (Center for Disease Control) states “the homosexual community is unique in their ability to spread disease”. Probably not the best thing for improving the species.

As for your first assurance, (above) yes, evolution is real.
Micro-evolution - adaptative mechanisms, which we see in nature, are real. I think where you scold me to research the HIV virus, you’re referring to the HIV virus as “proof” of evolution.. Evolutionists love to point to the HIV virus
as a proof of their theory. Yes, HIV does mutate very quickly, but unless I missed something, it’s still a virus. It hasn’t evolved into a bacteria or become another species.

As for Macro-evolution, where one species supposedly transforms into another species; even Darwin, on page 194 (I think – don’t pull the regressive-recessive thing on me here …..geeesh) of his famous Origin of Species, sounding ruefull, said (and I’m paraphrasing here “ if my theory is correct, we should find transitional life forms all throughout the fossel record, but alas, none have been found”. And that’s true today. The only place we see transitional life forms are the graphics and drawings in our wonderful pagan government school’s biology books.

You said: “Homosexuality was common--among pagans. But since God declared it a sin THERE WAS PRESSURE
TO NOT BE GAY!!” (CAPS yours-again) Okay, Let’s follow your logic here. God created everything, as He declares in that book you mentioned. What was it – Genisis? So God created the gene for “gay”, but then God pressured the gays into acting like heteros by having kids, which would pass the gay gene along, even though God hates homosexuality?
I will definitely have to get back to you on this one. Maybe it will make sense to me....eventually. I took the part out of your sentence where you asked me; “(ever read Genesis? Deuteronomy?) “ to make your sentence read better, and make you sound less defensive and snotty. I hope you didn't mind.

Your pal,
Edd F.

I enjoyed your article on the ironic implications that would be brought up if they ever find a so called "gay" gene.

I don't want to be picky, but I thought you might want to check your usage of the word infer in the sentence "Mohler has upset both liberals and conservatives. Liberals are angry he would suggest correcting a homosexual predisposition, which infers it is a disorder."

I believe the correct word here would be "implies."

William, I'm always looking for ways to improve my grammar (and punctuation, which is more of a headache to me!).

Infer vs. imply. Hm. Just looked it up. I do believe you're right, Sir!

Imply means "to give an impression (that)"; it forms the noun implication and the adjective implicit.

Infer means "to guess from incomplete evidence"; it forms the noun inference. To infer is to take the results from a small sample and generalize them to the larger population.

Thanks for that grammar lesson, WIlliam. I never knew there was such a difference.

Edd, the idea of natural selection is based on the concept that the fittest individuals survive. If a gene were found that predispositioned for "gayness" and yet these individuals still reproduced (fitness is measured in terms of reproduction) they would still pass their genes. The whole idea is that females choose to mate with the fitter males. If the trait is masked by behavior, there is no reason for a female to suspect a homosexual male of being less fit. Also, natural selection does not omit all unfavorable traits. Individuals that are recessive mutants may be more likely to die, but their condition can still arise approximately 25% of the time given the mating of two heterozygotes. For example, piebald deer are at a disadvantage because it is harder for them to hide, but they arent extinct.

His Man, I am tired of figting with you. Every time you use the Bible to back up your personal opinions, someone throws out a contradictory passage. Every time, the only response you can give is, "Thou shalt not question God!" If you cannot ask God questions, you cannot grow in your faith and are doomed to rely on the interpretation of others. I am not going to Hell, and I am not going to waste any more time trying to explain to you the validity of my perspective. I hope one day you learn to open your mind and stop being so judgmental. Maybe then you could actually draw new believers rather than confirming the stereotypes of atheists.

Samantha,

You are so correct when you point out that we MUST be able to ask questions. If our faith taught us to shut up and obey, we wouldn't be a faith, we would be a cult.

All of the saints questioned God. Daily. It's called prayer.

You go girl, question, question, and question some more.

That's the beauty of the Truth. Your questions will always lead you there.

It's the person who doesn't question who ends up only knowing the surface of our faith. It's the one who questions that goes deeper into it. Just look at Aquinas...Questions, questions, questions!!!

mk
MK

Going along with your premise that there IS a gay gene, it is not necessarily a given that it will be nixed on the first go-around. Having blue eyes is a recessive trait, yet we still see people with blue eyes wherever we go. If there is a gay gene, and it is recessive, it is much the same thing. A straight person could have one dominant "straight" allele (S) and one recessive "gay" allele (s), and end up having gay children if they reproduce with someone with a similar set of alleles (Ss, or ss).

