If you don't know the cause how can you assert the result?
The epi-marker defect is all but proved. What does that say about the APA?
First, we both acknowledge how stupid your assertions were that;<quoted text>
Do you know what's funny? If you google the words "epi-marker defect" or "epi-marker mistake" (with quotations) the only results you'll get are your comments on topix.
There aren't any scientists who use those terms. You made them up.
And what do you think will happen "if" someone finds out how to determine if an embryo has the potential to be gay--to have a "birth defect", as you like to say?
Obviously there's not going to be a "cure"--at least not for several generations.
Will you suddenly become an advocate for abortion? Will you want to kill the gay embryos? Will you demand that they be hacked to pieces and sucked out of their mother's wombs?
Bottom line, you're an idiot... You wouldn't know an "epi-marker" if it jumped up and slapped you in the face.
Get a life. Stop pretending to be a scientist.
1. There is no pursuit of understanding homosexuality by real professionals.
2. The undiagnosed condition of homosexuality can be arbitrarily defined as 'normal'.
Second, it is interesting that you decry my terminology, but fail to post what scientists DO say about epi-marker defects. Let me help you;
epigenetics-study-may-explain- how-homosexuality-is-passed-on -through-epi-marks
"A new study shows that homosexuality may be the result of epigenetics, which regulates how genes are expressed using epi-marks. These sex-specific triggers perform helpful tasks, such as regulating masculinization or feminization of fetuses during development. Normally, epi-marks vanish and aren't inherited by the next generation, but in some cases, a stubborn epi-marker from a parent may stick around and get passed on to an opposite-sex child, instilling Mom's fashion sense in Raul or Dad's baritone in Suzi. Lead researcher William Rice hopes to prove his theory in the next six months."
Normally, the use of the word 'normally' precludes a distinction between normal and abnormal. A defect or mistake. Would you prefer I use the word abnormal?
Third, you make the very mistake you falsely accuse me of, trying to be a scientist. I simply and accurately quote what they say. You on the other hand, foolishly attempt to predict when a cure will occur (an admission of defect by the way).
Fourth, I have already noted before, a cure will likely come. The vast majority of people do not want their children born with defects. Moreover, they would like grandchildren, so the one thing you are right about is the use of abortion or some other means to prevent it. However, I also have noted that abortion is not a choice for Christians. In essence, we are the gays ONLY hope for existence!
Which begs the question, why are you being so mean to us?
Finally, VV, do you understand how stupid all your gay twirling will look when homosexuality is understood and even cured? Think about it. The historical response to homosexuality by every culture vindicated. All the people, faiths and institutions gays maligned exonerated. Do you think there may be even a violent reaction by people who were deliberately deceived? Pretty sobering...