Gay DNA found

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: 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.

It isn't tripe, its a perfectly valid statement. If a "cure" was created, some people would desire it pure and simple.. Your shows your hypocrisy that is typical of many liberals.

Let's expose it some more. So answer this question, you are against genetically engineering birth traits, are you pro-abortion rights?

I answered your question. No. I am not for genetic engineering AS IS APPLIES to ones gender or ones sexuality. Genetic engineering to fix inborn errors of metabolism for example, I would consider as it would save lives and improve on the quality of life of those babies born. As for the other, I am pro-keeping the government and fundies out of peoples lives and/or legislating morality, abortion is no exeption.

Thank you. You have no problems giving parents the right to terminate a fetus, or tweak around genetics that are politically approved by you, but you just don't want anyone messing around with it's genetics that would upset your apple cart of your liberal base.

That's the funny thing about exposing hypocrisy - the hypocrite never sees it. And the beauty of the rabid left - with an absence of morals, you can literally justify anything.

Here, we can create a checklist of what we can discover about genetics, and your options:

Unwanted perfectly healthy heterosexual fetus: Terminate at will. After all, we've spent the last 60 years saying this is a mother's right!

Oh sh!t...now we figured out some more options. Here, we'll change the position:
Crossgendered fetus: Nope, illegal to change genetically, and against the law to terminate based on discriminatory practices
Down's Syndrome: Terminate at will, or correct. Parent's option (suggested method is to terminate however, too easy to convince to vote republican)
Gay fetus: Nope, illegal to change genetically, and against the law to terminate based on discriminatory practices


I think that summarizes your position.

No alch, your whole argument with me is mooted by the fact that I do not subscribe to your notion that a fetus has any rights. I support engineering kids whose parents want them to be born where it applies to fixing mongolodism or MD, things of that nature. I don't support yuppies who want to have all boys or all girls. I don't support fundie hypocrites who want to have kids engineered so they won't be gay. People's egos are not a reasonible excuse for messing with genetics IMO. Have fun chasing your tail on this issue. The hypocrite is you.

Keep playing.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Gaard
You and he would probably be a little closer on this, alchy, if you would use a word other than 'cure'.

Heh

well, Down's Syndrome is a genetic - "mismatch". What would you call it when you change the genes on a Down's Syndrome fetus to be one that doesn't have it? I see no difference.

A child with Down's Syndrome has not choice. They are a protected class according to legislation and the constitution. What's the difference?

Or is being gay a choice?

 

[alchemize]

No alch, your whole argument with me is mooted by the fact that I do not subscribe to your notion that a fetus has any rights. I support engineering kids whose parents want them to be born where it applies to fixing mongolodism or MD, things of that nature. I don't support yuppies who want to have all boys or all girls. I don't support fundie hypocrites who want to have kids engineered so they won't be gay. People's egos are not a reasonible excuse for messing with genetics IMO. Have fun chasing your tail on this issue. The hypocrite is you.

Keep playing.

Ah, I see. So you would have no problem with parents running a genetic test to determine if the child was genetically pre-dipsosed to be gay, then aborting that child for that reason alone. Correct? You just wouldn't want them to "fix/correct/cure/change" that genetic pre-disposition.

 

[Schrodinger]

If you are already tinkering with nature whats the difference if you remove the probability of "high chance of being homosexual" (if it were possible) ?

Are there any reasons why a parent SHOULDN'T be able to choose the sexual orientation of their child? Its their body to control, right?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Gaard
You and he would probably be a little closer on this, alchy, if you would use a word other than 'cure'.

Heh

well, Down's Syndrome is a genetic - "mismatch". What would you call it when you change the genes on a Down's Syndrome fetus to be one that doesn't have it? I see no difference.

If you're being serious, then I don't think you should be involved in this debate.
If you're kidding, then...good one?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Gaard
You and he would probably be a little closer on this, alchy, if you would use a word other than 'cure'.

Heh

well, Down's Syndrome is a genetic - "mismatch". What would you call it when you change the genes on a Down's Syndrome fetus to be one that doesn't have it? I see no difference.

If you're being serious, then I don't think you should be involved in this debate.
If you're kidding, then...good one?

I'm being semi-serious.

OK how about something like hermaphrodite then. Instead of Down's Syndrome.

I see no difference.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Gaard
You and he would probably be a little closer on this, alchy, if you would use a word other than 'cure'.

Heh

well, Down's Syndrome is a genetic - "mismatch". What would you call it when you change the genes on a Down's Syndrome fetus to be one that doesn't have it? I see no difference.

If you're being serious, then I don't think you should be involved in this debate.
If you're kidding, then...good one?

I'm being semi-serious.

OK how about something like hermaphrodite then. Instead of Down's Syndrome.

I see no difference.

Be right back.

(Gaard quick goes over to google.com)

 

[Gaard]

Ok, I'm back. From what I read (granted it wasn't much), hermaphroditism is a disorder.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: alchemize

No alch, your whole argument with me is mooted by the fact that I do not subscribe to your notion that a fetus has any rights. I support engineering kids whose parents want them to be born where it applies to fixing mongolodism or MD, things of that nature. I don't support yuppies who want to have all boys or all girls. I don't support fundie hypocrites who want to have kids engineered so they won't be gay. People's egos are not a reasonible excuse for messing with genetics IMO. Have fun chasing your tail on this issue. The hypocrite is you.