It is a fact that some gay people have gotten married to someone of the opposite gender and reproduced because it was the norm and if they didn?t follow that they would be completely ostracized (especially in earlier times), it's no small wonder that we still have gay people around. There are other, much more harmful, recessive alleles that can cause a disease and death when a person has two pairs, even if this is expressed before they have come of age to reproduce. Yet we still have these recessive traits. Just because a trait is recessive, it doesn?t mean that it will die out. It just means that it is RECESSIVE; it is only expressed when there are two of the same alleles.

"If the gene is not there to improve the species - the survival of the fittest and all that - how would a gay gene get passed down? It wouldn?t. All mutations are regressive."

And besides that, not all mutations are recessive. Having six fingers is a mutation, but it?s dominant. It's not very common, but it?s still around. How does having six fingers improve the species? It doesn't. It is not a requirement for a gene to "improve the species," otherwise every creature would be very nearly perfect. We wouldn't have a bunch of diseases, such as Huntington's and Tay-Sachs, that have a genetic basis if that were the case.

If you go along with Evolutionary Theory, everything you are is a mutation, it's just not considered that anymore because it has become common. Mutations (errors in transcribing DNA) are a source of genetic variation in a population. Add onto the fact that your own genome more than likely has several thousand errors in it, each of which is considered a mutation but is not expressed, not because each error is so miniscule, but because of the type of error it is, replacing one base pair with another without changing the sequence of amino acids that make up the endogenous proteins that our body uses for everything that we are.

There is evidence that being gay is NOT genetic. In experiments with rats, it was shown that when the mothers were more stressed while pregnant, it was more likely that her male offspring would later behave in a manner that is considered "gay." The increased cortisol within the mother's system, combined with a decreased amount of testosterone available to the male fetuses, results in changing the structure of the brain and making it look more feminine, which in turn results in the effeminate behavior. This phenomenon has been observed in humans as well, so it's no wonder we still have homosexuals living among us.

Personally, I believe that being homosexual is a part of the identity of the person, not a lifestyle choice or a genetic defect. Imaging studies of the brains of homosexuals versus heterosexuals show that the brain of a gay male looks remarkably more like a straight female's. In this case, trying not to be gay would be akin to trying not to be depressed when you have an imbalance of certain neurotransmitters (Serotonin).

The idea of evolution is absurd and every true scientist who understand physics, thermodynamics and biology knows this or, has simply let his or her prejudice against an unseen Creator, God, etc. poison and blind his or her mind.

The concept of entropy (Greek: åí (en=inside) + verb: ôñÝðù (trepo= to chase, escape, rotate, turn)) in thermodynamics is central to the second law of thermodynamics, which deals with physical processes and whether they occur spontaneously. Spontaneous changes occur with an increase in entropy. Spontaneous changes tend to smooth out differences in temperature, pressure, density, and chemical potential that may exist in a system, and entropy is thus a measure of how far this smoothing-out process has progressed. In contrast, the first law of thermodynamics deals with the concept of energy, which is conserved. Entropy change has often been defined as a change to a more disordered state at a molecular level. In recent years, entropy has been interpreted in terms of the "dispersal" of energy. Entropy is an extensive state function that accounts for the effects of irreversibility in thermodynamic systems.

Quantitatively, entropy, symbolized by S, is defined by the differential quantity dS = äQ / T, where äQ is the amount of heat absorbed in an isothermal and reversible process in which the system goes from one state to another, and T is the absolute temperature at which the process is occurring.[3] Entropy is one of the factors that determines the free energy of the system. This thermodynamic definition of entropy is only valid for a system in equilibrium (because temperature is defined only for a system in equilibrium), while statistical definition of entropy (see below) applies to any system. Thus the statistical definition is usually considered fundamental definition of entropy.

When a system's energy is defined as the sum of its "useful" energy, (e.g. that used to push a piston), and its "useless energy", i.e. that energy which cannot be used for external work, then entropy may be (most concretely) visualized as the "scrap" or "useless" energy whose energetic prevalence over the total energy of a system is directly proportional to the absolute temperature of the considered system. (Note the product "TS" in the Gibbs free energy or Helmholtz free energy relations).

In terms of statistical mechanics, the entropy describes the number of the possible microscopic configurations of the system. The statistical definition of entropy is generally thought to be the more fundamental definition, from which all other important properties of entropy follow. Although the concept of entropy was originally a thermodynamic construct, it has been adapted in other fields of study, including information theory, psychodynamics, thermoeconomics, and evolution.

