Gay DNA found

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: alchemize
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.

Another way to characterize such laws is that they simply protect people from being discriminated against based on how they are. Currently it is okay to sexually discriminate against gays in the absence of express law. When it isn't, it's because there's a law there to protect them.

Other deviant behaviors could include sexual - such as pedophelia, polygamy, bestiality are the primaries.

These all involve preferences where consent is not possible. So we balance what people can't change vs. harm to society, which is great. And the pedophile loses.

Polygamy is the most interesting, though. It definitely is harder to make an ethical argument against polygamy if you accept gays. But you can still outlaw it on the basis that polygamy harms society. For every person that has two wives, someone loses a chance at one.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
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.

This comment can probably be applied to a whole raft of things people worry about every day. I might start using it as a yard-stick for assess the things I am anxious about.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: 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

being a drunk will kill you and cause you to possibly hurt other people. being a homosexual (given that you use protection if you are sexually active) doesn't directly hurt anyone.

(preparing for "i'm smarter than you" remark - here we go.....)

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well that's good news. Now a cure can be found.

That assumes they think they need a cure for something other than the bigoted attitudes of aggressive homophobic assholes.

Originally posted by: Torghn
There's a genetic disposition to violence, but you still have control of your actions.

There's also a difference. Violence involves the possiblity of causing harm to others and oneself. Homosexuality, itself, is just benign social behavior. Why should you, or worse, government, give a sh8 who someone else decides to care about?

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
having homosexual sex is still a choice.

There are also alcoholic genes, doesn't mean that it's right to be a drunk.

As usual, you prove yourself to be a narrow minded hypocrite who can't practice the alleged "Christianity" he preaches when it comes to tolerance and acceptance of others.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I wonder what this will do with the Radical Religious Christain Right that is so Anti-Gay???

Doesn't this say that "God" has built in "Homosexuality" ???

They don't believe in Science and "Evolution" so this has to be Gods work. <shrugs>

Edit: Also this should give Gays the same "inalienable" rights as anyone else for marriage, health etc.
Wasn't the premise of the Christains that it was 110% Gay choice to be Gay and that was their reason for them being so against it???

I don't think it so much says that God built in homosexuality as it just goes to highlight that male and female genes aren't so different and that yes, sometimes they don't always assemble in the exact same order, leading some men to have the genes for being attracted to men and presumably the same goes true for women.

Where in the article was it mentioned gay men have "female genes" for sexual orientation? That's a half-assed assumption imo. The genes in question probably aren't directly coding for sexual orientation. They are simply associated with sexual orientation, and the association is possibly indirect.

No, no, no. The difference between male and female genetics is miniscule at best. We share a LOT of the same parts, obviously. That males have nipples shows this, as does the fact that a clit looks a whole lot like a tiny penis. Look at your nuts sometime and you'll see where, if the chemistry were just a bit different, your sack would have been labia. It's obvious enough that testicles would have been ovaries.

The article says that these genes appear to determine your sexual preference, and it's not a far stretch to see how they might be the same or close to the same between males and females, but with a slightly different bent. In this scenario, the male gets the "female" version of the genes and is thus attracted to MEN.

Try to THINK once in awhile, will you please?

Jason

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Gay DNA Found

by Steph Smith
365Gay.com
Chicago Bureau

January 28, 2005

(Chicago, Illinois) In the first-ever study combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, a University of Illinois at Chicago researcher has identified several areas that appear to influence whether a man is straight or gay.

UIC's Brian Mustanski, working with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes in the nucleus of cells of the human male.

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski, a psychologist in the UIC department of psychiatry and lead author of the study. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

His research will be published in the March issue of the biomedical journal Human Genetics.

The genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers were analyzed.

While earlier studies had focused solely on the X chromosome, one of the two sex chromosomes, the present study examined all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes in addition to the X chromosome. The other sex chromosome, called Y, was not explored because it is not believed to contain many genes.

Identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8 and 10 -- were found to be shared in about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study, compared to about 50 percent expected by chance. The region on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only if it was inherited from the mother.

"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation."

The University of California at San Diego, Pennsylvania State University, and the University of California at Los Angeles were also involved in the study which was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

©365Gay.com 2005

The second I seen the thread title, I knew

 

[classy]

Sex has and always will be a choice. People choose who they sleep with. Its that simple.

 

[phillyTIM]

people go with their desires, desire is not a choice

choice is this: when i was in the McD's bathroom today, I saw this sexy visitor from Boston (his baggage tag gave it away), and his penis as he took a piss in the nearby stall. I wanted to suck him off, but I chose not to because I want to remain faithful to my boyfriend.

