@averagejoe1said You suggest that the UN-religious left would NOT be keen on a baby that did not fit its proper makeup? You know, to be like you dependents, be totally equal to everyone around them. To be losers, etc? To lean towards socialism, to get stuff from people who have stuff?
You suggest libs would abort such a baby, that did not meet those standards?
I'm just asking here, that is, after all, what you are saying.
So, your argument is, "Why stop there? Why not include all the stinking liberals?"
@metal-brainsaid That is because of epigenetic changes. Being gay might be hereditary and I am open to a gay gene being found, but there are clearly other genetic factors we don't completely understand.
@metal-brainsaid You have no reason to believe that. Why would it take more than one person to post what I do? Do you think it is impossible for one person to be this informed? Is that it?
@suziannesaid See? You keep doing this right, wrong, right, wrong dance.
There must be someone else in there with you.
What is your opinion?
Other than saying I am wrong you have not said what I am wrong about.
You keep doing this ambiguous dance. You just hate everything I stand for so you object to anything in a knee jerk fashion. You don't even know why, do you?
@sonhousesaid Would the religious right be so keen on right to life for THAT fetus?
The theologically correct answer is that being born gay is God's way of telling you to live celibately. You don't choose to be gay, but can choose not to act on it. In layman's terms, it's ok to be gay just so long as you don't have sex with anyone of the same gender. Ergo, even if it were possible to know that a certain foetus would grow up to be a gay adult, it should not be aborted; it should be given the chance to live a celibate life and find redemption through Jesus.
@metal-brainsaid What is your opinion?
Other than saying I am wrong you have not said what I am wrong about.
You keep doing this ambiguous dance. You just hate everything I stand for so you object to anything in a knee jerk fashion. You don't even know why, do you?
Look here, just because you don't that doesn't mean that I don't.
@suziannesaid Look here, just because you don't that doesn't mean that I don't.
LOL!
I know what you don't know. I made a great point...about nothing. Just like you did.
Ask yourself what you have accomplished. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Make up some more BS.
@moonbus Tell that to the priests who are ALSO supposed to be celibate, the fact is sex is a powerful drive and there is not a thing you can say or do that will change that.
Same drive in straights, gays, bi's and there is nothing on Earth will change that fact.
You might as well stop horses from wanting to eat grass.
@moonbussaid The theologically correct answer is that being born gay is God's way of telling you to live celibately. You don't choose to be gay, but can choose not to act on it. In layman's terms, it's ok to be gay just so long as you don't have sex with anyone of the same gender. Ergo, even if it were possible to know that a certain foetus would grow up to be a gay adult, it should not be aborted; it should be given the chance to live a celibate life and find redemption through Jesus.
Gay people have sex with the opposite sex more often than you think. Why else would there be a hereditary factor? Gay people are obviously reproducing. They cannot do that by having sex with only the same sex.
Gay people are obviously having sexual relations with the opposite sex. The whole notion that they are not reproducing is nonsense. Pure nonsense!
@metal-brainsaid Gay people have sex with the opposite sex more often than you think. Why else would there be a hereditary factor? Gay people are obviously reproducing. They cannot do that by having sex with only the same sex.
Gay people are obviously having sexual relations with the opposite sex. The whole notion that they are not reproducing is nonsense. Pure nonsense!
26 Jun '22 15:491 edit
If an unborn was known to become gay?
Back to Top