Gay DNA found

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: alchemize
How do you explain Ann Coulter?

The real question is, how do you explain Ann Coulter?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
is there also probably a set of genes for gay pedophilia?

or in other words, how can nature justify michael jackson's existence?

Is there a set of genes for heterosexual pedophilia? That's a more pressing concern, I would have thought, afterall it DOES represent the most common form of sexual abuse of children. I wonder, also, if there is a set of genes for rape. A heterosexual man rapes a woman every 18 seconds in the USA.

I wouldn't have even bothered fielding this guy's obviously leading questions. The subject of pedophilia and rape don't really have anything to do with this. If there is any connection between SOME homosexuals and pedophilia it is most likely environmental in nature. Perhaps having an overbearing society telling you the way you feel is wrong your whole life could mess up your head.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I'm not sure. I must admit, if the option was there I would definitely choose gay over heterosexual kids. On average I think the benefits of homosexuality far outweigh the disadvantages. If there are multiple genetic and early hormonal factors involved in the development of sexual orientation, this choice won't come up any time soon, anyway. The thought of a world without gay people is terribly sad to me. I also think it is sad that heterosexuals are so incapable of appreciating the many gifts, talents, attributes gay people bring to our society.

I'm not trying to slam on homosexuals but WISHING for gay children seems almost cruel. I don't know what world you live in but being gay isn't exactly easy. We don't live in a very gay friendly World right now.

It seems like you are making some pretty broad generalizations about homosexuals here as well. Break down the "advantages" to one sexual orientation over another. I have no problems with homosexuals in any sense but I see far more advantages in being heterosexual from a personal perspective. I'll try to start a list of advantages to homosexuality...

1. these people won't be increasing the population
2. less competition for me

I can't see any advantages from the individuals point of view - I mean if you are gay that's just the way it is. There is no reason not to live a happy and productive life; I'm just saying that given the choice it seems being straight would be a lot easier on the individual as things are now.

I don't necessarily think the easiest path in life is always the best. Gay people are forced to be outsiders. That can be burden and a gift. It does give you a particular vantage point from which to view the mainstream. We get to see 'you' for what you really are - hateful, bigoted creeps masquerading as decent people. I would never have had that clarity of vision if I was heterosexual. In fact, I'd probably be a bigot just like most people.

I don't need to be homosexual to see that humans are hatefull creeps masquerading as decent people.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I'm not sure. I must admit, if the option was there I would definitely choose gay over heterosexual kids. On average I think the benefits of homosexuality far outweigh the disadvantages. If there are multiple genetic and early hormonal factors involved in the development of sexual orientation, this choice won't come up any time soon, anyway. The thought of a world without gay people is terribly sad to me. I also think it is sad that heterosexuals are so incapable of appreciating the many gifts, talents, attributes gay people bring to our society.

I'm not trying to slam on homosexuals but WISHING for gay children seems almost cruel. I don't know what world you live in but being gay isn't exactly easy. We don't live in a very gay friendly World right now.

It seems like you are making some pretty broad generalizations about homosexuals here as well. Break down the "advantages" to one sexual orientation over another. I have no problems with homosexuals in any sense but I see far more advantages in being heterosexual from a personal perspective. I'll try to start a list of advantages to homosexuality...

1. these people won't be increasing the population
2. less competition for me

I can't see any advantages from the individuals point of view - I mean if you are gay that's just the way it is. There is no reason not to live a happy and productive life; I'm just saying that given the choice it seems being straight would be a lot easier on the individual as things are now.

You think the easiest path in life is always the best? Gay people are forced to be outsiders. That is a gift and burden. It does give you a particular vantage point from which to view the mainstream. We see you for what you really are - hateful, bigoted creeps masquerading as decent people. I would never have had that clarity of vision if I was heterosexual. In fact, I'd probably be a bigot just like you. There are other benefits, but I'm not sure I want to discuss them with you or others on this forum.

So you seem a little defensive here. Tommunist asked a reasonbale question. A homosexuals life is harder than a heterosexuals. Asking what the benefits are is not bigoted. He was asking to try and understand your point of view.

No, he is not a bigot, and I apologize to Tommunist for that comment.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I'm not sure. I must admit, if the option was there I would definitely choose gay over heterosexual kids. On average I think the benefits of homosexuality far outweigh the disadvantages. If there are multiple genetic and early hormonal factors involved in the development of sexual orientation, this choice won't come up any time soon, anyway. The thought of a world without gay people is terribly sad to me. I also think it is sad that heterosexuals are so incapable of appreciating the many gifts, talents, attributes gay people bring to our society.