The law of entropy proves that evolution is simply not possible. The law of entropy the fact that everything, every molecule in the universe tends towards a simpler state or more disordered state. That's why we have decay, rust, deterioration, etc. The provable, observable, demonstrabel law of entropy flies in the facade of evolution which tells teh lie that that we started as some simple amino acids that developed into singel cell orgnais, then amoeba, tehn....then... and after several millions of years are now homosapien.

So, evolution points in just the other direction. That is, the mutation of cells which are nothing more than millions of molecules obeying the forces of physcis and thermodynmics at a nanomicroscopic level tends to a higher more complicated state based on random chance and/or selection. Sorry, this makes no sense apart from a Creator or Divine Being pushing the train uphill against the Law of Entropy.

What evolutionists fail to realize is that there is an unseen, emotive force driving the observable effects of evolution. I can't seen the wind, however, I don't deny its existence because I can see its effect in pushing a boat, feeling its coolness agsint my face, etc. This is why Romans 1 is so eloquent in it's description of those who fail to acknowledge God as follows: "18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

Abortion is murder and abortionists are murdererers.

This is why I firmly believe that Creationism and Evolution theories can co-exist, His man. I can't think of any more beautiful way for God to showcase His power than to continuously alter and complicate the beings and things that He's created. To me, that's a real type of power, instead of just placing organisms that never change. It's not improving upon His design (which is by right infallible, correct?), it's only changing to suit his divine plan. This is why I get disconcerted when people have huge debates over creation/evolution.

So yeah you guys would have shifted your conversation and being completely devoted to this "gay gene" idea if you had read my alternative theory.
It's pretty interesting, and worth a look. More studies definitely need to be done, but heck, we can say that about pretty much everything.
Refer to my post, it talks about testosterone levels and immunity after firstborn males. Definitely relevant.

Alyssa, God destroyed the world in a flood because of the level of corruption and peversion in people, leaving only Noah and his family to repopulate the earth. It is sad that God regretted that he created man, probaly because it broke His heart that He had to destroy so many people. Obviously they had crossed the line of no return, something that still can be done today.

How are people and things getting better and more complicated today through evolution? We still die? We still kill each other. No, the earth will be burned up and God will create a new heaven and a new earth. If you somehow think that I was stating that evoluton and creationism coexist you grossly misunderstood me. I do not hold John Paul's views, sorry.

Uhhhh, His Man? That's not exactly a response to Alyssa's point that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. There's no reason that God didn't use evolution as His MO in creating something with free will. Besides, it would give us the ability to explain our existence and still keep faith in God.

As for the gay gene thing, there was actual scientific evidence that a gene can make you gay, but not in the way you would think. Experiments done on fruit flies show that a gene regulates which gender's pheromone the being is attracted to. Theoretically it's possible that this same gene exists in humans, but as far as I have read on the subject, no testing has been done to confirm or disprove this. Cayte's point about stress levels in mice is something called epigenetics, where what happens to the mother while she is pregnant, such as what her diet is and what environment she is in. Another study was done that showed that disco music turned mice gay. What does this show? Mice easily turn gay apparently, but as for humans? again, no testing has been done that I have read which proves or disproves factors.

The possibility that it's a lifestyle choice exists but the variables associated with this can be many and hard to track, making it close to impossible to determine decisive factors.

There's a good quote by Albert Einstein that's something like, "Religion without science is blind and science without religion is crippled." Religion gives us a reason to investigate how things work and science gives us the ability to see things for what they truly are.

Ugh... just go to this link. I have a Chemistry final tomorrow (or rather, today), so I don't have time to debate this subject at the moment. I'll try to get back to y'all later.

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

His man, I have grown tired of your over-blown pompous manner. I simply extrapolated several of your ideas and applied it to my own idea of God's creation. I respect that you are a highly educated individual...but don't knock the education I've received. I never said that humans were evolving per se...aren't we made in God's image? I was referring to the natural world around us. The earth itself evolves through erosion and natural climate changes, and the animals that beautify our world constantly adapt to the survival of the fittest. If this isn't beautiful and part of God's plan, I don't know what is.

But rest assured, you are becoming irritating. You are arrogant, and you dismiss everyone else's ideas, including those on your side. You will never make any converts that way...I suggest you read a book called the "Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell. Maybe YOU'LL learn something about packaging information in a way that will be receptive to others...much like MK. I respect her and her ideas MUCH more than yours, because you constantly come back to us being evil and depraved and hell-bound. Who are you to judge? She is gracious and kind and refrains from touting her own virtues (which I can tell are many) and lets us know that all have made mistakes in the eyes of the Lord. When it comes to you, I am reminded of a biblical passage alluding to pharisees. See the connection? Go ahead, cast the first stone. Your ideas, sir, are no more infallible than ours.

