NationStates Jolt Archive

First I'd like to set some ground rules here. The first point is this is not a thread to debate if homosexuality is genetic or not. This is more of a discussion on what would happen if it was indeed found to be so. Second lets keep this civil. Third this is not about people's personal background here so if you want to go into a long rant on how your life has been screwed up do it in another thread please. With that in mind lets get started

Now the question of wheter homosexuality is genetic has become a very important topic for some time now. Scientists have been studying brains and trying to find if any genes corespond with the behavior etc. Now the question I am proposing here is what do people think will happen if homosexuality was found to be genetic. Personally I don't think much good will come out of it. Will the stigma against being gay go away. No it wont. People will still be prejudice even if it is found to be a gene. The question of will parents have an abortion if they find their child to have the gene of homosexuality is a horrible on but it could happen. I was wondering what people's thoughts on this topic would be.

it must be a gene mutation...other wise how would it be passed on?

I agree with the author. Some hatred may be based on personal choice and beliefs, but we are hardly lacking in hatred based on genetics. Ask any minority.

it must be a gene mutation...other wise how would it be passed on?

This isn't about discussing the finer points of what type of genetic trait it is. We are for the sake of the discussion here assuming its genetic. The question is what would happen if it was to be found a genetic trait.

This isn't about discussing the finer points of what type of genetic trait it is. We are for the sake of the discussion here assuming its genetic. The question is what would happen if it was to be found a genetic trait.

in that case it would most likely be treated as any other " undesirable" genetic trait. ie gene theropy... cosmetic surgey, hormone theropy..ect..

in that case it would most likely be treated as any other " undesirable" genetic trait. ie gene theropy... cosmetic surgey, hormone theropy..ect..

Do you think this type of genetic theropy is something that would be frowned upon or would people approve of it?

Will the stigma against being gay go away. No it wont.
I disagree with your assertion. Half the grief we get as gay people stems from the absurd notion that it is "a choice". If it were proven to be genetic those people would have to stfu already.

This isn't about discussing the finer points of what type of genetic trait it is. We are for the sake of the discussion here assuming its genetic. The question is what would happen if it was to be found a genetic trait.
That doesnt make sense. What would happen would be directly effected by 'the finer points' you wish to exclude from the conversation.

I disagree with your assertion. Half the grief we get as gay people stems from the absurd notion that it is "a choice". If it were proven to be genetic those people would have to stfu already.

Tppt! ASking them to shut up is like asking shit to stop stinking.

I disagree with your assertion. Half the grief we get as gay people stems from the absurd notion that it is "a choice". If it were proven to be genetic those people would have to stfu already.

Quick question then. Do you think that people with that notion will give it up once they are shown that it is false. Lets take for example slavery and the civil rights notion. What did the Southerners who were for slavery and believed that blacks were an inferior race do when their absurd notion was proved false?

Do you think this type of genetic theropy is something that would be frowned upon or would people approve of it?

i think people would respond to it in both ways...for some people that were
" geneticaly gay" and did not like it they would aprove and acceped of it and so would lots of other people....but then agian lots of people would not.

I have a feeling this thread is going to quickly devolve into a "free will vs determinism" debate.

WFIW, people that are gay might have an easier time accepting themselves, even if nobody else does.

If homosexuality is genetic, then we might wind up with Nazi queers.

If homosexuality is genetic, then we might wind up with Nazi queers.
You know what, Pananab? I'm probably going to see that in someone's sig now.

I have a feeling this thread is going to quickly devolve into a "free will vs determinism" debate.

WFIW, people that are gay might have an easier time accepting themselves, even if nobody else does.
i agree with you about the free will Vs.determinism debate thing but i dont care its always fun to debate

also i disagree with you about the part about gays being more accepting of themselves, that may be true for some gays but there ase also strait people that are quite happy with the way that they are

Quick question then. Do you think that people with that notion will give it up once they are shown that it is false. Lets take for example slavery and the civil rights notion. What did the Southerners who were for slavery and believed that blacks were an inferior race do when their absurd notion was proved false?
That was a moral question, not a matter of scientific fact. You cannot do an experiment to prove slavery is right or wrong, it is really an opinion. I would say it is also largely a matter of opinion whether one person is superior or inferior to another, and on what basis you make that judgment. So yes, I think a great many people would change their opinion in the light of scientific proof. Who cares about the flat-earth people.