I'm not trying to slam on homosexuals but WISHING for gay children seems almost cruel. I don't know what world you live in but being gay isn't exactly easy. We don't live in a very gay friendly World right now.

It seems like you are making some pretty broad generalizations about homosexuals here as well. Break down the "advantages" to one sexual orientation over another. I have no problems with homosexuals in any sense but I see far more advantages in being heterosexual from a personal perspective. I'll try to start a list of advantages to homosexuality...

1. these people won't be increasing the population
2. less competition for me

I can't see any advantages from the individuals point of view - I mean if you are gay that's just the way it is. There is no reason not to live a happy and productive life; I'm just saying that given the choice it seems being straight would be a lot easier on the individual as things are now.

You think the easiest path in life is always the best? Gay people are forced to be outsiders. That is a gift and burden. It does give you a particular vantage point from which to view the mainstream. We see you for what you really are - hateful, bigoted creeps masquerading as decent people. I would never have had that clarity of vision if I was heterosexual. In fact, I'd probably be a bigot just like you. There are other benefits, but I'm not sure I want to discuss them with you or others on this forum.

So you seem a little defensive here. Tommunist asked a reasonbale question. A homosexuals life is harder than a heterosexuals. Asking what the benefits are is not bigoted. He was asking to try and understand your point of view.

No, he is not a bigot, and I apologize to Tommunist for that comment.

gracias - apology accepted senor.

 

[dmcowen674]

Could this report be the reason why Bush backed off (somewhat) pushing for Anti-Gay Constitutional Ammendment???

 

[piasabird]

I guess Alcoholism is just a genetic abnormality. Yeah Right.

All they can really say is some genes give people a predisposition where they might choose a gay lifestyle just like they said for alcoholism. The question is, do we give into our natural urges or are we human beings who can control ourselves. I think the true test in life is to rise above the natural man and become more than we are.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess Alcoholism is just a genetic abnormality. Yeah Right.

All they can really say is some genes give people a predisposition where they might choose a gay lifestyle just like they said for alcoholism. The question is, do we give into our natural urges or are we human beings who can control ourselves. I think the true test in life is to rise above the natural man and become more than we are.

That implies that being homosexual is wrong. Alcoholism is because it impaires people's judgement causing them to harm other people and make poor choices. How is homosexuallity the same?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Could this report be the reason why Bush backed off (somewhat) pushing for Anti-Gay Constitutional Ammendment???

doubtful. So now they think its a physical disorder as oppsed to a mental disorder.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess Alcoholism is just a genetic abnormality. Yeah Right.

All they can really say is some genes give people a predisposition where they might choose a gay lifestyle just like they said for alcoholism. The question is, do we give into our natural urges or are we human beings who can control ourselves. I think the true test in life is to rise above the natural man and become more than we are.

What a bunch of garbage. Are you predisposed to being heterosexual or are fully heterosexual? Why don't you rise above your natural urges and stop eating?

 

[Starbuck1975]

."

agree, we do need to fix heterosexual men, & now we will finally be able to do something about their aggression, macho posturing, tendency to start wars, and of course their poor dress sense.

Aggression - You mean there are never fights at gay bars?
Macho Posturing - Don't forget those narcissistic gay men that congregate in gyms.
Start Wars - Alexander the Great engaged in homosexual sex, and he was quite the little fire starter.
Poor Dress Sense - Well thanks to shows like Queer Eye, even us straight guys can dress fabulous.

"We're here, we're not queer, but we're close, get used to it."

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess Alcoholism is just a genetic abnormality. Yeah Right.

All they can really say is some genes give people a predisposition where they might choose a gay lifestyle just like they said for alcoholism. The question is, do we give into our natural urges or are we human beings who can control ourselves. I think the true test in life is to rise above the natural man and become more than we are.

Why don't you rise above your natural urges and stop eating?

Or having sex for that matter. That's about as natural a ugre as you can possibly find. Why doesn't he rise above that too? Ah, yes, let us all rise above or natural urges and stop having sex. I'm sure that would make the world a better place.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Can someone remind me who the regular here was who said that when proof for gayness being hardcoded came out they would support gay rights?

It does raise interesting questions about future genetic engineering and child selection.

That was me, Infohawk, sort of. I don't think I exactly said that, I said I think my opinion would probably move 180 degrees on a particular issue, that it isn't necessarily "behavior based" but genetic. I'd have to do a bit of searching to find my comments on that - there are quite a few "gay" threads. My opinion is adapted by the things I learn.

Does this mean each person needs to prove that they are a "genetic" gay and not a "choice" gay in order to have those unique "rights". Do we also need to find out what other deviant behaviors might be genetically pre-disposed? Which of those deserve legal protections? And I use deviant in the statistical sense.


