As one of those gays who doesn't believe in a "gay gene", I fantastically look forward to the day that it is discovered, because the pro-choice movement is going to have to figure some things out.

Because the movement officially (but quietly) stands for abortion on demand (any time during pregnancy for any reason--and yes, that includes the third-trimester for those of you having trouble grasping "any time"), when the gay gene is discovered you are suddenly going to have an influx of two different kinds of people: 1) pro-choicers who want to abort their children because they are gay and 2) pro-choicers who want to restrict abortion only in this one instance.

For some reason, it appears as if every gay and lesbian in this country supports abortion rights. It's as if there's a "abortion-supporter gene" included in the DNA structure of virtually every gay and lesbian I've ever met! Let's research it! I'm sure we'll come up with it! It must be there because I know they're born that way! Granted, most gays and lesbians (or just pro-choicers in general) are not NARAL-type pro-choicers, but many strongly feel that 1) abortion is needed to help women or 2) that it's not their problem so they're just going to ignore that issue.

And of course NARAL isn't going to budge on the issue. They have no problem killing blacks, why would they care about a few fags? "A fetus is a fetus, no matter their DNA structure." (A very nice motto to have when comparing human fetuses with that of dogs, as if that were relevant in any possible way in this debate.) This will be a moment when you'll want to pop some popcorn and grab your lawn chair: the pro-choicers will have the greatest schism of all time! *thunder and lightning crash*

While normal pro-choicers (hell, even me) can understand the desire of women who really feel as if they cannot care for a child and who are poor and single to abort a child as early as possible, a woman offing her gay fetus looks just a tad less noble when she's a suburbanite not wanting to deal with a lifetime of paying for baton-twirling lessons or expensive shoes. Indeed, she begins to look quite heinous.

But you gotta love the ladies at NARAL: this woman is still their amassment of courage and feminine power, shining with glorious light with choirs singing mystical chords around her! They adore any kind of woman who can kill her own child, via doctor or coat hanger, and will do anything--anything--to make sure she can get it without any kind of delay or harm to her person, including being able to pay for the thing herself.

The pro-choicers will be forced to actually take a public stand for what their position has been all along, and at least their position will be consistent: if you can kill the blacks or the unwanted, you should be able to kill the gays. While enraged pro-lifers are generally ignored by the media (unless of course they kill someone, in which case they are the epitome of all that is "pro-life") the media generally listens to groups of enraged gays. The feminists will get defensive, the gays will get defensive, and pro-lifers like me will have to stifle our giggles throughout the entire bout of drama. It will be glorious.

While it is obvious that aborting a baby because of their sexual orientation is quite deplorable, it's also worth noting that it's also just as disgusting to abort a child for any other reason. If a woman can abort for "cultural" reasons such as being looked down upon and called a "slut" in her community, why is it any less acceptable to abort the mother of a gay guy who doesn't want to deal with what could very well be a strong homophobic cloud in her community? We can argue all we want that such a sentiment shouldn't exist, but so also the stigma of the unwed mother shouldn't exist. Why is one an acceptable reason to abort while the other isn't?

From FoxNews:

Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again

A fruit fly.

While several studies find homosexuality in humans and other animals is biological rather than learned, a question remains over whether it's a hard-wired phenomenon or one that can be altered.

A new study finds that both drugs and genetic manipulation can turn the homosexual behavior of fruit flies on and off within a matter of hours.

• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.

While the genetic finding supports the thinking that homosexuality is hard-wired, the drug finding surprisingly suggests it's not that simple.

In fact, homosexuality in the fruit flies seems to be regulated by how they interpret the scent of another.

Read the rest here.

As someone who has left homosexuality, I find the idea of the gay gene to be ridiculous. Why there is such resistance to it being psychological is beyond me. Pedophilia is also a sexual preference, but it is illegal. Is that genetic, and if it is, should we be making it illegal? If it isn't genetic, but psychological, why are liberals so insistent that homosexuality is genetic?

I think that everyone's sexuality is defined by their upbringing and events that happened in their life, whether they are gay, straight or bisexual. I have known several straight people who have had a homosexual experience/desire at one point in their life, but went on to be straight. How is that genetic?

So far the arguments I have seen that homosexuality is genetic is...gay people are convinced that homosexuality is genetic. This is like the women who insisted that their breast implants made them sick. The fact that a homosexual who works at the GAP is convinced that he "was born that way" means absolutely nothing.