Quick question then. Do you think that people with that notion will give it up once they are shown that it is false. Lets take for example slavery and the civil rights notion. What did the Southerners who were for slavery and believed that blacks were an inferior race do when their absurd notion was proved false?
They've continued to believe it--it's called cognitive dissonance--and the same thing will happen with those who refuse to believe homosexuality is genetic. Listen--there are people who believe God put fossils in the earth to test their faith. Don't be surprised by the fact that some people refuse to believe things that go against logic and reason.

i agree with you about the free will Vs.determinism debate thing but i dont care its always fun to debate

also i disagree with you about the part about gays being more accepting of themselves, that may be true for some gays but there ase also strait people that are quite happy with the way that they are

Well, that's just it: the only time one would worry about being gay or straight is if it's a problem. If someone told me I had gay genes, I'd shrug, say "that's interestng" and get on with life. For someone that doesn't know what they "should" be, a genetic code may be enough to cause them to stop doubting their own desires.

it must be a gene mutation...other wise how would it be passed on?


and the continuation of prejudice has been proven...the implication that it is a 'gene mutation' implies that being gay is in some way recessive or irregular.

If homosexuality is genetic, then we might wind up with Nazi queers.
Paging Ernst Rohm to General. Ernst Rohm to General, please. :D

Do you think this type of genetic theropy is something that would be frowned upon or would people approve of it?

I think it would be hilarious to see the catholic church's position...to allow gene change would be 'playing god' but that would admit that god creates gays

This isn't about discussing the finer points of what type of genetic trait it is. We are for the sake of the discussion here assuming its genetic. The question is what would happen if it was to be found a genetic trait.

if it was found to be a genetic trait, then it would simply be found to be a genetic trait, not much else, some rich people may modify their children before birht to be straight and some gay rich people may even modify the child to be gay, who knows.

also according to some law that was being pushed to be passed in maryland(i think) says it would be illegal to abort a homosexual child.

That was a moral question, not a matter of scientific fact. You cannot do an experiment to prove slavery is right or wrong, it is really an opinion. I would say it is also largely a matter of opinion whether one person is superior or inferior to another, and on what basis you make that judgment. So yes, I think a great many people would change their opinion in the light of scientific proof. Who cares about the flat-earth people.

1. Wheter or not slavery is right or wrong is a moral question true. But there was also question about people believing that the black race was thought to be infereor to the white race. That is something that can be delt with science and yet for the longest time and even in the present people still believe this. I'm not saying that people won't change their opinions on this. What I am saying is the stigma that does associate with being homosexual will not disapear overnight because of this finding. It will still exist, but for how long is anyone guess.
2. The flat earth people were pretty powerful at a point and supressed people's ideas that conflicted with them. We say who cares about the flat earth people now but if it was back then I doubt we'd say this.

i read somewhere that homosexuality is due to the imbalance of hormones of the child while it is in the womb.

and the continuation of prejudice has been proven...the implication that it is a 'gene mutation' implies that being gay is in some way recessive or irregular.

well to put it bluntly but true, in many families it is irregular and or(if found to be a gene) recessive

Quick question then. Do you think that people with that notion will give it up once they are shown that it is false. Lets take for example slavery and the civil rights notion. What did the Southerners who were for slavery and believed that blacks were an inferior race do when their absurd notion was proved false?

I couldn't agree more...You'd get 'christian scientists' coming out of the woodwork going oh there is some anecdotal evidence I read in Christian Science Weekly that genes can be altered by environment clearly people creat the evil faggot menace.

and the continuation of prejudice has been proven...the implication that it is a 'gene mutation' implies that being gay is in some way recessive or irregular.

not at all, look at autisic people yes they sway and rock and hate having people touch them, but hell they are fricken geniuses, look at people with ADD and ADHD and dislexia and other such things ther pritty much the same way.
how many people oth there dont have some form of a "disorder", hardly any...
only people that are ignorant( imo) would thing that just because you have a gene thats differant your recessive and iregular
its like saying people wiht blue eyes should be quarantined and keeped from learning...only a really ignorant person would think that

and the continuation of prejudice has been proven...the implication that it is a 'gene mutation' implies that being gay is in some way recessive or irregular.
Well yes I suppose it could imply that in some cases, for instance if one happens to think that evolution/speciation and increased probability of long term specie-survival are bad things... :confused:

If it was proved that being gay is due to a genetic trait, I would hope that the testing would not become available to the public. Let's pretend I was born with the "gay" gene, my parents tell me/I find some test results saying I am gay. The only problem is that I am attracted to women. I then live at least a good number of my younger years in absolute confusion over what is going on. I would only think that making a testing such as that available to the public, it could very well alienate a lot of people from becoming who they otherwise would become. No one wants to know what sex they are attracted to by a gene, they very well should just find out on there own.