That is a choice, but my desire still remains for dick.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well that's good news. Now a cure can be found.

God I do hope my sarc-O-meter is on the fritz today.

Why? Don't you think that there will be some gays who want to be "cured"? Would you deny their rights?

Don't you think there will be parents, who given the choice for some genetic switch-flipping before birth, would not want their children to be gay? Would you deny their rights?

Personally I am not a proponent of genetically engineering birth traits, like ones sex or their sexuality. I kind of leave it up to God the roll the dice and let a human develop as God obviously intended for them to develop. Whether it be gay or straight.

That is the whole part of the Fundie argument with homosexuality that I never could quite understand. It is all God's will as far as I am concerned. God made us all, don't you think it is possible he makes no mistakes and has a grand design for everyone? I think the Fundies who will have a lot of explaining to do and spend a great deal of time in purgatory when they meet their maker one day.

Oh, and here is a for the "denying of rights" tripe.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
people go with their desires, desire is not a choice

choice is this: when i was in the McD's bathroom today, I saw this sexy visitor from Boston (his baggage tag gave it away), and his penis as he took a piss in the nearby stall. I wanted to suck him off, but I chose not to because I want to remain faithful to my boyfriend.

That is a choice, but my desire still remains for dick.

woah - too much info guy. I sure hope your bf doesn't see this! someone might be in the doghouse...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I wonder what this will do with the Radical Religious Christain Right that is so Anti-Gay???

Doesn't this say that "God" has built in "Homosexuality" ???

They don't believe in Science and "Evolution" so this has to be Gods work. <shrugs>

Edit: Also this should give Gays the same "inalienable" rights as anyone else for marriage, health etc.
Wasn't the premise of the Christains that it was 110% Gay choice to be Gay and that was their reason for them being so against it???

I don't think it so much says that God built in homosexuality as it just goes to highlight that male and female genes aren't so different and that yes, sometimes they don't always assemble in the exact same order, leading some men to have the genes for being attracted to men and presumably the same goes true for women.

Where in the article was it mentioned gay men have "female genes" for sexual orientation? That's a half-assed assumption imo. The genes in question probably aren't directly coding for sexual orientation. They are simply associated with sexual orientation, and the association is possibly indirect.

No, no, no. The difference between male and female genetics is miniscule at best. We share a LOT of the same parts, obviously. That males have nipples shows this, as does the fact that a clit looks a whole lot like a tiny penis. Look at your nuts sometime and you'll see where, if the chemistry were just a bit different, your sack would have been labia. It's obvious enough that testicles would have been ovaries.

You made the comment that male and female genes aren't so different. How does this study shed light on the difference between male and female genes, in ANY WAY AT ALL? I don't see it, particularly as there were no female subjects in this study.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The article says that these genes appear to determine your sexual preference,
[/b]

No, the finding of the study is that certain genes are associated with sexual preference. It's a huge leap to jump from association to causation. Anything beyond association is speculation on the part of the researchers.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
and it's not a far stretch to see how they might be the same or close to the same between males and females, but with a slightly different bent. In this scenario, the male gets the "female" version of the genes and is thus attracted to MEN.
[/b]

As a matter of fact, it is a far stretch to assume that male homoseuxals have "female" versions of genes determining sexual orientation. And it's an assumption that is not supported IN ANY WAY by the findings of this study.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
people go with their desires, desire is not a choice

choice is this: when i was in the McD's bathroom today, I saw this sexy visitor from Boston (his baggage tag gave it away), and his penis as he took a piss in the nearby stall. I wanted to suck him off, but I chose not to because I want to remain faithful to my boyfriend.

That is a choice, but my desire still remains for dick.

Kinda graphic don't you think?
But what you stated is not true at all. Desires are to governed by ethics, morals, or laws. I can desire to sleep with a prostitute all I want, but if I do I violate my marriage, I violate my morals, and ultimately I violate the law. If you do what is right, you can sway your desires. Its ok to be driven by desire if its right, but if its wrong, you have to choose against your desire. Take this for instance, what if an alcoholic said I just desire to drink, but I have to drive home. If I use you analogy he will drink, despite the fact he would wrong.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
people go with their desires, desire is not a choice

choice is this: when i was in the McD's bathroom today, I saw this sexy visitor from Boston (his baggage tag gave it away), and his penis as he took a piss in the nearby stall. I wanted to suck him off, but I chose not to because I want to remain faithful to my boyfriend.

