| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Whitehound
   |
Posted - 2009.05.19 10:58:00 -
[1]
Please note that I do not call it a defect, but rather a mutation as this is AFAIK the proper term for it. I do not mean to offend any of the rainbow lovers. 
In a recent BBC debate about the Darwin Theory did this topic turn up and I was wondering how much of it is true now. By searching the web did I only find this rather old piece of research gay fruit fly (funny read). In the debate however did they say that genetic sequences of the human DNA have been identified now and that these were found in a specific chromosome of which a woman carries two, but men only carry one, and it would explain why homosexuality keeps occurring within every generation.
--
If there is anything in your life you fear of losing, then keep your mouth shut once in a while. |
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 11:00:00 -
[2]
The lock is strong with this one.
|
Reven Cordelle
Caldari
Yamainu-Mirai Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 11:02:00 -
[3]
Yes.
Next!
|
Bestofworst
Gallente
Double Eagle Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 11:04:00 -
[4]
Not the best counter-argument to creationism. 
----
<Insert Wit> |
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 11:10:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Bestofworst
Not the best counter-argument to creationism.
What counter-argument are you talking about?
--
If there is anything in your life you fear of losing, then keep your mouth shut once in a while. |
Bestofworst
Gallente
Double Eagle Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 11:14:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Bestofworst
Not the best counter-argument to creationism.
What counter-argument are you talking about?
Counter-argument to creationism is evolution, and if homosexuality is a mutation of human gene then wouldn't that be considered part of evolution?
If Christians didn't hate Darwin already..
----
<Insert Wit> |
JordanParey
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 12:00:00 -
[7]
ib4tl (before the player AND the mod :D :D :D )
Not really sure what to post about this, other than these things are usually a question of nature vs. nurture. Then again..
Hmm. Not gonna waste any brain cells on this at 6AM in the mornin.
|
MooKids
Caldari
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 12:04:00 -
[8]
I don't want to get involved in whether it is right socially or morally.
However I did remember from my psychology classes that it was found that lesbians did tend to have a different brain structure that heterosexual women. It has been a while, but I think that part of the brain was slightly enlarged. Of course it wasn't an indicater of homosexuality in women, as some lesbians didn't have it and some hetero women did. This brain feature didn't show up in men.
--------------------------------
CCP can patch away bugs, but they can't patch away stupidity. |
Troye
Gallente
Intelligent Concepts Inc
People for Organised Peace
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 12:18:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Troye on 19/05/2009 12:18:57
Personaly I hope the "Gay gene" is never found, if it exists then they'l find a way to manipulate it and then we'll have parents asking their docters to "check for the gay gene" in unborn babies and "correct" it if its present:
Quote:
"The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, president of the Traditional Values Coalition in Anaheim, California, says that if a biological cause of homosexuality is found, then "we would have to come up with some reparative therapy to correct that genetic defect."
_______________________________________
|
Bestofworst
Gallente
Double Eagle Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 12:22:00 -
[10]
From the part that you quoted, I would break the nose of the doctor who suggests it. They think Pro-life and Pro-choice is important, but you don't let their kid have a choice in the matter, and if it's a religious issue, then why would god want humans playing him and manipulating nature.
----
<Insert Wit> |
Florio
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 12:33:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Florio on 19/05/2009 12:36:32
The latest consensus I've seen, about 3 months ago I think, was that gay men have brains that are more like female brains (than hetero males) and gay women have brains that are a bit like male brains (than hetero women). The differences are in the similarity (or not) of the two hemispheres of the brain.
In addition, there is no strong evidence that there is a genetic link. And I'm sure many of us know of eg. two brothers, same parents, same genetic code, different sexualities.
There was also an interesting side-observation that gay men tend to have ring-fingers of similar length to their middle fingers, whereas in hetero men the tendancy was for the middle fingers to be much longer than the ring-finger. In addition, it was observed that the more brothers a boy has when he is born (ie. the greater number of sibling males born before him) the greater the chance that he is/becomes gay.