I disagree with your assertion. Half the grief we get as gay people stems from the absurd notion that it is "a choice". If it were proven to be genetic those people would have to stfu already.

If homosexuality was proven to be genetic, it wouldn't make these people stfu, but rather give them an even better reason to attack you: "Being gay is proof that God has determined your genes are worthless, and made it so you want to reproduce with something that will not procreate. So..just die already, and make God happy"

NOTE!!!!!!!! THESE ARE NOT MY VIEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They've continued to believe it--it's called cognitive dissonance--and the same thing will happen with those who refuse to believe homosexuality is genetic. Listen--there are people who believe God put fossils in the earth to test their faith. Don't be surprised by the fact that some people refuse to believe things that go against logic and reason.

So, would that mean that God is testing the human race in their ability to discover and eliminate such a gene should it exist? Would be funny actually.

Some one else mentioned the Catholic Church would find themselves in a bit of a conundrum... It's true. I think if it were discovered that homosexuality was genetic, the Right and Left wingers would find themselves utterly confused in a political debate over whether or not it should be legal to alter or abort homosexual children.

On the one hand, Left-wingers tend to be more slack on genetic alteration, but at the same time are pro-gay rights. On the other, we have the Right-wingers who believe you shouldn't abort any children, because they're pro-life, and yet anti-gay.

So, what would happen? Perhaps the right-wingers would finally realize they're full of shit? Perhaps not? Most likely, they'd try to find some sort of flaw in the research and deny it to be true, and claim that homosexuals are immoral, and there is no such gene.

Whether or not it's genetic... I really don't care. If I ever have a kid and he or she turns out to be a homosexual, well then good for him or her. I don't think it should really matter.

While I tend to be one who has a thirst for knowledge, and likes to discover things about the world, and I encourage research, I'd say this may be one that really has no importance in our lives. And ignorance, for the sake of all people, left and right, in this case, might be bliss. In the end, both sides will still support the same position they always did, except now there will be even more crap for them to argue about.

Has anyone seen the movie Gattaca?(sp?) I think it would be much like that. Society would grow increasingly uneasy with homosexuality and eventually being a homosexual would mean almost instant denial of any sort of job, decent living. Everywhere, not just certain parts of the country like it is now. People who are homosexual would grow to hate their parents for not having their genes altered to make them "perfect" or at least "acceptable" by public standards. Homosexuals will be regarded as second or third class citizens and the country would try to ignore them as best as they can.

Having said that I personally would be in favor of genetic mapping to find the "gay gene" and figuring out a while to get rid of that particular section of the DNA code. Before you accuse me of being a bible thumper, know this. I do not base this on religious preaching, I base this on the fact that I think every person has a duty to pass on their genes and raise children to ensure the survival of our species. That is the driving force behind every other creature on our planet and seems to be a well founded reason for us being here. In order to do this humans must take one man (we will call this Tab A.) and one women (We will call this Slot B.) you must them take Tab A and stick it in Slot B and bobs your uncle, a baby! Obviously there are more steps somewhere in there, but I tried to put it into words that every person who actually looks at the directions to put together an entertainment center can understand.

Now, as you can see I am against homosexuality, you may call me a homophobe if you want, but every homosexual I have ever met could be beat up by a 12 year old girl, so I really am not scared of them and no, I don't think every homosexual wants to have sex with me. I just don't walk the walk or talk the talk and doubt I could get into their clubs.

Well yes I suppose it could imply that in some cases, for instance if one happens to think that evolution/speciation and increased probability of long term specie-survival are bad things... :confused:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this... Not to hijack the thread, but I seriously doubt homosexuals are going to be the downfall of the human race. Rather, it will be ignorance and war that brings down the human race.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant there, and if I did, I sincerely apologize.

At any rate, I stand by the point I've tried to make here. The survival of the human race will depend upon people finally getting along like they're supposed to, not by wiping out genetic minorities, mutations or otherwise.

I agree that a great deal of debate would be sparked over the nature vs. nuture ideals. However, I believe that it would never end. Why? There are always exceptions, and in this case you could be predispositioned to go gay, and simply end up not going through it.

