Gay DNA found

[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'd say about 80-90% of whether he will be happy in life is determined by the way his family treats him as a kid and teenager.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: 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.

Why did you edit these two posts 14 hours after you posted them? Last night, for instance, you apologized to InfoHawk in this post saying your responses to him were unacceptable. But 14 hours later you editted that out and changed your post completely. You editted out your response in your next post, too. Why? Just curious.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: 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.

Why did you edit these two posts 14 hours after you posted them? Last night, for instance, you apologized to InfoHawk in this post saying your responses to him were unacceptable. But 14 hours later you editted that out and changed your post completely. You editted out your response in your next post, too. Why? Just curious.

I changed my mind re: what I wanted to say.

I don't think it is that noteworthy, I edit just about everything I post.

 

[Gaard]

*shrug* Ok I guess.

Usually if I have something else to say I don't go back and edit out a 14-hour-old post, I just post again.

I guess you just woke up and thought, "You know what? Fvck Infohawk. I take it back."

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Tommunist

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.

That's a pretty rediculous comparison.

well supported argument you've got there.

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).

physicly speaking only someone who's ignorant or a liar can tell you that homosexual sex isn't bad for you.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Tommunist

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.

That's a pretty rediculous comparison.

well supported argument you've got there.

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).

physicly speaking only someone who's ignorant or a liar can tell you that homosexual sex isn't bad for you.

What a knucklehead you are. There's more to Homosexual Sex than Anal Sex and Homosexuals aren't the only ones that participate in Anal Sex.. You should have said Anal sex wasn't healthy and left the Homosexual part out of it. I seriously doubt many Lesbians (Homosexuals) participate in Anal Sex but the do participate in Homosexual sex if they have sex with the same gender.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Tommunist

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.

That's a pretty rediculous comparison.

well supported argument you've got there.

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).

physicly speaking only someone who's ignorant or a liar can tell you that homosexual sex isn't bad for you.

What a knucklehead you are. There's more to Homosexual Sex than Anal Sex and Homosexuals aren't the only ones that participate in Anal Sex.. You should have said Anal sex wasn't healthy and left the Homosexual part out of it. I seriously doubt many Lesbians (Homosexuals) participate in Anal Sex but the do participate in Homosexual sex if they have sex with the same gender.

BINGO!!! I'd also wager that if anal sex is done carefully and proper protection is used that it isn't as bad as some might think....

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Tommunist

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.

That's a pretty rediculous comparison.

well supported argument you've got there.

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).

physicly speaking only someone who's ignorant or a liar can tell you that homosexual sex isn't bad for you.

What a knucklehead you are. There's more to Homosexual Sex than Anal Sex and Homosexuals aren't the only ones that participate in Anal Sex.. You should have said Anal sex wasn't healthy and left the Homosexual part out of it. I seriously doubt many Lesbians (Homosexuals) participate in Anal Sex but the do participate in Homosexual sex if they have sex with the same gender.

BINGO!!! I'd also wager that if anal sex is done carefully and proper protection is used that it isn't as bad as some might think....

Well I'll have to take your word on it
:laugh:

 

[gopunk]

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.

the difference is that down's syndrome occurs because something went wrong, i.e., there's an extra chromosome 21.

this study on the other hand, doesn't imply that anything went wrong in the reproductive process... the DNA regions were inherited in a normal fashion from their parents' DNA. hence the use of the word "cure" is a little inflammatory, it's akin to finding the DNA regions that make people dark skinned and then saying "oh good, now we can find a cure".

 

[Tab]

Even then, hey... You could do oral sex too... It's not like it's really bad for you.... It's high in protein!!!

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: 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.

Lol, that wasn't me, it was PhillyTIM, I don't know why he felt the need to be so graphic.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Gaard
*shrug* Ok I guess.

Usually if I have something else to say I don't go back and edit out a 14-hour-old post, I just post again.

I guess you just woke up and thought, "You know what? Fvck Infohawk. I take it back."

 

[Kalessian]

You don't want parents to be able to choose the sexual orientation of their children? Fine, when you have your own children then you can tell the doctor to leave it up to chance, since that is how you feel. But another family's choice is their's to make. How does it concern you at all?

So many gays use the defense: "If it doesn't affect you, then why worry about it? Mind your own business."

Sheesh.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Kalessian
So many gays use the defense: "If it doesn't affect you, then why worry about it? Mind your own business."

And they're right.

 

[Kalessian]

Then, consequently, so too are the parents who decide to choose their child's sexual orientation.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Kalessian
You don't want parents to be able to choose the sexual orientation of their children? Fine, when you have your own children then you can tell the doctor to leave it up to chance, since that is how you feel. But another family's choice is their's to make. How does it concern you at all?

So many gays use the defense: "If it doesn't affect you, then why worry about it? Mind your own business."

Sheesh.

Who are you speaking to?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Kalessian
Then, consequently, so too are the parents who decide to choose their child's sexual orientation.

I don't have a clear opinion on whether parental selection of a child's future sexual orientation should be allowed or prohibited. I do think selection of genetic traits for children is an issue that concerns more than just the indidivual parents making the selection. I do think there are other stake holders here. It's not just the business of parents, it's also arguably the business of the larger society, I guess. Is it advantageous or morally appropriate for us as a group or society to be manipulating our genome for traits such as intelligence, beauty, artistic talent, mathematic ability, and so on?