Hey Alyssa,
would you mind moving this over to the Euthanasia post. This post will be dropped soon, and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your speaking up.

Thanks,
MK

Alyssa,

Thank you. You prove that I am being both salt and light. Salt is an irritant and disinfectant and light exposes and eliminates darkness.

I am not interested in becoming your friend. However, it seems, based on your responses that you need a true friend that will tell you the truth and not just want to be your playmate. I am only interested in you becoming a friend of God's. The only way this happens is if you hear the truth which is really the only thing that can set you free.

The Bible says to speak the truth in love (agape). Many misinterpret this to say speak the truth with love. Speaking the truth is an act of love itself because it is said with the good of the hearer in mind without regard to what the hearer would think about the truth teller.

I am not concerned about political correctness or about offending others. The Gospel is offensive inherently. You're telling people that if they don't change they're going to hell, and that's not a popular message. In fact, many so-called Christians think they're witnessing for Christ when all they're doing is faking it by trying to be nice, as if God doen't know their hearts. God is not pleased with cowardice.

So....all of you, who attack me for speaking the truth in love, I don't care. You're reations means that it's working. So, you namby-pamby, wishy-washy pro-lifers that won't take a firm stand and only want to make friends, sorry, won't change 'em. Let's see 34 years, 50,000,000 murders, nah, you better change your tactics.

The Pharisees denied the truth when He was standing right in front of them and then conspired to crucify Him. I have no desire to crucify Christ, although I took part in this when I committed and still commit sin. No, I love Him with my whole heart and that is why I spend so much time on this blog battling the lies and insanity being spewed by those who have no clue about God or His true nature.

However, it seems like many on this blog not only deny the existence of God, but cannot even fathom Jesus Christ. If you think I am going to listen to all the crap on this blog and not respond forcefully, you just don't have any clue to God's nature. In fact, if men would have been men and stood up to abortionists who used character assasination, political correctness and slick marketing techniques as weapons to legalize abortion, we wouldn't have had the resulting millions of murdered children.

And, there you go again, I never said I was perfect, and I always talk about my sin. This is something Pharisess never did since they were basing their hope on themselves and their own works and to admit wrong would have meant failure and spiritual siucide as well as jeopardized their careers. I am saved not because of what I know but because of Who I know. Without Him I would be lost forever. Can you admit that?

So, before you call me a Pharisee, I suggest you further study God's Word in context. With regards to casting the first stone, the prostitute accepted Jesus' admonishment to go and sin no more or her story would never been included in the text. In other words, while He forgave her sin and exposed the hypocrisy of those who were judging her, he gave her a stern warning not to sin anymore. That must have been important. So don't mimic what the devil does and tell half truth cliches when it comes to Biblical passages. I know and understand the Bible and I will oppose any and all that come against its principles and patterns. I will not allow packaged cliches and the lack of knowledge and applied wisdom to go unchallenged.

With regard to MK, I simply asked her not to put words in my mouth with regards to marriage. We may agree that abortion is murder or that "it's not a choice, it's a baby", however, if I am to maintain my integrity I must challenge any false statements or claims or assumptions made about what I have said, otherwise, I just shouldn't say anything.

May all of you find Jesus Christ, repent and be baptized and thus be saved from eternal damnation. (Acts 2:38)

His Man, you are not being attacked for what you say as much as how you say it. While people may not agree with your view, raining down fire and brimstone is not a suitable argument for most people, especially people who comment on blogs such as this. For what the truth is about religion I don't care, I have my religion and values and that is all that I need to remain content.

Abortion is an interesting subject because it really depends on what you define life as, and that fetuses have the potential for life. Advances in science has meant that the potential for life can be found in any cell of your body. Just the nucleus will do to create a new person. But that brings up the questions of if your clone would have your soul or a different one. My knowledge of the Bible is limited when it comes to soul allocation, so I can't really say what happens with clones. The way I see life is that its when the baby can survive outside of the womb on its own. Otherwise there's no distinguishable characteristics between an embryo and any other organ in the human body.

His Man you are absolutely not representing the truth in the Bible or in science. Time and again myself and others have pointed out problems wiAth your interpretation of the Bible, and you refuse to acknowledge what is right in front of your face. Rather than accept that maybe you are being too narrow-minded, you tell us that we are going to Hell because we disagree with you. That is not humility and it most certainly is not agape.

