Gays are born gay, I'm convinced of it. - Page 3

Drake Tungsten · November 10, 2003, 14:55

Quote:

Yes, unfortunately for homophobes, it would be offensive.

It isn't just homophobes that might be offended at being called gay.

MikeH · November 10, 2003, 14:58

Why would it bother you if you didn't think being gay was in some way a bad thing? Otherwise it's just an incorrect fact.

Drake Tungsten · November 10, 2003, 15:03

It's also a pretty common insult, implying that a person is somehow less than a real man. It really doesn't bother me that much, but there are certainly plenty of straight men who, while not homophobes, would be offended if they were to be called gay.

Jon Miller · November 10, 2003, 15:05

it bothers when it affects peoples relationships with others

I at least have a problem with women not considering me when they think about possible partners

as such, if they think of me as gay for any reason (as in people call me gay) it bothers me since it makes it more likely that they won't consider me as a possible partner

Jon Miller

Jon Miller · November 10, 2003, 15:12

think about it this way

it is harmful to gays to repeatedly be told that they are straight and that it is just a phase

also it is harmful for straights to be told that they are really gay

Jon Miller

MrFun · November 10, 2003, 17:31

I agree Jon Miller -- when it is well known what that person's sexual orienation obviously is, there is no need to question it.

mindseye · November 10, 2003, 22:42

Well it used to be a pretty strong insult to be called a "n*gger-lover". It meant you were somehow less of a good white person. It could even affect your chances of finding a partner, a good job, or a nice home.

This kind of insult is best worn as a badge of honor.

mindseye · November 10, 2003, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller
as such, if they think of me as gay for any reason (as in people call me gay) it bothers me since it makes it more likely that they won't consider me as a possible partner

Jon, I can certainly understand you being bothered by anything that might hinder your ability to find a suitable mate. We all aspire to this goal.

Regarding finding a partner, I was wondering, how would you feel if your own government would not allow you (or anyone like you) to get married?

How about if the reason given was that some people just somehow felt it was wrong, or were uncomfortable with the idea of you getting married?

Datajack Franit · November 10, 2003, 22:55

I don't think that liking **** makes you less masculine than other men, instead, having two dicks at time on your body makes you two times more masculine in theory

Tuberski · November 10, 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Because the species probably wouldn't be around long enough for Lancer to have that choice, dipwad.

ACK!

Boy, you sure are good at debate, aren't you? That's the best you can come up with?

We have, in vitro and in utero fertilization now, so your argument, or lack thereof, doesn't hold water.

What if, in 50 years, homosexuality was the norm?

If your that slow, we are doing what is known as conjecture. Look it up.

ACK!

Jon Miller · November 10, 2003, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by mindseye

Jon, I can certainly understand you being bothered by anything that might hinder your ability to find a suitable mate. We all aspire to this goal.

Regarding finding a partner, I was wondering, how would you feel if your own government would not allow you (or anyone like you) to get married?

How about if the reason given was that some people just somehow felt it was wrong, or were uncomfortable with the idea of you getting married?

I am not sure if you have read my posts on this subject

I ahve been progay marriage for a long time

Jon Miller

MrFun · November 11, 2003, 03:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
I don't think that liking **** makes you less masculine than other men, instead, having two dicks at time on your body makes you two times more masculine in theory

And whoever equates sexual orienation with whether or not someone is feminine or masculine is VERY ignorant, indeed.

Walk up to a hyper-masculine, butch gay guy, and tell him that he's nelly as hell and see if you end up in the emergency room.

Ned · November 11, 2003, 04:36

As I said earlier, it being gay is genetic, we should be able to detect the genes. Actually wonder why set testing has not already been conducted.

But once we've isolated the gene, the next step would be whether parents would abort gay fetuses or manipulate their genes so they come out heterosexual.

In a short number of years, there may maybe no more gays being born in United States.

If, however, being Gay has nothing to do genetics, this will not be possible.