Keep playing.

Ah, I see. So you would have no problem with parents running a genetic test to determine if the child was genetically pre-dipsosed to be gay, then aborting that child for that reason alone. Correct? You just wouldn't want them to "fix/correct/cure/change" that genetic pre-disposition.

I don't think they should test for gay, period. If they find a cure for AIDS that a mother is going to pass down to her unborn child, fix it before hand if you can. I think the jury is still out on whether or not "gay" is genetic and something that can be fixed to begin with. How do you fix who you are attracted to. How would you explain bi-sexuals then. Seems to be a mixture of choice and genetics. I don't see homosexuality as a disease so I don't feel it needs fixing.

 

[petrek]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: petrek

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: petrek
"...several areas that appear to influence...found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked"
In other words, this study is no different than the previous ones.

Dave

It is different from previous studies, in that areas of genetic code (which haven't been examined before in relation to sexual orientation) have been found to be associated with sexual orientation in males. An association doesn't necessarily indicate causation. The researchers don't claim to have proven these genes are responsbile for sexual orientation: "Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation." It's an exciting finding, tho. It remains to be seen if this study will replicate.

Considering that the start of the article states "In the first-ever study combing...", I knew the specific study was different. I was pointing out that even though nothing has changed in regards to proof, as noted by the use of the words, appear, and appeared in the article, the headline/s read "Gay DNA found". A pattently false statement. I don't like being lied to, and stating "Gay DNA found" is a blatent lie.
Thus, this study is no different than the previous ones.

Dave

Get off your high horse. The title is accurate enough. A certain form of gene has been discovered to be linked with male homosexuality. Gays are more likely to have this gene, than expected by chance. That means it is legitimate at this point to call it a "gay gene" (or gay genes, or gay DNA). Whether these genes cause homosexuality, or are linked in some other way to sexual orientation, doesn't negate the fact that the genes are found in proportions higher than expected by chance in gay males (which is the justification for calling them gay DNA). Your charge the title is a blatant lie is inaccurate.

According to this study, who's intended purpose was to find a gay gene, 40% of the gays didn't have it. Thus saying "Gay DNA found" is an obvious lie.
That being said, I'd be interested to know whether the same identical DNA sequences would be found in the same percentages quoted in this study if random homosexuals were chosen, and also what percentages would be found if you did the same experiment using families with 2 or more heterosexual brothers.

Dave

 

[dmcowen674]

Good thread.

Bottom line is there either should be NO discrimination

or

Logan's Run style tactics instituted to weed out all undesirables either already alive or in womb.

 

[Tab]

If you value any part of your body, don't ever look at my tool...

Remeaber, always go to the stall farthest away from the other indiviual...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tabb
If you value any part of your body, don't ever look at my tool...

Remeaber, always go to the stall farthest away from the other indiviual...

:thumbsup:

 

[Gaard]

I think if I could know in advance if my child was going to be gay, and if I were given the power to make it so that he was born straight, I would do so. I think he would have a better chance at having a happy life if he were straight. Not that he couldn't be happy if he were gay, but I think the chances of happiness would be greater if he weren't. I could be wrong.

And I should probably say this to clarify, the reasons for opting to alter any gay gene would have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality being 'immoral'.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think if I could know in advance if my child was going to be gay, and if I were given the power to make it so that he was born straight, I would do so. I think he would have a better chance at having a happy life if he were straight. Not that he couldn't be happy if he were gay, but I think the chances of happiness would be greater if he weren't. I could be wrong.

Me too, but not even if happiness weren't a question. I would want to my kid to be more like his parents in the liking the other sex department.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think if I could know in advance if my child was going to be gay, and if I were given the power to make it so that he was born straight, I would do so. I think he would have a better chance at having a happy life if he were straight. Not that he couldn't be happy if he were gay, but I think the chances of happiness would be greater if he weren't. I could be wrong.

And I should probably say this to clarify, the reasons for opting to alter any gay gene would have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality being 'immoral'.

I guess that's a more acceptable form of eugenics, you don't have to liquidate gay people, just prevent them from being born in the first place. it will be far easier to eliminate homosexuality, than to eliminate homophobia, no doubt.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think if I could know in advance if my child was going to be gay, and if I were given the power to make it so that he was born straight, I would do so. I think he would have a better chance at having a happy life if he were straight. Not that he couldn't be happy if he were gay, but I think the chances of happiness would be greater if he weren't. I could be wrong.

Me too, but not even if happiness weren't a question. I would want to my kid to be more like his parents in the liking the other sex department.

I'd agree that heterosexual parents aren't really qualified to raise a gay kid, and I think in an ideal world gay kids would be removed from their heterosexual parents at an early age, and raised by people capable of understanding and loving them.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: petrek

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: petrek

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: petrek
"...several areas that appear to influence...found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked"
In other words, this study is no different than the previous ones.

