81.bb.dnainternet.fi> c859e4cc   
   XPost: rec.audio.opinion, alt.religion.scientology   
   From: jennconductsREMOVETHIS@mac.com   
      
   In article <5u1e76hjc3mb3j37qdu0ujvqein31atsr7@4ax.com>,   
    flipper  wrote:   
      
   > On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > >In article ,   
   > > flipper  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn   
   > >>  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >In article <9htd76lulep5ob2l6fibsbgjout0d2271l@4ax.com>,   
   > >> > flipper  wrote:   
   > >> >   
   > >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn   
   > >> >>  wrote:   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> >In article <4c76d51a.153638770@news.eternal-september.org>,   
   > >> >> > spam@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:   
   > >> >> >   
   > >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore   
   > >> >> >>  wrote:   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >> >Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:   
   > >> >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >> >> Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with   
   > >> >> >> >> defective   
   > >> >> >> >> genes   
   > >> >> >> >> (the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by   
   > >> >> >> >> artificial   
   > >> >> >> >> means,   
   > >> >> >> >> or otherwise.   
   > >> >> >> >   
   > >> >> >> >I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How   
   > >> >> >> >about   
   > >> >> >> >bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.   
   > >> >> >> >   
   > >> >> >> >Graham   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >> A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty   
   > >> >> >> quickly,   
   > >> >> >> one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >> d   
   > >> >> >   
   > >> >> >That might be true if gay people never parented children.   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> Not really because it could be recessive.   
   > >> >   
   > >> >True.   
   > >>   
   > >> There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,   
   > >> if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence   
   > >> in rats by manipulating population density.   
   > >>   
   > >> Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,   
   > >> assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent   
   > >> environmental triggers, even if dominate.   
   > >>   
   > >> That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it   
   > >> could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one   
   > >> really knows.   
   > >   
   > >>   
   > >> The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.   
   > >   
   > >As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.   
   > >;-)   
   >   
   > So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any differing   
   > opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.   
      
   Oh, I've heard the legal arguments.  Why would you jump to the   
   conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be moronic?   
      
   >   
   > I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines   
   > normally-contradictory terms,   
      
   I know the word.  I was doing a "play" on the word.   
      
   > because it is.   
   >   
   > Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a   
   > heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual', so   
   > the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual heterosexual   
   > relationship."   
      
   Have you looked up the definition of monosexual?  I happen to be   
   monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)