Mr. Harley · November 11, 2003, 07:01

Problem is we don't have any strong anatomical indicators for being gay, but there are statistical trends for certain traits, such as developement of the hypothalmus. I just did a quick search, and found a very nice analysis by a student.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~morgan/sex_s01.htm

To summarize it pretty much, we aren't sure. I still stand by my statement though that it's not per se a choice. I cannot become physically turned on by morbidly obese females (300 plus pound, 140 kg roughly), even though I have some as friends. That's not a choice, I just can't. Yet there are porn sites catering to those with that taste. Yet I preferred to date tallish, slender women. My wife is a well built 4'10". Preference versus choice. I rest my analogies

.

Quote:

Sexual Orientation: The Genetic Search for an Answer
by Brian Urmanita

Discovering the origins of homosexuality has proved to be an elusive task so far. As of present there has been no evidence found that suggests a conclusive link between genetic causes of male and female homosexuality. Any evidence that has been uncovered has not given us clues as to the causes but instead has provided researchers a clearer path to follow the link between sexual orientation and biological structures involved. The quest to find a genetic substrate for homosexuality has yet to be determined. It is generally agreed that the etiology of homosexuality is combination of psychosocial and biological components.

For instance, a researcher in 1991 found that there are structural differences of the hypothalamus between heterosexual and homosexual men (LeVay, 1991). The hypothalamus is thought to be the locus of control for sexual orientation, reproductive behavior and gender identity as stated by Swaab and Hofman (1995). In specific, small cluster of neurons in the hypothalamus, called the INAH 2 cells, were found to be smaller in gay men and heterosexual women than in heterosexual men and homosexual women (1991). This provided the first evidence that brain structures are dimorphic by sexual orientation and not just sex (1991).

In rats, this dimorphism can also be observed, specifically called the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area (SDN-POA) of the hypothalamus as cited by Swaab and Hofman (1995) but exhibits no difference between heterosexual and gay men. Swaab and Hofman (1995) then go on to dispute LeVay's claim that this particular area of the hypothalamus contributes to homosexuality by pointing out that this hypothesis has yet to be scrutinized thoroughly. By attempting to identify differing structures in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual individuals, researchers then can begin to understand the genetic underpinnings that drive these variations.

What psychologists have discovered repeatedly is that sexual orientation does run in families (Bailey et al., 2000). A recent twins study conducted in Australia found that concordance rates for sexual orientation of monozygotic (MZ) twins to be 20% for men and 24% for women (2000). This is a much lower finding than what Bailey and Pillard found as cited by Bailey (2000) when their research lead them to find a concordance rate of 47% and 48% for men and women, respectively. Simply put, it seems that as researchers change their criteria of how to rate sexual orientation, the results also vary. Yet other studies find a greater relationship between genetic expression and sexual orientation. Miller (2000) cites evidence that brothers of gay men were four times as likely to be gay as well. While this does not take into account influential environmental factors, it does point out a statistically significant finding hinting at a genetic role in sexual orientation.

Miller takes a more theoretical approach to this conundrum of sexuality by discussing the role of genes from an evolutionary standpoint (2000). It seems highly unlikely that a genetic mechanism for homosexual could survive when its consequences do not lead to reproductive success. Miller then takes the position that it may be a certain summation of feminine alleles (variations of genes) that heterosexual males inherit, increasing chances of reproductive success while male homosexuality is the result of receiving a greater number of feminine alleles (2000).

Whatever the theoretical discussion may be there has been some linkage of sexual orientation to a genetic locus. Hamer et al. (1993), find that the chromosome Xq28 has shown promise in displaying some connection to homosexuality. If this were the case then males would receive this exclusively from their mothers meaning that homosexuality would be passed maternally to their offspring. Further research has
found that the Xq28 chromosome does share an association to homosexuality but only within males and under strict experimental design (Hu, et al., 1995). Additionally, these stringent guidelines did not provide irrefutable proof that even when all the proper criteria were met the Xq28 locus was not necessary expression of a homosexual phenotype (1995).

In conclusion, while we see the first hints of a genetic basis to appear it is still very tentative. Even those scientists who are involved are critical of their own findings leaving rich opportunities to further the understanding of the genetic roots of sexual orientation. What scientists have now are dimly lit leads that for the most part give them a means to look further into the physical components of this complex characteristic of humanity.