And of course, I'm waiting for TuxDave's answer to my question.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Could this report be the reason why Bush backed off (somewhat) pushing for Anti-Gay Constitutional Ammendment???

No, in scientific terms it's an interesting finding, but until the results are replicated most scientists will be cautious/ skeptical re: the findings and implications of this study. Also, even if the finding does hold up, it's almost certainly only a small part of the reason why some people are gay and other people are heterosexual. I would guess that Bush is lacklustre on the amendment either because he doesn't need it strategically now he's re-elected, or because Rove has crunched his numbers and decided it's not the winning bet he thought it was.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Can someone remind me who the regular here was who said that when proof for gayness being hardcoded came out they would support gay rights?

It does raise interesting questions about future genetic engineering and child selection.

That was me, Infohawk, sort of. I don't think I exactly said that, I said I think my opinion would probably move 180 degrees on a particular issue, that it isn't necessarily "behavior based" but genetic. I'd have to do a bit of searching to find my comments on that - there are quite a few "gay" threads. My opinion is adapted by the things I learn.

Does this mean each person needs to prove that they are a "genetic" gay and not a "choice" gay in order to have those unique "rights". Do we also need to find out what other deviant behaviors might be genetically pre-disposed? Which of those deserve legal protections? And I use deviant in the statistical sense.

:thumbsup:

I have been surprised with a few turnabouts lately.

So am I picking up correctly that you are not towing the RRRR and Bush Regime Anti-Gay stance???


Also someone posted about the Alcohol Gene, actually a few years ago they found that there is a genetic coding that runs in family's causing many to also be suspectiple to becoming Alcoholics.

Their metabolisms handle the alcohol differently and also sensory different reactions in the brain.

Do we start screening out, taking the rights of alcohol tolerant deficient family genes?

Do we start screening out, and keeping out the rights of Gay susceptible family genes?

Where does it end or even start for that matter?

If I was RRRR I would begin to wonder of God is teasing or playing a trick on me.

Unfortunately it's not a joke.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: alchemize
My opinion is adapted by the things I learn. Does this mean each person needs to prove that they are a "genetic" gay and not a "choice" gay in order to have those unique "rights". Do we also need to find out what other deviant behaviors might be genetically pre-disposed? Which of those deserve legal protections? And I use deviant in the statistical sense.

I think it would be odd to make people prove they are gentically gay. It would be much simpler just to assume people who behave gay are actually gay and that they can't change it and that thus they don't deserve to be persecuted.

What other deviant behaviors are you talking about? It depends on which one. Gayness doesn't have a very big impact on people that aren't scared of gays.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: alchemize
My opinion is adapted by the things I learn. Does this mean each person needs to prove that they are a "genetic" gay and not a "choice" gay in order to have those unique "rights". Do we also need to find out what other deviant behaviors might be genetically pre-disposed? Which of those deserve legal protections? And I use deviant in the statistical sense.

I think it would be odd to make people prove they are gentically gay. It would be much simpler just to assume people who behave gay are actually gay and that they can't change it and that thus they don't deserve to be persecuted.

What other deviant behaviors are you talking about? It depends on which one. Gayness doesn't have a very big impact on people that aren't scared of gays.

Nobody deserves to be persecuted for "how they are". But I also don't believe laws need to be put into place that specifically protect them that aren't already in place. Our country has already established very broad categories of protection - race, religion, ethnicity, disability, veteran status, and age. I don't think every sub-group that comes along with a gripe gets special legal protections.

Other deviant behaviors could include sexual - such as pedophelia, polygamy, bestiality are the primaries. Other behavior-oriented have been discussed in othe threads, such as smoking, drug or alcohol use, morbid obesity, violent tendencies, etc. All of these could be linked to genetics. Perhaps serial killers are genetically inclined. Perhaps rapists are. Perhaps some people are genetically inclined to be lazy. Perhaps I'm genetically inclined to be addicted to this internet forum. I demand my rights!

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: alchemize
My opinion is adapted by the things I learn. Does this mean each person needs to prove that they are a "genetic" gay and not a "choice" gay in order to have those unique "rights". Do we also need to find out what other deviant behaviors might be genetically pre-disposed? Which of those deserve legal protections? And I use deviant in the statistical sense.

I think it would be odd to make people prove they are gentically gay. It would be much simpler just to assume people who behave gay are actually gay and that they can't change it and that thus they don't deserve to be persecuted.

What other deviant behaviors are you talking about? It depends on which one. Gayness doesn't have a very big impact on people that aren't scared of gays.

