Dean is not nearly as intelligent as some have suggested - smarter than Bush my ass.

With the way things are going for Dean he may not get the nomination after all (or will have to fight to the convention to get it). Which is better for the GOP - a problem candidate like Dean who gets the nomination early or a brawl all the way through the convention which may result in a more reasonable candidate?

I cannot believe that no one over at Democratic Underground has figured this out. Dean has got to be the creation of evil genius Karl Rove. Dean is handsdown the most unhinged, unlikeable, unelectable major party candidate of my adult lifetime (a good while). This 'God made me do it' rationale alone should disqualify him from serious consideration for any elected office above, say, small town city councilman.

Of course, Rove could not have really created the Dean candidacy, but maybe Howard is his unwitting stooge. Dean thinks that it's his unconventionality and innovative money raising skills, but actually Rove is behind the scenes greasing the skids and 'helping' him win the nomination?

Someone should plant this meme over at DU. It may be fun to see where it goes.

I've thought the guy was seriously unhinged for a while now.

And it seems interesting, somehow, that the Dean candidacy is mostly a product of Lefty Internet Geekdom; these days, their guy's constant foot-in-mouth episodes don't seem to say much for their intelligence, eh?

Ha! Burn!

Guys, it's nothing all that tricky: Karl Rove is using his mind-control beams to control Dean through the latter's fillings.

Vote Kucinich. End the mind control.

When the "gay gene" theory first made national headlines a decade ago, I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who opined that expectant couples in the future would be conducting genetic testing of their fetuses for any abnormalities, and then aborting the babies if they tested positive for the "gay gene," just as some do today when more life-threatening birth defects are discovered.

Given Dean's current support for both abortion and the "gay gene" theory, and his likely support of pre-natal genetic testing as well, it would be interesting to see how he would respond to the conundrum of putting all three of those things together.

John,

I hate that Rush gets to things before I do. I've been saying since they mapped the genome that if they ever isolated a "gay gene" that gays would eventually be genetically irradicated.

It's a play too: Twilight of the Golds.

There is no one "gay" gene, but obviously there are genetic combinations that make homosexual behavior more likely, as scientists can create gay fruit flies through genetic manipulation.

As homosexual behavior is not sinful, the accurate point about the circular nature of arguing that mere existence negates the possibility of sin, is moot.

"God made me do it", when said by the sane, is merely the crude form of: My belief in God, and about what God is like, and what God would want me to do, led me to act in this way.
If that disqualifies anyone for higher office, then only certified atheists and hypocrites qualify.

After all, WWJD ?

Genetic manipulation that eliminates any genetic basis for homosexual behavior seems ethical, since such behavior cannot add anything, for good or ill, to the human genome.

I am surprised no one had mentioned what THX 1138 said above: that the certainty of there NOT being a single gay gene may not preclude a congenital predisposition for homosexuality. (Although I would not say, like him, that this is obvious. From what I know, this notion is being surmised from some correlations -- may be causalities? -- between chemistry/tissue & organ structure and some types of behavior. However, I would not say anything broader or deeper than that is conclusive.

I am, nonetheless, loving seeing the elites that support Dean having to explain all of this to the public -- which may still remain unsympathetic because they insist of the belief that being human is more than being sugars and fatty acids.

There is another possibility: That there is not a gay gene/s, and god did not invent homosexuals, but that their existence is genetic -- the result of developmental errors.

Now, this is something that only two politicians in the country ought to be aware of -- Frist and Dean.

I wouldn't vote for hms for president, and I damn sure wouldn't go to him for medical treatment.

The evidence is nearly overwhelming that homosexuality is ontological, and is just one of many cases where phenotype and genotype don't match.

Homosexuality is a function of privacy, nearly unheard of in cultures without any. Obviously it is controllable, whether a mere whim or a biological urge.

Name examples.

Recently I cited the book "Falkland Road," which has, among other things, gorgeous pictures of men consorting with other men in Indian whorehouses. No privacy to speak of in India.

It also has pictures of women whores, washing themselves after work, in the street, all public.

It also appears to exists in animals, who I am sure are not trying to be "cool" and get their own reality show.