References
Bailey, M.J., et al., (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twins sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78. 524-536.

Hamer, et al.,(1993). A linkage between DNA markers and the x chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261. 321-327.

Hu, S., et al.,(1995). Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome xq28 in males but not females. Nature Genetics, 11. 248-256.

Miller, E.M. (2000). Homosexuality, birth order and evolution: Toward an equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality. Archive of Sexual Behavior, 29. 1-14.

LeVay, S., (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 25. 1034-1036.
Swaab, D.F., & Hofman, M.A., (1995). Sexual differentiation of the human hypothalamus in relation to gender and sexual orientation. Trends in Neuroscience, 18. 264-270.

Jennifer Beauharnois
May 05, 2001 Psychobiology

Theoretical Arguments Concerning the Origins of Sexual Orientation

The causes of sexual orientation (heterosexual and homosexual) have managed to provoke intense scientific interest, inspiring both empirical studies and various theories over the years. Setting aside the social and ethical reasons for interest in the cause of sexual orientation leads us to examine the legitimate and scientific reasons for interest in the issue. Sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of human sexuality, and furthermore it is empirically linked to some aspects of gender roles, for example childhood play behavior and gender identity.

Empirical research about the origins of sexual orientation has been rooted, for the most part, around the "nature-nurture controversy". Two main approaches are motivated by this dichotomy. The first, is often called the "neurohormonal" theory (Elis & Ames, 1987), and studies the possibility that homosexual people have been subject to atypical levels of hormones during critical periods of brain development (perhaps the second month of pregnancy until the fifth month). In support of this theory, LeVay (1991) found that for one hypothalamic nucleus, homosexual men are more similar to heterosexual women than to heterosexual men.

The problem with the above theory is in the means of measurement to support it. Animal studies have been done on the hormonal manipulation of pregnant subjects. Males that were exposed to much-
decreased levels of testosterone early in life have as adults shown sexual interest in other males. Females exposed to extra testosterone during that period show an increased probability of attempting to mount sexual partners in the way that males typically would do. The problem is that as a result of the hormonal manipulation abnormalities in genital development were detected (Adkins-Regan, 1988). In addition, what is true of rats may not be true of humans. Hormonal influences on sexual behavior vary even between one primate species and another. LeVay's discovery of similarities between brain structure of homosexual men and heterosexual females may be the most important finding motivated by this perspective.

The second theoretical approach has focused on whether sexual orientation is familial, and if so, whether familial aggregation is attributable to genetic or shared environmental factors. Both male and female homosexuality appears to run in families; studies of unseparated twins have suggested that this is primarily due to genetic rather than familial environmental influences (Bailey & Bell, 1993). Furthermore, there is some evidence that a gene on the X chromosome (Hamer, Hu, Magnuson, Hu, & Pattatucci, 1993) influences male sexual orientation. Miller (2000) notes that there's a large body of literature trying to explain how genes for homosexuality could have survived. One of the arguments against genetically inherited homosexual orientation is that a gene controlling such inheritance would be lost from the population because of the lack of reproduction resulting fromhomosexual acts (Ruse 1981). While offspring are not produced in same-sex encounters, homosexual men and women can and do have children of their own.

So then the argument turns to reasons how a gene(s) for homosexuality would survive and how it would be expressed as the phenotype. Miller (2000) states that attraction to the same sex is hard to imagine evolving from scratch. Yet since homosexuals do find themselves attracted to males, but not to females, it follows that brains do somehow reliably separate males from females. It is likely, that the mechanism for attraction to males is present in the human genotype, but it is normally turned on only in females and in homosexuals.

Miller adds that sexual orientation is just one of a number of traits that normally separate females from males and that it is likely that all or most of the sex-specific traits are activated (or turned off) by a single hormonal mechanism, which is occasionally partially activated in males producing homosexuality. Miller states that "for a variation of a gene (an allele) which frequently produces an effect in some individuals (homosexuals) that's opposed to reproductive success to survive over the long run, the allele must also contribute to reproductive success when in other individuals (heterosexuals)"(p. 323). Miller presumes that two alleles at the same location produce
homosexuality, but one allele produces a desirable effect in heterosexuals.