Dave

It is different from previous studies, in that areas of genetic code (which haven't been examined before in relation to sexual orientation) have been found to be associated with sexual orientation in males. An association doesn't necessarily indicate causation. The researchers don't claim to have proven these genes are responsbile for sexual orientation: "Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation." It's an exciting finding, tho. It remains to be seen if this study will replicate.

Considering that the start of the article states "In the first-ever study combing...", I knew the specific study was different. I was pointing out that even though nothing has changed in regards to proof, as noted by the use of the words, appear, and appeared in the article, the headline/s read "Gay DNA found". A pattently false statement. I don't like being lied to, and stating "Gay DNA found" is a blatent lie.
Thus, this study is no different than the previous ones.

Dave

Get off your high horse. The title is accurate enough. A certain form of gene has been discovered to be linked with male homosexuality. Gays are more likely to have this gene, than expected by chance. That means it is legitimate at this point to call it a "gay gene" (or gay genes, or gay DNA). Whether these genes cause homosexuality, or are linked in some other way to sexual orientation, doesn't negate the fact that the genes are found in proportions higher than expected by chance in gay males (which is the justification for calling them gay DNA). Your charge the title is a blatant lie is inaccurate.

According to this study, who's intended purpose was to find a gay gene,

The purpose was not to find "a" gay gene. No scientist beleives there is a single gay gene. The purpose of the study was to identify genetic correlates, and possibly genetic determinates, of sexual orientation in males.

Originally posted by: petrek
40% of the gays didn't have it. Thus saying "Gay DNA found" is an obvious lie.

We refer to a gene that is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer as a "breast cancer gene". Similarly, it is legitimate and reasonable, IMO, to refer to a DNA sequences associated with homosexuality as "gay DNA".

It is silly to expect 100% of gay people to carry this "gay DNA". Most genes work their effects in terms of increasing, but not guaranteeing, the probabilities of certain biological outcomes, there are very few single genes that will produce a guaranteed, black or white, externally visible outcome like blue eyes versus green eyes.

DNA was examined from families with 2+ gay brothers. There were no control families with no gay children in the study. So it is not clear at what level these sequences of identical DNA occur in the population. If these DNA sequences occur in the population at levels of 20% or 5%, would you then feel comfortable labelling these DNA sequences as "gay DNA" I wonder?

The study is ground breaking because
1) it's the first in this area to look at the entire genome
2) DNA segments on chromosomes other than the sex chromosomes (X, Y) are found to be associated with sexual orientation. All the other research in this area has looked at the X chromosome to date.
So the study is not "just like other studies" at all.

Originally posted by: petrek
That being said, I'd be interested to know whether the same identical DNA sequences would be found in the same percentages quoted in this study if random homosexuals were chosen, and also what percentages would be found if you did the same experiment using families with 2 or more heterosexual brothers.

Yes.

 

[slash196]

Please...everyone...just stop being stupid. The human brain is an unfathomably complex instrument, and we can't even begin to grasp the complexities involved in its function. So don't try. And PLEASE change the topic title, it's misleading and misrepresents the actual post.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: slash196
Please...everyone...just stop being stupid. The human brain is an unfathomably complex instrument, and we can't even begin to grasp the complexities involved in its function. So don't try.

Huh?

Originally posted by: slash196
And PLEASE change the topic title, it's misleading and misrepresents the actual post.

The topic title is simply the title of the article. I'll leave it as is.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: slash196
Please...everyone...just stop being stupid. The human brain is an unfathomably complex instrument, and we can't even begin to grasp the complexities involved in its function. So don't try.

Huh?

Ignorance is bliss. Especially when knowledge challenges your veiwpoint

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

While on the topic of bathroom etiquette

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
While on the topic of bathroom etiquette

It's funny how you guys break your rules and huddle up together at the end of the room, when that big buy is in there.

But what about this:

"As all guys do, I shot a glance downward when I thought he wasn't looking."

Is this true? How does this fit in with the "look straight forward" rule I wonder?

 

[Tab]

For a second, I thought he had a midget walking in front of him. I mean, the thing was like an elephant's trunk. I expected it to reach out, grab hold of some leaves and branches, and stuff them in his mouth. I quickly turned away, the image burned in my brain. I feared that at any moment, the thing would curl around my neck like one of Doc Ock's arms.

LOL!

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
While on the topic of bathroom etiquette

It's funny how you guys break your rules and huddle up together at the end of the room, when that big buy is in there.

But what about this:

"As all guys do, I shot a glance downward when I thought he wasn't looking."

Is this true? How does this fit in with the "look straight forward" rule I wonder?

two straight guys that happen to see each other naked is no big deal for your average straight guy. the "look straight forward" rule is different. in order to look at someone's member while pissing you have to actually turn and look - a pretty obvious movement which regardless of orientation I would say is very rude.

and aidanjm - your earlier post about sucking cock and everything else I found a bit disheartening. Were you trying to shock straight guys? I just found that to be rather crude considering that 99% of all the straight guys wouldn't type something (even though we think similar things about women) like that about a woman they saw somewhere in this forum.