That is a choice, but my desire still remains for dick.

woah - too much info guy. I sure hope your bf doesn't see this! someone might be in the doghouse...

I was torn between replying to Alch or just letting the thread die quietly myself. I did not want to be the first to post after TIM for fear of being labled as the one on the bottom

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: classy
The second I seen the thread title, I knew

that you're falling in love with me?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
people go with their desires, desire is not a choice

choice is this: when i was in the McD's bathroom today, I saw this sexy visitor from Boston (his baggage tag gave it away), and his penis as he took a piss in the nearby stall. I wanted to suck him off, but I chose not to because I want to remain faithful to my boyfriend.

That is a choice, but my desire still remains for dick.

Kinda graphic don't you think?
But what you stated is not true at all. Desires are to governed by ethics, morals, or laws. I can desire to sleep with a prostitute all I want, but if I do I violate my marriage, I violate my morals, and ultimately I violate the law. If you do what is right, you can sway your desires. Its ok to be driven by desire if its right, but if its wrong, you have to choose against your desire.

Isn't that what he just said? He entertained the possibility of having a casual sexual encounter with a stranger (i.e., desire), but chose not to do that because of whatever committments he has made to his partner.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
people go with their desires, desire is not a choice

choice is this: when i was in the McD's bathroom today, I saw this sexy visitor from Boston (his baggage tag gave it away), and his penis as he took a piss in the nearby stall. I wanted to suck him off, but I chose not to because I want to remain faithful to my boyfriend.

That is a choice, but my desire still remains for dick.

Good for you to be able to post in here against such a backdrop of hate.

Not just here but from the Country especially those ruling it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: classy
Sex has and always will be a choice. People choose who they sleep with. Its that simple.

So??? This isn't a problem unless one of those involved is doing so involuntarily. The question is, WTF should it matter to anyone else if two adults of the same sex make that choice?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
people go with their desires, desire is not a choice

choice is this: when i was in the McD's bathroom today, I saw this sexy visitor from Boston (his baggage tag gave it away), and his penis as he took a piss in the nearby stall. I wanted to suck him off, but I chose not to because I want to remain faithful to my boyfriend.

That is a choice, but my desire still remains for dick.

So you are turned on by someone urinating or defecating?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
people go with their desires, desire is not a choice

choice is this: when i was in the McD's bathroom today, I saw this sexy visitor from Boston (his baggage tag gave it away), and his penis as he took a piss in the nearby stall. I wanted to suck him off, but I chose not to because I want to remain faithful to my boyfriend.

That is a choice, but my desire still remains for dick.

So you are turned on by someone urinating or defecating?

I don't think that is what he was saying.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: classy
The second I seen the thread title, I knew

that you're falling in love with me?

Yea right m&%$%%*r, lol

 

[phillyTIM]

the point is, i (like other gay men) am unconsciously turned on by men - while i love my boyfriend and choose to be with him. but there's no getting around the fact that i'm turned on whenever i see a guy.

so classy: you may choose to sleep with that prostitute, or not; but does it matter at all to you if that prostitute is male or female?

 

[phillyTIM]

Tommunist: i don't care if my boyfriend sees this or not, if he does then he'll know that i want to remain faithful to him. simple as that. i'm sure he gets turned on by seeing other naked men too.

 

[Grunt03]

If this is true and can be proved beyound dought, I wonder how it will change laws and regulations?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
people go with their desires, desire is not a choice

choice is this: when i was in the McD's bathroom today, I saw this sexy visitor from Boston (his baggage tag gave it away), and his penis as he took a piss in the nearby stall. I wanted to suck him off, but I chose not to because I want to remain faithful to my boyfriend.

That is a choice, but my desire still remains for dick.

So you are turned on by someone urinating or defecating?

I don't think that is what he was saying.

So you guys don't follow the "Looking Straight Ahead" rule while peeing in a public bathroom?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
people go with their desires, desire is not a choice

choice is this: when i was in the McD's bathroom today, I saw this sexy visitor from Boston (his baggage tag gave it away), and his penis as he took a piss in the nearby stall. I wanted to suck him off, but I chose not to because I want to remain faithful to my boyfriend.

That is a choice, but my desire still remains for dick.

So you are turned on by someone urinating or defecating?

I don't think that is what he was saying.

So you guys don't follow the "Looking Straight Ahead" rule while peeing in a public bathroom?

Um, I try avoid that whole scenario by using a cubicle.


I won't say I haven't snatched the occasional glance, tho.


EDIT to quell the rising hysteria: Yes, I think most gay guys would follow the look straight ahead rule. Maybe I should run a pole on ATOT to find out?