One popular sexual orientation theorist, Daryl Bem (2000), examines the specific correlates of homosexuality to help explain how genetic influences effect our behavior. Bem recognizes that developmental and etiological theories of sexual orientation must try to account for the strong association that has been studied between the two traits of sexual orientation and childhood gender nonconformity. Bem's theory "exotic becomes erotic"(EBE theory), specifies that biological factors may cause childhood gender nonconformity and that gender-nonconforming children tend to feel different from other children of their sex, and as a result (through a rather complicated
pathway), eroticize those feelings.

The EBE theory notes that traits, which are evidently genetic (like temperaments and aggression), predispose children to enjoy some activities more than others. Children will prefer to play with peers who share their activity preferences. Those children who prefer sex-atypical activities and opposed-sex playmates are referred to as gender nonconforming. It is these children who eventually eroticize the strange feelings for the same sex. Bem emphasizes that his model isn't intended to describe and inevitable, universal path to sexual orientation but a modal path followed by most men and women in a "gender-polarizing culture" like ours (p.535).

The data now available suggest effects of genes, prenatal hormones, and differences in brain organization, but in no case are we absolutely certain how these factors contribute, how much of the variance they control, or how they interact with the environment. Because it is unethical to do specific experiments on humans dealing with environmental variables, hormonal manipulation, and certain gene-knockout techniques, we are still far away from understanding the relationship and influence of the "nature-nurture" dichotomy on sexual
orientation.

References:

Adkins, S., & Regan, E., (1998). Sex Hormones and sexual orientation in animals. Psychobiology, 16, 335-347.

Bailey, M., & Bell, P., (1993). Familiality of female and male homosexuality. Behavior Genetics, 23, 313-322.

Bem, D.,(2000). Exotic Becomes Erotic: Interpreting the
biological correlates of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 531-547.

Elis, L., & Ames, A., (1987) Neurohormonal functioning and sexual orientation: A theory of homosexuality-heterosexuality. Psychological Bullitin, 10, 233-258.

Hammer, H., Hu, S., Magnuson L., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, L., (1993, July) A linkage between DNA markers on the X- chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321-327.

LeVay, S., (1991) A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 253, 1034-1037.

Miller, E., (2000) Homosexuality, birth order, and evolution: Toward an equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29,1-31.

Ruse, M., (1981) Are there gay genes? Sociobiology and homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 6(4), 5-33.

continued

Mr. Harley · November 11, 2003, 07:04

Article continued:

Quote:

Greg RickelGreg Rickel
Psych 325
Project 2
Dr. Morgan

Research Methods Used In Determining Genetic Influence On Sexual Orientation

For many years scientific research has tried to
determine the specific influences that cause a variety of
personality traits and human behaviors. What is the level
of influence genetic endowment plays in comparison to the
social environment? This question has been toiled over
through a broad range of research, but as technological
advances in biological testing methods increase the ability
to understand this question becomes clearer and clearer.
One specific trait or behavior that has recently been given
a relatively large amount of attention is that of sexual
orientation. For researchers exploring this topic, various
methods are being used to discriminate between the age-old
questions of nature vs. nurture. These methods include
genetic screening and testing on self reported homo- and
heterosexuals, extensive brain autopsies of deceased
individuals known to be gay compared with heterosexual
females and males, as well as twin and adoption studies.
This paper will serve as a brief overview of a variety of
methods used as well a statement about an advantage or
disadvantage of the method.
An important aspect of sexual development occurs
prenate, in which certain hormones must be present or
absent in order for the individual to develop 'normally'.
To some, these 'critical periods' are the basis for sexual
orientation. The influence of sex appropriate hormones at
specific times is thought to determine the masculinity or
femininity of an individual. Therefore researches measure
the different hormone levels of babies at known critical
periods to determine baseline levels and aberrant levels.
One problem with this type of research is that it must be
correlated with information about the individuals sexual
functioning, which will not become apparent for many years.
Within that time social influence may play a big role.
Another method used in a vast amount of research based
in determining genetic influence of behavior is the use of
twin and adoption studies. The theory is that since
monozygotic twins share one hundred percent of their
genotype, then their behaviors, actions, and personalities
should be strikingly similar. Usually these types of
studies are combined with similar studies on dizygotic
twins, who share fifty percent of their genes, and regular
siblings, who also share fifty percent of their
genotype. When correlated with studies that try to rule
out environmental influences, such as twin adoption
studies, a high concordance can be seen among individuals
who grow up apart yet present the same personality traits
and behaviors. Thus it is possible to speculate on the
influence of environmental influence by looking at
concordance rate. This method is currently the most widely
used and accepted form of determining the influences on
behavior, though the specific disadvantages to this type of
design lie within the particular research ventures biases.
More advanced, and still skeptically new, are seen in
research adventures employing biotechnical methods.
Various gene research is on the rise due to the discovery
of the human genome, and much of it is fairly
unsubstantiated as of yet. Though a lot of attention has
been given to the study of the genes on the X chromosome.
An early 1993 research venture by Hamer et al. used self-
reported pedigree analysis combined with what is known as
PCR amplification. This process involves retrieving DNA
samples from self-reported homosexuals and their homosexual
siblings. The DNA samples are "amplified", more or less
stretched out, and matched onto each other. Theoretically
homosexual siblings should carry the same DNA sequence on
the same gene. The advantage to this is that is seems very
effective at ruling out environmental factors, except if
the particular gene one is looking at has no contribution
to sexual orientation.
A variety of other biotechnical manipulations are
used, but the current ethical paradigm controlling research
does not allow this to occur on human subjects. So in
place various higher order organisms, such as monkeys,
apes, or rats, are used and correlations with human
behavior are made based on the relative genetic closeness
that the particular organism shares with us. The methods
include "blocking" genes during development so they do not
appear in the phenotype or genotype as a way of pinpointing
which genes cause which behaviors, introducing chemicals
into pinpointed areas during critical developmental periods
to try and produce homosexual behavior, as well as
recording neural activity from internal electrodes cemented
to the animals skull in order to understand which areas are
active during certain behaviors. The main disadvantage to
these methods is that the correlation between animal
behavior and human behavior does not seem to be a plausible
one to be making. As humans our genetic code and brain
structures may be similar to animals, but in reality they
are still slightly different, thus accounting for the
behaviors observed in humans that other organisms do not
seem carry out.
The most interesting research method used is to
autopsy the brains of individuals who are known to gay and
comparing the autopsies of heterosexual individuals. In
theory, and seen in some research reports, specific
structures within the brain will be a different size
allowing one to speculate as to that structures
contribution to behavior. For instance feminized males
have been shown to have enlarged corpus callosums, much
similar to heterosexual females yet quite different from
heterosexual males. Other areas have been shown to have
differences, but the causes of these size differences are
highly interpretive. Since the individuals are dead there
is not direct way of telling whether these changes are
specifically biological.
In general, research on behaviors such as sexual
orientation has carried various political and social
opinions as to specific contributions. Personal agendas of
those performing the research will ultimately determine how
a design will turn out. The current biotechnical designs
are highly speculative and unsubstantiated. There is quite
a bit of room for growth in fields employing these designs.
"The proof for the involvement of genes in a human
behavioral trait must ultimately consist of chromosomal
mapping of the loci and isolation of the relevant DNA
sequence" [1].

[1] Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N, Pattatuci AML. A
linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male
sexual orientation. Science 1993;261:321-327.

[2] Lewis R. Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications(3rd
edition). Mcgraw-Hill; Boston, MA: 1999.

[3] Carlson NR. Physiology of Behavior(6th edition). Allyn
and Bacon; Boston, MA: 1998.

mindseye · November 11, 2003, 07:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller

I am not sure if you have read my posts on this subject

I ahve been progay marriage for a long time

Jon Miller

No offense, Jon, I was just curious. There are so many frequent posters on this forum, and so many issues, it's hard for me to remember who supports what.

Hey, at least I didn't ask if you were GAY.

