8fab7591   
   XPost: rec.audio.opinion, alt.religion.scientology   
   From: spam@spam.com   
      
   On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:37:28 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to   
   Reason!"  wrote:   
      
   >On Aug 27, 12:23 am, s...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>  wrote:   
   >> >In article <4c76d51a.153638...@news.eternal-september.org>,   
   >> > s...@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.   
   >>   
   >> You don't need it to be "never". More rarely work quite nicely in   
   >> evolution.   
   >   
   >What about that whole random thing?   
      
   That's part of it. As long as you have two populations, one of which   
   breeds better than the other, the worse will eventually die out. I   
   think we can agree that homosexuals have a poorer breeding record than   
   heteros. This observation alone should be enough to convince that   
   homosexuality isn't an inherited trait.   
      
   d   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)