As for your post on entropy, you obviously have copied and pasted and have no idea what you are talking about. Take a physics class. Have you ever read Genesis? It does not give an organism by organism account of the order in which God created animals, but it does say that He made the animals before he made Adam and Eve. Since He saved the most complex for last, there is no reason to believe He did not start with the very basic amoeba and build on it to reach humans. And as for your saying that evolution is a facade, it is a fact that with the replications of DNA mistakes occur and alter the genome. This is how people get cancer. This is why HIV is mutating so fast that the drug companies cant keep up with it. This is evolution.

Wrong once again Samantha:

Where did I say you were going to hell? Did I paraphrase by saying. "May all of you find Jesus Christ, repent and be baptized and thus be saved from eternal damnation. (Acts 2:38)" Where's the hatred in that statement? Where are the words, "you're going to hell". Perhaps you haven't believed, repented and been baptized and are being convicted by the Holy Spirit...I can't read your mind? And how exactly did I say that, loudly, sadly, arrogantly, wimpily?

Qualifiers to define entropy, a rather simple concept: BSME, 1976. P.E., 1981, Aerospace Engineer, Construction Engineer, M.Th. 2006, Doctoral Candidate, 2007.

Aced physics, thermodymamics, polynomial diff. EQ, Vector Calculus, all that good stuff, etc. I know what entropy and enthalpy are, and conservation of energy. Newtow's Law's, Bernoulli's Equations, Control Systems, Dynamics, etc., etc., etc.

What's wrong with copying and pasting? You want to kill babies but condem me for cutting and pasting? Where's your sense of fairness? I'm not a walking dictionary you know. But I do how to think.

And you make my point. Why do we die? Seems to fly in the face of evolution, no? I mean, grow to a higher, more complex state only to end in death?

No, we die because the wages of sin is death, but, the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

Go, entropy, go.

Did you know that entropy spelled backwards is yportne?

Now, since you so eloquently brought up Genesis, let's talk about it:

Chapter 1:
1: Heavens and Earth
3:Light
6-8:Water above, water below, sky between
9-10: Land and Sea
11-12 Vegetation
14-18 Sun , moon and stars
20: Sea creatures, birds
24-25 Land animals
26 Man made in God’s image (not the image of a monkey)

Chapter 2:
21-22 Woman made from man

If evolution is true and the Bible is true how was a woman made from a man? Wouldn't they have had to evolve simultaneously and not one after the other as the Bible clearly states? And, if you're willing to contradict the Bible to make it fit your faith in evolution why can't you so easily contradict evolution to make it fit what the Bible says? We must be fair, mustn't we? Don't we get a choice too?

And Steve, you said: "Abortion is an interesting subject because it really depends on what you define life as". Sorry Steve, I have never claimed to define what life is. But God has and I'm just telling everyone what He says, not what I say. There's a difference. However, I can see how abortionists want to play God and redefine what God says about what life is.

Alright His Man, let's break this down.

First of all, I never claimed that you defined life as anything, I was just bringing up an idea about abortion, hopefully for a debate but I fear that this has strayed from it. But since it seems that I'm opening you up for this, what does God define life as? Again my knowledge of specific Biblical passages is limited.

Alright first thing I want to bring up. With all of your knowledge of the sciences can you explain how plants could survive in an environment without sun? Now granted light was created beforehand, but as you scientifically know plants need specific wavelengths to synthesize glucose, but without the sun these wavelengths aren't strong enough from other stars or light sources to provide enough energy. It says that God creates the plants, but it never says that maintains them.

Second comes from your reasoning for death in conflict with abortion. You stated that the reason we die is because of sin. Yet the viewpoint of most abortionists is that we cannot abort fetuses because they are innocent. How would innocent things die of sin when they have not sinned? And even if we are all born into sin, what about miscarriages? Fetuses that aren't even born aren't technically born into sin for obvious reasons.

Finally the reason why we scientifically die of old age. Every time your DNA is transcribed into RNA it is capped with a whole bunch of A nucleotides. This cap prevents the protein from getting sheared when it is run through ribosomes. As the DNA is transcribed more and more the cap gets shorter and shorter and eventually not all of the nucleotides are in the RNA that transcribes into proteins. Since the whole protein isn't synthesized and doesn't function properly. At that point death is inevitable because cell death results.

What you failed to realize in your copying and pasting is that entropy entails the total system. If you are looking at one tiny piece, of course the theory doesnt hold. If it was consistently true for any constraints you placed upon it, why would a simple sperm and egg join to form a multibillion celled organism that is infinitely more complex? Thats not exactly moving toward chaos, now, is it?