Schitzophrenia and prophya are genetically tranferred. However, there are people who are carriers who don't get it. Simply put, nature and nuture must both be there (usually) in order to have something happen. We'd never end it. It's like intelligent design vs. evolution. Until we find evidence disproving either one, people will believe either side.

So, what would happen? Perhaps the right-wingers would finally realize they're full of shit? Perhaps not? Most likely, they'd try to find some sort of flaw in the research and deny it to be true, and claim that homosexuals are immoral, and there is no such gene.

For a brief moment it looked like you had something going there and then it all came crashing down in an instant.

Has anyone seen the movie Gattaca?(sp?) I think it would be much like that. Society would grow increasingly uneasy with homosexuality and eventually being a homosexual would mean almost instant denial of any sort of job, decent living. Everywhere, not just certain parts of the country like it is now. People who are homosexual would grow to hate their parents for not having their genes altered to make them "perfect" or at least "acceptable" by public standards. Homosexuals will be regarded as second or third class citizens and the country would try to ignore them as best as they can.
Gattaca was a great movie. That is an interesting question. Once we figure out what our genes are what happens next. Do we start to weed out the imperfections? What happens to the people who are not as genetically fit as others? The list of questions goes on.

Having said that I personally would be in favor of genetic mapping to find the "gay gene" and figuring out a while to get rid of that particular section of the DNA code. Before you accuse me of being a bible thumper, know this. I do not base this on religious preaching, I base this on the fact that I think every person has a duty to pass on their genes and raise children to ensure the survival of our species. That is the driving force behind every other creature on our planet and seems to be a well founded reason for us being here. In order to do this humans must take one man (we will call this Tab A.) and one women (We will call this Slot B.) you must them take Tab A and stick it in Slot B and bobs your uncle, a baby! Obviously there are more steps somewhere in there, but I tried to put it into words that every person who actually looks at the directions to put together an entertainment center can understand.
The one thing I have a problem with here isnt that you are against homosexuality per say but more that you say people have a duty to pass on their genes. Why do we have this duty and where does it come from?

For a brief moment it looked like you had something going there and then it all came crashing down in an instant.

Well, yes, my opinion is obviously left-slanted, but at very least I'm not making generalizations regarding the physical fortitude of a person based on stereotypes.

The one thing I have a problem with here isnt that you are against homosexuality per say but more that you say people have a duty to pass on their genes. Why do we have this duty and where does it come from?

Every animal has the urge to pass on their genes, it is the only reason they are here. We call it mating when it is animals other than people, sexual intercourse between two people. Also known as being horny, does that ring a bell?

Well, yes, my opinion is obviously left-slanted, but at very least I'm not making generalizations regarding the physical fortitude of a person based on stereotypes.

Hey, stereotypes have to come from somewhere. Perhaps they originated as being fact and were then exaggerated. White men can't jump sound familar? Guess what, it's true. Women can't drive. Personally, I think my dad is a much better driver than my mom but my aunt and dad drive almost the exact same way. People in the military have short hair, well, I think that one is definetly true, I know I can't see my bangs.

Every animal has the urge to pass on their genes, it is the only reason they are here. We call it mating when it is animals other than people, sexual intercourse between two people. Also known as being horny, does that ring a bell?

There is no need to be condescending here west. Now to deal with these urges. Some people never mary and have kids. Some people are get horny only when looking at people of the same sex. You say there is a duty but what you have described here isnt a duty. One would calssify this more as an urge as you have said.

There is no need to be condescending here west. Now to deal with these urges. Some people never mary and have kids. Some people are get horny only when looking at people of the same sex. You say there is a duty but what you have described here isnt a duty. One would calssify this more as an urge as you have said.

Ok, let's everyone go gay and see how the next generation turns out. Sound like a plan?

Urge, duty, internal sex drive, whatever you want to call it. If we had no urges to have sex none of us would be here right now because humans are not asexual.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this... Not to hijack the thread, but I seriously doubt homosexuals are going to be the downfall of the human race. Rather, it will be ignorance and war that brings down the human race.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant there, and if I did, I sincerely apologize.

At any rate, I stand by the point I've tried to make here. The survival of the human race will depend upon people finally getting along like they're supposed to, not by wiping out genetic minorities, mutations or otherwise.
I think you did misunderstand. I was pointing out that 'mutation = bad' is not necessarily true.