Solly · November 11, 2003, 09:55

I don't mind people being gay as long they i) keep it hidden, and ii) don't act/talk camp.

MikeH · November 11, 2003, 10:28

Is it alright to act and talk camp if you aren't gay?

Solly · November 11, 2003, 10:35

Why anyone would do such a thing is beyond my comprehension.

rah · November 11, 2003, 10:53

The sounds of tolerance.

Brought to you by Park Avenue.

Do you get a discount when you have 3+ white sheets dry cleaned?

Solly · November 11, 2003, 11:00

Tolerance...Are you implying there is something negative to "tolerate" Rah?

MikeH · November 11, 2003, 11:09

Yeah, your bigotted comments.

TheStinger · November 11, 2003, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
As I said earlier, it being gay is genetic, we should be able to detect the genes. Actually wonder why set testing has not already been conducted.

But once we've isolated the gene, the next step would be whether parents would abort gay fetuses or manipulate their genes so they come out heterosexual.

In a short number of years, there may maybe no more gays being born in United States.

If, however, being Gay has nothing to do genetics, this will not be possible.

This would be a dilema for the religious right anti abortionists.

Do they hate homosexuals more than abortion.

MrFun · November 11, 2003, 16:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Park Avenue
I don't mind people being gay as long they i) keep it hidden, and ii) don't act/talk camp.

And here comes PA, to present more bigoted nonsense.

Ned · November 11, 2003, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger

This would be a dilema for the religious right anti abortionists.

Do they hate homosexuals more than abortion.

I expect that proof that being gay is genetic will cause a revolution in religious doctrine and a significant increase in both legal and de facto acceptance of gays.

Still, I believe the average parent would abort a gay fetus, just as they would a fetus with a genetic desease or that was deformed. We may not yet be to the point protrayed in the movie Gattaca, be we are moving in that direction.

MrFun · November 11, 2003, 19:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

I expect that proof that being gay is genetic will cause a revolution in religious doctrine and a significant increase in both legal and de facto acceptance of gays.

Still, I believe the average parent would abort a gay fetus, just as they would a fetus with a genetic desease or that was deformed. We may not yet be to the point protrayed in the movie Gattaca, be we are moving in that direction.

Homosexuality is NOT a defect!

Drake Tungsten · November 11, 2003, 21:17

Quote:

Why anyone would do such a thing is beyond my comprehension.

Because acting and talking camp is simply fabulous, silly-pants!

Quote:

Homosexuality is NOT a defect!

Well, if homosexuality is a biologically pre-determined trait, it would be hard to argue that it isn't a defect. A gene that produces an abnormal brain structure that leads the sufferer to be attracted to reproductively useless mates is a defect if I've ever heard of one.

That being said, there is no conclusive proof that homosexuality is mainly the result of genetic factors, so I'll reserve my judgement for the time being.

Bereta_Eder · November 11, 2003, 21:25

gays are propably born. in schools there are little kids, no more than 5 years old who keep playing with the girls instead of the boys.
no social preconstructions have time to build in 5 year olds, so...

as to wether it's a defect, who cares. nature has its laws and they've worked nicely so far. below 10% of a popualtion is gay, that doesnt "endanger" the human species (sic) like it needed gays to be endagered from.

we live (well most of us) in a free and tolerant society so I really dont see any problem people being happy with whom they choose to be happy.

one thing thats irritating or funny is that most gays want to think that other people are gay too. that's just stupid

Ned · November 12, 2003, 02:09

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

Homosexuality is NOT a defect!

Being female is not a defect, and yet some parents abort females because they prefer to have males.

I truly believe that most parents (except for the regligious) would choose to abort a gay fetus. If you seriously doubt this, and I do not think that you do, why don't we conduct a poll here on Apolyton.

Q1: Assuming that being gay is genetic and that DNA analysis could determine that a fetus was gay, would you abort the fetus?

Q2: If you are gay, would your parents have preferred you to not be gay?

Rogan Josh · November 12, 2003, 06:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Q1: Assuming that being gay is genetic and that DNA analysis could determine that a fetus was gay, would you abort the fetus?

I would, although I would only abort if it was still very early.