 

[Kalessian]

I was speaking to anyone who feels choosing a child's sexual orientation is wrong.

The traits you listed, intelligence, et al., are, indeed, the concern of society. Anyone who has seen Gattaca would agree. It raises too many issues. If one set of parents decide, because of religious beliefs or whatnot, to conceive naturally, then the disadvantaged child is forced to compete with engineered children. That would be unfair.

But sexual orientation is a different idea. Whether you are gay or straight, there *should* be no advantage either way in the great competition of life (I realize it doesn't work this way, of course gays have a harder time, but not from a scientific standpoint).

A parent could choose to make a child gay or straight and no one could tell the difference. A parent would not be able to explain a child of Einstein's genius, aphrodite's beauty, thor's strength, picasso's talent, and newton's mathematical ability.

Edit: Similarly, a parent should be given the right to choose their child's actual gender, race, etc. From a scientific standpoint, at least. However, I'm not sure if 90% of the world wants sons - that wouldn't be cool unless 80% of the world wanted gay sons. So it could be argued either way I suppose.

 

[Kalessian]

Well, maybe they could explain one super-child. Try 5 (in a row!).

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: 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.

what? thats a little ignorant, dont you think? just as ignorant as homophobes saying gays arent qualified to raise straight, or any, kids.

so if a gay man was married, had straight kids, then got a divorce, is he not fit to raise said straight kids because he is gay?

 

[Kalessian]

Alas, shimsham, in the world of majority-minority, there be many a double-standard.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: Kalessian
Ahh, shimsham, in the world of majority-minorty, there be many a double-standard.

too many. if equality is what is sought, seek it for all. but that may interfere with the seekers agenda, so they can justify and rationalize in any way they see fit i guess.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Kalessian
I was speaking to anyone who feels choosing a child's sexual orientation is wrong.

The traits you listed, intelligence, et al., are, indeed, the concern of society. Anyone who has seen Gattaca would agree. It raises too many issues. If one set of parents decide, because of religious beliefs or whatnot, to conceive naturally, then the disadvantaged child is forced to compete with engineered children. That would be unfair.

But sexual orientation is a different idea. Whether you are gay or straight, there *should* be no advantage either way in the great competition of life (I realize it doesn't work this way, of course gays have a harder time, but not from a scientific standpoint).

A parent could choose to make a child gay or straight and no one could tell the difference. A parent would not be able to explain a child of Einstein's genius, aphrodite's beauty, thor's strength, picasso's talent, and newton's mathematical ability.

Edit: Similarly, a parent should be given the right to choose their child's actual gender, race, etc. From a scientific standpoint, at least. However, I'm not sure if 90% of the world wants sons - that wouldn't be cool unless 80% of the world wanted gay sons. So it could be argued either way I suppose.

I'd say genetic engineering of more superficial traits like eye color, hair color, height, weight, and also personality characteristics like shyness, extroversion, friendliness, and sexual orientation would also be controversial, and something I guess the larger society would have a stake in.

 

[Kalessian]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Kalessian
I was speaking to anyone who feels choosing a child's sexual orientation is wrong.

The traits you listed, intelligence, et al., are, indeed, the concern of society. Anyone who has seen Gattaca would agree. It raises too many issues. If one set of parents decide, because of religious beliefs or whatnot, to conceive naturally, then the disadvantaged child is forced to compete with engineered children. That would be unfair.

But sexual orientation is a different idea. Whether you are gay or straight, there *should* be no advantage either way in the great competition of life (I realize it doesn't work this way, of course gays have a harder time, but not from a scientific standpoint).

A parent could choose to make a child gay or straight and no one could tell the difference. A parent would not be able to explain a child of Einstein's genius, aphrodite's beauty, thor's strength, picasso's talent, and newton's mathematical ability.

Edit: Similarly, a parent should be given the right to choose their child's actual gender, race, etc. From a scientific standpoint, at least. However, I'm not sure if 90% of the world wants sons - that wouldn't be cool unless 80% of the world wanted gay sons. So it could be argued either way I suppose.

I'd say genetic engineering of more superficial traits like eye color, hair color, height, weight, and also personality characteristics like shyness, extroversion, friendliness, and sexual orientation would also be controversial, and something I guess the larger society would have a stake in.

Well, I didn't mean the eye color and all that stuff. That could be interpreted as beauty or whatever and would therefore be an unfair advantage.

But I was always taught that things like gender, race, and sexual preference were all equal, so that wouldn't matter, right? lol.

Anyway, I have to agree with you about society choosing, though, however much I dislike to. That said, I'm still of the opinion that if someone personally doesn't think that choosing sexual preference is "right," then that person is "wrong."

 

[CycloWizard]

Someone may have already pointed this out (not going to sift through 9 pages of missed posts ), but not exactly a great source. Have these findings been published?

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.

As usual, any alternative explanations have been neglected by the author who has a clear agenda. Study: 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers. You take a closed genetic sample like that and call a 10% difference from random occurrence proof of genetic causality? Let me know when this study gets published.