There doesn't appear to be any conclusive evidence one way or the other. But I would say that the gay people I know all say that they had no choice in their sexuality. Whether that is genetics or neonatal or environmental after birth, no-one knows for sure yet.
|
Gerard Reivich
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 12:34:00 -
[12]
Quote:
Counter-argument to creationism is evolution, and if homosexuality is a mutation of human gene then wouldn't that be considered part of evolution?
If Christians didn't hate Darwin already..
----
Wheras Creationists believe that people are gay because of Gods great plan. Or something.
And yes, its a mutation, in the same way that having legs, a diurnal cycle and liking fine wine are.
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 12:38:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Troye
Personaly I hope the "Gay gene" is never found, if it exists then they'l find a way to manipulate it and then we'll have parents asking their docters to "check for the gay gene" in unborn babies and "correct" it if its present:
Frankly, that is not your baby. If some parents want this for their child then it is their decision and not yours. And, yes, this is a possible consequence of this research. On the other hand, parents who do not care for a treatment will accept their homosexual child much better. They can know about it much earlier, can explain it to their child and help it to understand itself.
--
If there is anything in your life you fear of losing, then keep your mouth shut once in a while. |
Taelech
Caldari
Caldari Design and Cryogenics
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 12:47:00 -
[14]
I've often wondered this. It seems that homosexuality is increasing in frequency over time (maybe it is just becoming more accepted and thus people can be themselves). Could it be a natural programming against overpopulation? If so, it would not necessarily have to be a genetic difference, it could be a piece of code that everyone carries and a few are executing that code. Either way, I don't think it matters much... people are people. Where they put their junk is not my business.
Taelech - Professor emeritus - Caldari Business Tribunal School of Law
|
Gerard Reivich
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 12:53:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Gerard Reivich on 19/05/2009 12:56:04
Originally by: Whitehound
On the other hand, parents who do not care for a treatment will accept their homosexual child much better. They can know about it much earlier, can explain it to their child and help it to understand itself.
Here is the true danger of the discovery of the 'gay gene'
Firstly, genes dont work like the idiot media like to think, and the human brain is a ridiculously complex system, you cant just flip a switch and make someone gay.
Even if there is a gene that is found in 90% of gays and 90% of those who have it are gay, thats no reason to start labeling people as one or the other.
If you feel you need to run genetic tests to determine your child's sexuality before they are born so you know how to treat them, dont have kids.
If you are willing to love and support them whilst they decide, good luck with that.
EDIT:
Quote:
I've often wondered this. It seems that homosexuality is increasing in frequency over time (maybe it is just becoming more accepted and thus people can be themselves). Could it be a natural programming against overpopulation? If so, it would not necessarily have to be a genetic difference, it could be a piece of code that everyone carries and a few are executing that code. Either way, I don't think it matters much... people are people. Where they put their junk is not my business.
Erm... not genetics, code? 
And overpopulation is caused by the limiting factor of population growth(resources, disease etc.) being changed. Even if half the worlds population turns gay it will keep increasing, because its not peoples desire to breed that affects how many people the world can sustain
Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men.
Atatnrk |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 13:07:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Taelech
I've often wondered this. It seems that homosexuality is increasing in frequency over time (maybe it is just becoming more accepted and thus people can be themselves). Could it be a natural programming against overpopulation? If so, it would not necessarily have to be a genetic difference, it could be a piece of code that everyone carries and a few are executing that code. Either way, I don't think it matters much... people are people. Where they put their junk is not my business.
Homosexuality seems to be becoming more common because (I suspect) it's gradually becoming less of a taboo. It wasn't so long ago that it was illegal to bum other men.
As for the mutation thing, if it IS caused by genes, then it most certainly IS a defect because it significantly reduces the chances of that person being able to procreate. That's not a moral judgement, it's simple biology. And if parents wish to give their child gene therapy to reduce their chances of being homosexual, is there really anything wrong with that? It's not like you're robbing the child of its free will (insofar as free will exists anyway).
____________________
|
Rosa Rosette
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 13:07:00 -
[17]
100% of male gays have the y chromosome! there must be some system behind it! 
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 13:11:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Rosa Rosette
100% of male gays have the y chromosome! there must be some system behind it!
100% of criminals have the X chromosome! OMG! 