Nobody deserves to be persecuted for "how they are". But I also don't believe laws need to be put into place that specifically protect them that aren't already in place. Our country has already established very broad categories of protection - race, religion, ethnicity, disability, veteran status, and age. I don't think every sub-group that comes along with a gripe gets special legal protections.

So it should be illegal to fire someone based on their choice of religion (i.e., you can't fire someone solely because they are a christian) but it should be fully legal to fire someone for no other reason than their sexual orientation (i.e., a gay business should be able to give an employee the sack if they find out that employee is secretly heterosexual)??

I've asked you this question before, you didn't give me an answer.

Originally posted by: alchemize
Other deviant behaviors could include sexual - such as pedophelia, polygamy, bestiality are the primaries.

Why don't you include heterosexual rape in this list of deviant behaviors? It is after all far more common than pedophilia or bestiality.

 

[alchemize]

So it should be illegal to fire someone based on their choice of religion (i.e., you can't fire someone solely because they are a christian) but it should be fully legal to fire someone for no other reason than their sexual orientation (i.e., a gay business should be able to give an employee the sack if they find out that employee is secretly heterosexual)??

I've asked you this question before, you didn't give me an answer.

For certain organizations, yes they should be able to fire someone based on their choice of religion. Should a catholic organization be required to retain a Satanist secretary? And I believe the same applies to sexual behavior as well for many religious organizations.

Why don't you include heterosexual rape in this list of deviant behaviors? It is after all far more common than pedophilia or bestiality.

I did include that in my list. Read again.

Perhaps serial killers are genetically inclined. Perhaps rapists are.

Rape is more generally a violent crime than a sexual crime. Where pedophelia is rarely violent. That's why I grouped it with serial killers.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
everyone would agree that being a drunk is a bad thing.

not everyone would agree that homosexual sex is a bad thing - I have to wonder why you care what other people do in their bedrooms.

(I figured this was pretty obvious).

I'm not sure everyone would consider being a drunk a bad thing. Take, for example, DRUNKS. They obviously don't think it's all that bad or they wouldn't be drunks!

In any case, whether something is moral or not has NO relationship to how many people *agree* on it. Morality is an *objective* measurement of virtue or vice that can be observed empirically. This whole opinion based morality crap is a sham and an afront to logic.

Jason

 

[drewshin]

Well that's good news. Now a cure can be found.

how do you change a dna sequence?

 

[Rainsford]

This doesn't seem to be changing as many minds as I would have thought. I don't know about the rest of you, but the way I see this is that it shows that gay peoples' attraction to their own gender is just like my attraction to women. Now maybe this is just me, but even if I didn't like homosexuality before, seeing that their preference is just like mine would make it much harder for me to dislike them.

I also like how one of my friends put this, a problem isn't really a problem if you can make it go away by not worrying about it. Case in point, even if I don't worry about muggers, I can still get mugged if I walk around New York late at night in a bad area. But if I don't care about gay people, they don't affect me or the society I live in in the slightest. That should tell you something, I think.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I guess Alcoholism is just a genetic abnormality. Yeah Right.

All they can really say is some genes give people a predisposition where they might choose a gay lifestyle just like they said for alcoholism. The question is, do we give into our natural urges or are we human beings who can control ourselves. I think the true test in life is to rise above the natural man and become more than we are.

You're right, but I don't know that that necessarily means you should deprive yourself of certain things that will make you happy. Being gay harms no one, save perhaps yourself if you are a slut, but the same can be said of being a *hetero* slut. Consenting adults should have the right to behave according to their own desires as long as they harm no unwilling third party.

Jason

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: alchemize

So it should be illegal to fire someone based on their choice of religion (i.e., you can't fire someone solely because they are a christian) but it should be fully legal to fire someone for no other reason than their sexual orientation (i.e., a gay business should be able to give an employee the sack if they find out that employee is secretly heterosexual)??

I've asked you this question before, you didn't give me an answer.

For certain organizations, yes they should be able to fire someone based on their choice of religion. Should a catholic organization be required to retain a Satanist secretary? And I believe the same applies to sexual behavior as well for many religious organizations.

Yes, religious organisations are the exception, and no anti-discrimination legislation enacted in the US has required churches to employ, marry, etc. gay people. Small businesses, e.g., less than 15 employees, are also often exempt in these types of legislation.

Is it OK for a large corporation like Walmart to sack someone for no other reason than they are Christian? Gay?

Is it OK for the government to sack someone, say a policeman or other public servant, for no other reason than they are gay?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: alchemize
For certain organizations, yes they should be able to fire someone based on their choice of religion. Should a catholic organization be required to retain a Satanist secretary? And I believe the same applies to sexual behavior as well for many religious organizations.

You don't see the difference? Religion is a choice; gayness isn't. There's no christian DNA.