Every animal has the urge to pass on their genes, it is the only reason they are here. We call it mating when it is animals other than people, sexual intercourse between two people. Also known as being horny, does that ring a bell?

Humans, as well as many animals, including apes and dolphins also have sex for pleasure. In an economic study, there was seen the first case of prostitution among animals when chimpanzees were given chips that could be redeemed in exchange for food and other such stuff. One male chimp paid a female for sex. Is he paying so he can pass on his genes, or is he paying for pleasure?

Dolphins for certain have been seen engaging in stuff like oral sex, and I KNOW I've seen a chimp masturbating at the zoo before. Neither case passes on any sort of gene.

I think you did misunderstand. I was pointing out that 'mutation = bad' is not necessarily true.

My apologies.

it must be a gene mutation...other wise how would it be passed on?


and the continuation of prejudice has been proven...the implication that it is a 'gene mutation' implies that being gay is in some way recessive or irregular.

OK I know that this wasn't supposed to be about the finer points.. but I just thought that since I work in the area I might add a bit of perspective.

A) Being able to drink milk is due to a mutant gene. The "natural" state is to be lactose intolerant. So saying something is a mutant gene is not really as derogative as a lot of people perceive.

B) Genetics is not as simple as turning on a light bulb. You have one particular gene therefore you have this trait. Its a complex web of interactions, and even when it is a single gene the story is rarely simple. For instance, the gene for sickle cell anaemia changes the shape of red blood cells, it is generally considered bad as it makes people anaemic. However the altered shape also protects people from catching malaria. If you live where malaria is common having the gene for sickle cell anaemia actually improves your survival rate. (good and bad.. one gene)

C) Evidence is mounting that homosexuality is genetic, and not only that, its is showing that it covers a spectrum.. its not that it is on or off.. but that all people have a tendancy to be homosexual or not, just some greater than others. Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom as well. So either you suggest that rats are concious enough to decide to be gay (which I am more than happy to accept) or that there is some genetic element involved

D) so how is it passed on.. well like sickle cell anaemia there appear to be a couple of factors in play.
1) humans have one of the highest neotony rates of any mammal. (neotony: death of a foetus before going full term) a full 75% of conceptions don't go full term.(most other mammals would have levels closer to say 20%, if that) Many of these being lost in the first few weeks without ever being noticed.
2) gay males however have much lower rates of neotony when they reproduce. as low as 25% .. so its a bit of a sliding scale .. those who are not even the slightest bit homosexual have less chance of having kids, but will try more often ;)

Of course there are an awful lot of factors in play so the story is never that simple... but its a start. And offers a reasonable genetic reason for a trait that would otherwise remove itself from the population continuing along just fine.

Course like I said there is a lot more than just your genes at work.. and something as complicated as sexuality is unlikely to be coded for by a single gene, but more likely a complex gene network. And genetics ain't everything. Plenty of folk go on to defy their genetic predispositions to do all sorts of amazing stuff.

just thought you might be interested....

IMO if they will some day be able to test to see if a baby has the "gay gene" it wont really matter becaus who will know if the baby will exhibit that trait or if it will just be a carrier

My apologies.
no worries ;)

I think you did misunderstand. I was pointing out that 'mutation = bad' is not necessarily true.

True. Any little change, good or bad is a mutation.

Techinically speaking brown hair and brown eyes are a mutation as are blonde hair and blue eyes. Being tall is a mutation and being short is a mutation because both require a certain little change in the human DNA. Therefor you could say that Hitler tried to found the Third Reich by using the "enhanced" powers that went with the mutations. Even though eye color and hair color really have no effect on physical or mental performance, but hey, the guy was crazy.

Hey, stereotypes have to come from somewhere. Perhaps they originated as being fact and were then exaggerated. White men can't jump sound familar? Guess what, it's true. Women can't drive. Personally, I think my dad is a much better driver than my mom but my aunt and dad drive almost the exact same way. People in the military have short hair, well, I think that one is definetly true, I know I can't see my bangs.

Men tend to drive better than women I'd argue partially because they do it more. In our society, when a man and a woman go some place, who usually drives? The man. Is it because he's a better driver? Or is he a better driver because he drives more? Statistics have actually shown that men cause more accidents than women. But this doesn't mean that women are better drivers either because as I said before, men tend to drive more.

Stereotypes, yes are based originally on fact, but the point is they're also often not carefully examined.