____________________
|
Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 13:13:00 -
[19]
I'd say it is, occurring to curve the population when we're crowding the place. As such it's in gods plan and anyone bashing gays would think themselves greater than their chosen god.
Delenda est achura. |
Corwain
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 13:19:00 -
[20]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Homosexuality seems to be becoming more common because (I suspect) it's gradually becoming less of a taboo. It wasn't so long ago that it was illegal to bum other men.
Still is most places.
--
Distortion| Distortion 2 Preview |
Gerard Reivich
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 13:22:00 -
[21]
Quote:
As for the mutation thing, if it IS caused by genes, then it most certainly IS a defect because it significantly reduces the chances of that person being able to procreate. That's not a moral judgement, it's simple biology. And if parents wish to give their child gene therapy to reduce their chances of being homosexual, is there really anything wrong with that? It's not like you're robbing the child of its free will (insofar as free will exists anyway).
What a sad world view :/ Once we pass the fertile age we should all curl up and die right? Afterall, no chance of having more kids, we are now totally worthless.
Just becuase being gay reduces the chances of you reproducing doesnt mean you cant contribute to society, and thus further the propagation of your genes through your relatives.
And gene therapy to stop you having gay kids doesnt affect them, but its saying "Gay people are worth less, i dont want one for a child"
Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men.
Atatnrk |
LordSwift
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 13:30:00 -
[22]
Emm interesting. Does the mutation bring with it any special powers. If it does i might be interested. hehehe!!
Join the brown Coats today!!! |
Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 13:39:00 -
[23]
Originally by: LordSwift
Emm interesting. Does the mutation bring with it any special powers. If it does i might be interested. hehehe!!
You can disarm any woman, pick out fabulous clothing and interior decorations, on the downside you've got horrible taste in music.
Delenda est achura. |
LordSwift
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 13:46:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Wendat Huron
Originally by: LordSwift
Emm interesting. Does the mutation bring with it any special powers. If it does i might be interested. hehehe!!
You can disarm any woman, pick out fabulous clothing and interior decorations, on the downside you've got horrible taste in music.
Haha!!!
Join the brown Coats today!!! |
Tallaran Kouros
Caldari
Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 13:47:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Gerard Reivich
Quote:
As for the mutation thing, if it IS caused by genes, then it most certainly IS a defect because it significantly reduces the chances of that person being able to procreate. That's not a moral judgement, it's simple biology. And if parents wish to give their child gene therapy to reduce their chances of being homosexual, is there really anything wrong with that? It's not like you're robbing the child of its free will (insofar as free will exists anyway).
What a sad world view :/ Once we pass the fertile age we should all curl up and die right? Afterall, no chance of having more kids, we are now totally worthless.
It's not a sad world view at all, it's biological fact.
I'm neither condemning nor endorsing the posters POV from a moralistic or gay rights perspective, but if you read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene then he is absolutely correct - bodies exist as survival machines for our genes and any mutations that give our genes an advantage and a greater chance to procreate are favourable mutations and will be selected as such.
If a mutation reduces our chances of procreating, then said mutation will due out.
Of course biological fact or not, human society and civilisation has reached such a point that natural selection no longer functions within our species - there are countless medical conditions that would have been certain death only a few hundred years ago but are now perfectly survivable and leave people with a quality of life that is similar to pretty much anyone unaffected.
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 13:53:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Gerard Reivich
Quote:
As for the mutation thing, if it IS caused by genes, then it most certainly IS a defect because it significantly reduces the chances of that person being able to procreate. That's not a moral judgement, it's simple biology. And if parents wish to give their child gene therapy to reduce their chances of being homosexual, is there really anything wrong with that? It's not like you're robbing the child of its free will (insofar as free will exists anyway).
What a sad world view :/ Once we pass the fertile age we should all curl up and die right? Afterall, no chance of having more kids, we are now totally worthless.
Just becuase being gay reduces the chances of you reproducing doesnt mean you cant contribute to society, and thus further the propagation of your genes through your relatives.