Also, keep in mind that there is the "gay construction worker" stereotype, as well as fireman, and somehow I doubt they'd be weaker than a 12 year old girl, as you say.

Ok, let's everyone go gay and see how the next generation turns out. Sound like a plan?

Urge, duty, internal sex drive, whatever you want to call it. If we had no urges to have sex none of us would be here right now because humans are not asexual.

That's not entirely true. My father was a homosexual. The only reason I'M here to argue your points is because society made him feel like it was wrong to be gay. So, he faked it. He hasn't ever had an urge to have sex with a woman, and yet he managed to father 4 children.

True. Any little change, good or bad is a mutation.

Aha, so if you happen to be someone who believes in speciation via evolution, then humanity itself is the result of mutations...

Urge, duty, internal sex drive, whatever you want to call it. If we had no urges to have sex none of us would be here right now because humans are not asexual.

Your saying that you want to find the gay gene and remove it because we all have a duty to pass on our genes. This is a serious point of view here. Your basically trying to remove an entire way of being based on a "duty" to pass on our genes. I asked you where that duty comes from and why we have it and you now want to disregard the term entirely?

2) gay males however have much lower rates of neotony when they reproduce. as low as 25% .. so its a bit of a sliding scale .. those who are not even the slightest bit homosexual have less chance of having kids, but will try more often ;)


I guess that explains my dad's "potency". Haha.

If it is a gene, it would be predictable. Is it predictable? Can we ascertain a level of probability for any one child to have an increased probability of homosexuality based on the genetics of their parents?

I don't think so, we haven't seen any reason to think that is going to be possible anyway.

However, it could be a product of cell development in the womb, androgens and estrogen levels that are either too high or too low in the womb at various times during the pregnancy and cell growth of the fetus is altered in response to that condition and create a 'predisposition' towards certain behaviors and personality traits that may make homosexuality possible.

What does this mean and how do we handle it? I don't know.

However, the same is true for personality types and individual choices about if we can decide at all, can we determine to be who we want to be and can we have any affect on achieving that outcome via choice and determinition of will alone?

If we aren't a product of our parents rearing, why do so many people seek therapy to discuss what they did and what happen to them during their childhood? If its all genetics and/or in the womb fetus-cell chemical imprinting, the therapist is a waste of time and incapable of being helpful towards deterring unwanted behaviors.

Your saying that you want to find the gay gene and remove it because we all have a duty to pass on our genes. This is a serious point of view here. Your basically trying to remove an entire way of being based on a "duty" to pass on our genes. I asked you where that duty comes from and why we have it and you now want to disregard the term entirely?
Well you got further coming to grips with that theory than I did...I got stuck at the bit about eliminating genes so that they can be passed on...


...doesnt eliminating the genes defeat the purpose of passing on the genes? :confused:

<snip>

Greenlander long time no see. As I said before this thread really isnt for debating what type of genetic trait it would be. It's more for debating what the reaction of society would be. We are assuming for the sake of the discussion that homosexuality is genetic.

Greenlander long time no see. As I said before this thread really isnt for debating what type of genetic trait it would be. It's more for debating what the reaction of society would be. We are assuming for the sake of the discussion that homosexuality is genetic.

I was trying. However, do you mean to say, if we determine it is a physical condition of child rearing, do we cure it, leave it, or adapt to it or eliminate it altogether, what "should" we do or "will" we do?

We 'should' cure all ailments of health and condition of the body as soon as possible. What 'will' we do? Society will abort fetuses it doesn't want. We are a sadly predictable species in that regard.

Also, keep in mind that there is the "gay construction worker" stereotype, as well as fireman, and somehow I doubt they'd be weaker than a 12 year old girl, as you say.

I never said that all gays were weaker than a 12 year old, just the ones I have met. Apparently in cities like New York gays are the size of linebackers, but I have never met one of them.

If it is a gene, it would be predictable. Is it predictable? Can we ascertain a level of probability for any one child to have an increased probability of homosexuality based on the genetics of their parents?


Well that's not strictly true. We know all the climactic effects ( or at least a vast majority of them) does that mean we can predict the weather? Genetics is a complicated web of interactions. And that is before you even start to look at effects of genetics further down the line, like hormonal, cellular signalling or timing effects etc etc. Like I said.. its not an off or on kinna thing for the vast majority of expressed traits. E.g. while eye colour is predominantly effected by one gene there are also all sorts of other interplays that will give green/grey/pink/dark/light/etc etc eye colour...

I was trying. However, do you mean to say, if we determine it is a physical condition of child rearing, do we cure it, leave it, or adapt to it or eliminate it altogether, what "should" we do or "will" we do?
I was saying if we determine that homosexual behavior is indeed a genetic trait what would we think would happen. Would the stigma's go away. Would people take steps to make sure their children won't have the gene or abort a baby if it has the gene.

I was trying. However, do you mean to say, if we determine it is a physical condition of child rearing, do we cure it, leave it, or adapt to it or eliminate it altogether, what "should" we do or "will" we do?

We 'should' cure all ailments of health and condition of the body as soon as possible. What 'will' we do? Society will abort fetuses it doesn't want. We are a sadly predictable species in that regard.

This is where my philosophy on life seems to enter areas of grey. A large part of me would agree that it's good to get rid of illness and health conditions. However, health issues have also inspired people to create such beauty in areas such as art. Homosexuality is much the same. It has inspired an artistic point of view among some people, and I don't think one should tamper with it.

However, potentially curing other diseases and saving one a great deal of hardship in life is definitely also desirable. But take my position on abortions for instance. I am pro-choice. However, if I ever got a girl pregnant, I'd be very upset if she aborted it, because I think any creation of life is a beautiful thing, homosexual, heterosexual, mentally hadicapped, what have you. And then I start to see things in varying shades of grey, and it is difficult to form a solid opinion.

And so, I opt to go with the opinion that people should have the right to make their own decisions on things. Which is why I'm pro-choice, even though I'd never want a girl I got pregnant to get an abortion. It's all very complicated. The same goes for this issue. If I had a kid and it had the "gay" gene, I wouldn't alter it. However, I suppose I think if everything was so simple that it could so simply be eliminated, then other people should be more than welcome to do so, if that's how they feel about it.

What will society do? Probably argue a whole lot more, and then everyone will soon be an expert and have an opinion, and long rants will ensue as people battle out the "moral question" of homosexuality once again.

Well to finally get round to actually answering your question from my point of view.

We pretty much know that being born with lots of melanin in your skin is genetic. Does that stop people being discriminatory to people with dark skin?

Being part of a group is all about working out who isn't in the group. For some people "normal society" will include people of other races, sexualities, and religions. For others who are less tolerant about who they want to be in their little club .. they won't. I can't see a genetic basis really changing much for a lot of people.

Aha, so if you happen to be someone who believes in speciation via evolution, then humanity itself is the result of mutations...

I actually didn't understand that at all, but you used a lot of big words so I will just give you two thumbs up and nod my head in agreeance.

I asked you where that duty comes from and why we have it and you now want to disregard the term entirely?

Sorry, I tried to put it into words you could understand. How silly of me to try and take into account my target audience. I can be so stupid at times, like investing in the Zepellin. At the time it seemed like a good idea and at that time nobody thought that the "automobile" would go anywhere but bancrupt.

They will never find a gene for homosexuality.

Human sexualtiy is much more complicated than that.

And I dont really give a damn if its genetic or not.

What will society do? Probably argue a whole lot more, and then everyone will soon be an expert and have an opinion.

*shivers* I dread the day that happens[/semi-ironic humor][/I'm an idiot]

They will never find a gene for homosexuality.

Human sexualtiy is much more complicated than that.

And I dont really give a damn if its genetic or not.


Hey buddy, do you need somebody to hold when times get tough? I'm here for you if you do. Just look me up. west_pacific@nationstates.net

:) That depends on if you are manly and attractive.

Sorry, I tried to put it into words you could understand. How silly of me to try and take into account my target audience. I can be so stupid at times, like investing in the Zepellin. At the time it seemed like a good idea and at that time nobody thought that the "automobile" would go anywhere but bancrupt.

Thanks for the ad hominem attack instead of answering the question.

Thanks for the ad hominem attack instead of answering the question.

Thanks for using big words that I don't and choose not to understand, now tell me if you understand this.

Het kwetst wanneer ik een piss neem

Thanks for using big words that I don't and choose not to understand, now tell me if you understand this.

Het kwetst wanneer ik een piss neem

Ok now you're just being, not nice.

Oh and if anyone's wondering he - or she - apparently wanted everyone to know, "it hurts when i take piss"

poor dear...

Very good, someone should give you a cookie.

no thanks, already got one.
[ba dum tee...]