And gene therapy to stop you having gay kids doesnt affect them, but its saying "Gay people are worth less, i dont want one for a child"
Hold on, that's a hell of a straw-man. I'm simply saying that procreation is one of the objectives of life, not the only one. Other functions include passing on ideas and contributing to society as you mentioned.
But the need to pass one's genes onto a new generation is still an important biological imperative. Homosexuals are deprived of this (for the most part). So yes, it is a defect from a certain point of view. But a defect does not make someone or something worthless.
____________________
|
Whitehound
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 14:00:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Gerard Reivich
Firstly, genes dont work like the idiot media like to think, and the human brain is a ridiculously complex system, you cant just flip a switch and make someone gay.
Even if there is a gene that is found in 90% of gays and 90% of those who have it are gay, thats no reason to start labeling people as one or the other.
How the human brain and genes work is something we want to understand. Not making an attempt to understand it would be ridiculous. So that is no argument either.
The labelling occurs regardless of any scientific research. Again, that is no argument.
Quote:
If you feel you need to run genetic tests to determine your child's sexuality before they are born so you know how to treat them, dont have kids.
I think I can rule this one out as not being an argument either.
Quote:
If you are willing to love and support them whilst they decide, good luck with that.
Do you think this is what good parents do? To let children grow up all by themselves and let the surrounding society sort it out? Then my advise for you is: do not have kids. And that is not an argument, but you will know where it is coming from.
--
If there is anything in your life you fear of losing, then keep your mouth shut once in a while. |
Troye
Gallente
Intelligent Concepts Inc
People for Organised Peace
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 14:05:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Whitehound
Frankly, that is not your baby. If some parents want this for their child then it is their decision and not yours. And, yes, this is a possible consequence of this research.
I take it your a supporter of designer babies then? I don't mean donor siblings but the "I want my baby to have blue eyes because blue eyes are fashionable right now" kind.
Don't try and tell me homosexuality is a disability, gay men are no less fertile than heterosexual men, there are plenty of gay men who've sired kids, I know afew. Just because the majority of gay men don't have kids doesnÆt mean they're incapable if it, and don't forget lesbian women, it's even easier for them, all they need to find is a willing male or get IVF.
ThereÆs still a huge demand for sperm donors for women wanting IVF treatment especially here in the UK and some gay couples choose to adopt.
Infact the only feasible reason for parents wanting genetic therapy for their baby is so it wouldnÆt be subject to homophobic discrimination, but that suggests a problem with their community that needs to be corrected not the unborn baby.
_______________________________________
|
Mercurye
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 14:13:00 -
[29]
The world would be better off with only one ambigious sex
People are too obsessed with sexuality and gender
--~--~--~--~
~NOTE: Freak~ |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 14:37:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Troye
Originally by: Whitehound
Frankly, that is not your baby. If some parents want this for their child then it is their decision and not yours. And, yes, this is a possible consequence of this research.
I take it your a supporter of designer babies then? I don't mean donor siblings but the "I want my baby to have blue eyes because blue eyes are fashionable right now" kind.
So what? There are enough people in the world with different ideas of beauty that you wouldn't lose the diversity if that's what you're worried about. And aside from genetic defects, I can't imagine many parents being willing to alter their baby anyway.
Quote:
Don't try and tell me homosexuality is a disability, gay men are no less fertile than heterosexual men, there are plenty of gay men who've sired kids, I know afew. Just because the majority of gay men don't have kids doesnÆt mean they're incapable if it, and don't forget lesbian women, it's even easier for them, all they need to find is a willing male or get IVF.
ThereÆs still a huge demand for sperm donors for women wanting IVF treatment especially here in the UK and some gay couples choose to adopt.
But it's rare. The point is that homosexuals are less likely to procreate than heterosexuals.
Quote:
Infact the only feasible reason for parents wanting genetic therapy for their baby is so it wouldnÆt be subject to homophobic discrimination, but that suggests a problem with their community that needs to be corrected not the unborn baby.
Okay, let's entertain the idea that that IS the only reason, and the technology exists to remove any genetic predisposition to homosexuality. There are two factors: the sexuality of the unborn child in question, and the overall culture of the community. You can affect only one of these - can you guess which?
____________________
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |