If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Scientists claim that homosexuality is not genetic - but it arises in the womb. With helpful picture of completely acceptable lesbian couple   (io9.com) divider line 471
    More: Interesting, genes control, sexual development, womb, lesbians, gays and lesbians, Urban Friberg, William Rice, gay gene  
•       •       •

21772 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 4:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



471 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-11 03:18:36 PM
It's my mom's fault. She kept playing Barbara Streisand to me while I was still in the womb.
 
2012-12-11 03:32:31 PM
So gays are born this way but we aren't conceived this way.
 
2012-12-11 03:51:17 PM
So basically, it's all because of womb service?
 
2012-12-11 04:09:17 PM
I've always thought it had something to do with the hormone level of the mother during pregnancy.
 
2012-12-11 04:09:19 PM
pfft.. one in front is fat
one in back has a horse face.

I wouldnt even watch these two go at it

\well at least not more then twice
\\three times
 
2012-12-11 04:09:58 PM
Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.
 
2012-12-11 04:10:51 PM
i.huffpost.com6
actual lesbians
 
2012-12-11 04:11:02 PM

kvinesknows: pfft.. one in front is fat
one in back has a horse face.

I wouldnt even watch these two go at it

\well at least not more then twice
\\three times


OK, that got me to click....meh, I'll take horse face
 
2012-12-11 04:11:07 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


Well, thank God for science.
 
2012-12-11 04:11:23 PM

kvinesknows: pfft.. one in front is fat
one in back has a horse face.

I wouldnt even watch these two go at it

\well at least not more then twice
\\three times


Would watch in person.
 
2012-12-11 04:11:27 PM
I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.
 
2012-12-11 04:12:09 PM

Cythraul: It's my mom's fault. She kept playing Barbara Streisand to me while I was still in the womb.



That could do it.
 
2012-12-11 04:12:21 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.
 
2012-12-11 04:13:11 PM

Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.


I have two older brothers, one older sister.
 
2012-12-11 04:13:23 PM
so basically it comes down to whether the pregnant woman watches SNL and finds it funny??
 
2012-12-11 04:13:27 PM

Cythraul: It's my mom's fault. She kept playing Barbara Streisand to me while I was still in the womb.


I was born a month early so I can end having to listen to that shiat.

/same goes for Cher and Madonna
 
2012-12-11 04:13:48 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


If Western medicine can't find a cure, alternative medicine surely can. I suggest homo-opathy. If you take small doses of diluted gay you might just get cured! Failing that, surely crackupuncture or guyropraxy might help.
 
2012-12-11 04:14:20 PM

gingerjet: Cythraul: It's my mom's fault. She kept playing Barbara Streisand to me while I was still in the womb.

I was born a month early so I can end having to listen to that shiat.

/same goes for Cher and Madonna


I was born a month and a half early.
 
2012-12-11 04:14:52 PM
Maybe the fundies will change their minds on abortion now.
 
2012-12-11 04:14:54 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.
 
2012-12-11 04:15:03 PM
Why is this even being studied? What's the purpose? What's the end game of it? More importantly who's sponsoring this shiat?
 
2012-12-11 04:15:45 PM

styckx: Why is this even being studied? What's the purpose? What's the end game of it? More importantly who's sponsoring this shiat?


to find the cure.

duh
 
2012-12-11 04:16:36 PM
img.gawkerassets.com

I will gladly help them play for the other team.
 
2012-12-11 04:16:48 PM
1987*

/dammit.
 
2012-12-11 04:17:00 PM

Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.
 
2012-12-11 04:17:04 PM
So... are there any gay hatched animals besides big bird?
 
2012-12-11 04:17:05 PM

Cythraul: Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.

I have two older brothers, one older sister.


I could swear I read a study somewhere that said something along the lines of the youngest son is the most likely to be gay. This is only if he has older brothers though, if he has older sisters only then there is apparently no effect. I think it has something to do with lowered levels of testosterone in the womb by the time the youngest son is there.

/epigenetics are pretty cool
 
2012-12-11 04:17:12 PM
"Those who said that it's 'nature' - You're right. Those who said it's 'nurture' - you're right also. Those who said it's a choice - no, you're still assholes."
 
2012-12-11 04:17:20 PM

styckx: Why is this even being studied? What's the purpose? What's the end game of it? More importantly who's sponsoring this shiat?


Whatever happened to knowledge is its own reward? We should be pursuing knowledge regardless of whether we like the results or not.
 
2012-12-11 04:17:53 PM
How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
 
d3
2012-12-11 04:17:55 PM
I like to ask conservatives if they would be in favor of government regulation of industry if they learned the chemicals being put into products were turning people gay. It turns into a fun thought experiment until their heads explode.
 
2012-12-11 04:18:28 PM

Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.


That might be a thing. It makes sense for Darwinian selection. As a tribe/community reaches a certain number of children, you want a certain percentage to become childless adults that can help raise or adopt children of relatives. It increases the overall survival rate of the tribe.
 
2012-12-11 04:18:51 PM

Cythraul: Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.

I have two older brothers, one older sister.


Yeah, I have one of each. The only one who goes against this that I know of is my SO. He's the oldest of three boys.
 
2012-12-11 04:18:55 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


I always assumed it was done involuntarily during one of those dark episodes of human history that Q kept bringing up.
 
2012-12-11 04:19:11 PM

Cythraul: It's my mom's fault. She kept playing Barbara Streisand to me while I was still in the womb.


t0.gstatic.com

Is hurt, but approves
 
2012-12-11 04:19:12 PM

Cythraul: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.


Considering how awful TNG was - I don't consider the absence of a major gay character a bad thing.

/I also don't care
 
2012-12-11 04:19:31 PM

SarahDiddle: Cythraul: Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.

I have two older brothers, one older sister.

I could swear I read a study somewhere that said something along the lines of the youngest son is the most likely to be gay. This is only if he has older brothers though, if he has older sisters only then there is apparently no effect. I think it has something to do with lowered levels of testosterone in the womb by the time the youngest son is there.

/epigenetics are pretty cool


Does that affect the amount of testosterone produced by a gay man after birth? Because from what I've read, they produce the same amount as straight men.

/DRTFA
 
2012-12-11 04:20:00 PM
I wonder if stem cell research could "cure" this...
 
2012-12-11 04:20:02 PM
Hey, remember when our ancestors laid eggs and the temperature of the nest would change the gender of the offspring?
 
2012-12-11 04:20:29 PM

Lumpmoose: That might be a thing. It makes sense for Darwinian selection. As a tribe/community reaches a certain number of children, you want a certain percentage to become childless adults that can help raise or adopt children of relatives. It increases the overall survival rate of the tribe.


I call that the "funny uncle hypothesis".
 
2012-12-11 04:20:54 PM

Cythraul: Star Trek? No gay people


i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-12-11 04:20:55 PM

SarahDiddle: Cythraul: Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.

I have two older brothers, one older sister.

I could swear I read a study somewhere that said something along the lines of the youngest son is the most likely to be gay. This is only if he has older brothers though, if he has older sisters only then there is apparently no effect. I think it has something to do with lowered levels of testosterone in the womb by the time the youngest son is there.

/epigenetics are pretty cool


I have two half-siblings - both older sisters (one from my dad's first marriage, one from my mom's).

That said, your statement about levels of testosterone is interesting, as my half-sister from my mother's marriage (and the only sibling with whom I was raised) is somewhat masculine (although heterosexual) in build and attitude.
 
2012-12-11 04:21:17 PM

Captain Darling:
I always assumed it was done involuntarily during one of those dark episodes of human history that Q kept bringing up.


I thought all the gays got super powers and became the Q.
 
2012-12-11 04:21:29 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


Actually hormone therapy during pregnancy would be a lot easier then some sort of gene therapy. Just pointing out this doesn't preclude preventative measures during conception and pregnancy, just because hardcoded genes aren't involved.
 
2012-12-11 04:21:44 PM
"My first words, as I was being born... I looked up at my mother and said, 'that's the last time I'm going up one of those." - Stephen Fry
 
2012-12-11 04:21:47 PM

RexTalionis: Hey, remember when our ancestors laid eggs and the temperature of the nest would change the gender of the offspring?


Yeah, those were the good ol' days. You kids get off of my egg clutch!
 
2012-12-11 04:22:44 PM
Girl in front reminds me of Tina Majorino (aka "Molly" the science vamp chick).
 
2012-12-11 04:22:44 PM
Just another thing to blame on women
 
2012-12-11 04:22:44 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


Probably more that science fiction is an imagined future, seen inevitably through the lens of the present, and shaped by what is seen as normal in the present or what the author knows in his life.

In old science fiction, there weren't a lot of black people. I don't think they believed they'd find a cure for being black, they just didn't know a lot of black people when writing it.
 
2012-12-11 04:22:59 PM

Cythraul: RexTalionis: Hey, remember when our ancestors laid eggs and the temperature of the nest would change the gender of the offspring?

Yeah, those were the good ol' days. You kids get off of my egg clutch!


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-11 04:23:32 PM

Buttknuckle: Yeah, I have one of each. The only one who goes against this that I know of is my SO. He's the oldest of three boys.


Both myself and my SO are the youngest. But his family has a number of gay cousins who are the oldest. And I have a gay cousin who is the only child.

/recognized the cousin from online gay 'dating' site
//made for an awkward moment when we met for the first time at his grandfathers funeral
 
2012-12-11 04:23:35 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


samjmiller.com

Would like to have a word with you.

/yeah yeah yeah
//"in the past" and all that
 
2012-12-11 04:23:37 PM
Infants and children inadvertently exposed to exogenous sex hormones can suffer devastating consequences expressed as physical changes in the genitalia and overall body structure. How such exposure might affect sexual attraction seems to be unknown.

One wonders what affect prenatal exposure to exogenous hormones might have on the child.
 
2012-12-11 04:24:18 PM
I'm perfectly okay with attractive men hooking up with each other. Less competition for the women.
 
2012-12-11 04:24:41 PM

gingerjet: Buttknuckle: Yeah, I have one of each. The only one who goes against this that I know of is my SO. He's the oldest of three boys.

Both myself and my SO are the youngest. But his family has a number of gay cousins who are the oldest. And I have a gay cousin who is the only child.

/recognized the cousin from online gay 'dating' site
//made for an awkward moment when we met for the first time at his grandfathers funeral


Holy crap, you have a lot of gay people in your family.
 
2012-12-11 04:25:13 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors. Given that the environment under discussion is a pregnant uterus, it won't be long before anti-gay folks are trying to fund and find treatments and preventative measures and demonize (and criminalize?) any intentional or unintentional action a pregnant woman might take that might contribute to phenotypic homosexuality.
 
2012-12-11 04:25:27 PM
That would make sense since the egg chooses a gender immediately at fertilization but the fetus doesn't start growing gender-specific body parts until around the 18th week. What this means is there is plenty of time to get those two events crossed. The wrong testosterone levels, etc. can produce homosexual, transgender, or hermaphroditic offspring and frequently has.
 
2012-12-11 04:25:39 PM

gingerjet: /recognized the cousin from online gay 'dating' site
//made for an awkward moment when we met for the first time at his grandfathers funeral


///made even more awkward because it was just a penis shot.
 
2012-12-11 04:26:03 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


A "gay gene" was found in Drosophila over 15 years ago. They named it "fruity" because mutations in that gene made the flies ... well it made males chase other males instead of females.

I just want to be clear, this "study" is merely a model:

To reach this conclusion, Rice and Friberg created a biological and mathematical model that charted the role of epigenetics in homosexuality.

They generated a hypothesis and looked at some other results and decided the results were consistent with their hypothesis. They have not actually tested their hypothesis. What's more, their prediction contradicts other observations. Here is the key part:

This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself.

Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.
 
2012-12-11 04:26:34 PM

xaratherus: That said, your statement about levels of testosterone is interesting, as my half-sister from my mother's marriage (and the only sibling with whom I was raised) is somewhat masculine (although heterosexual) in build and attitude.


I believe it has more to do with the mother's tolerance for testosterone produced by the fetus. Which as this article again points out, has to do with hormones. I think I first read about it in What God Has Joined Together

/Gay men have larger wing-wings too, so there's that...
 
2012-12-11 04:27:09 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.


I wasn't implying there were gay people in TNG... just pointing out that Roddenberry's comments apply just as well to gayness (gaiety?) as baldness. Gay people weren't on TNG because being gay was still awful taboo when the show was made. More modern sci-fi has lots of gay characters: that chick in Stargate: Universe, Adama's brother in Caprica, Vincent in Eureka... hell, even BSG's gay character was named Gaeta.
 
2012-12-11 04:27:32 PM

Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.


Youngest of three girls here, my oldest sister is lesbian. This could have been her:
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-12-11 04:28:08 PM

gingerjet: Buttknuckle: Yeah, I have one of each. The only one who goes against this that I know of is my SO. He's the oldest of three boys.

Both myself and my SO are the youngest. But his family has a number of gay cousins who are the oldest. And I have a gay cousin who is the only child.

/recognized the cousin from online gay 'dating' site
//made for an awkward moment when we met for the first time at his grandfathers funeral


Oh my!
 
2012-12-11 04:28:14 PM

Cythraul: gingerjet: Buttknuckle: Yeah, I have one of each. The only one who goes against this that I know of is my SO. He's the oldest of three boys.

Both myself and my SO are the youngest. But his family has a number of gay cousins who are the oldest. And I have a gay cousin who is the only child.

/recognized the cousin from online gay 'dating' site
//made for an awkward moment when we met for the first time at his grandfathers funeral

Holy crap, you have a lot of gay people in your family.



Their reunions must be fabulous!
 
2012-12-11 04:28:18 PM
Also, related:

25.media.tumblr.com 

During the 90s, gay rights were gaining steam, and so while the issue was clouded in a metaphor about trill mating rules pertaining to mates from past lives, they just so happened to both be women. So when it became a thing that was being discussed and normalized in society, it showed up in science fiction.

/hot
/and hotlinked
 
2012-12-11 04:28:33 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


There are gay people in Trek. There's been at least 2 in canon novels centered around a gay member of Starfleet.
 
2012-12-11 04:29:15 PM
This really isn't a new theory, the idea of womb environment being the determining factor along with some evidence along those lines has been around for a while. Stress, birth order, and getting bathed with to many hormones have been given as possible causes, none of them mutually exclusive. Anyway, I've pretty much assumed for years based on the research that the homosexuality was probably epigenetic.
 
2012-12-11 04:29:44 PM

Cythraul: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.


www.emagill.com

/not technically a gay character
//but explored the theme of non-hetero relationships specifically
///and had a dark and bleak ending
 
2012-12-11 04:30:18 PM
Here is the article I was talking about Cythraul and xaratherus. There's also a correlation between unequal barr bodies (deactivated X chromosomes) the mother has and if her sons are gay. So if her barr bodies aren't around equal in her body then her sons are more likely to be gay. That's some pretty neat epigenetic stuff too.
 
2012-12-11 04:30:52 PM

d3: I like to ask conservatives if they would be in favor of government regulation of industry if they learned the chemicals being put into products were turning people gay. It turns into a fun thought experiment until their heads explode.


The inverse of that is would liberals still be in favor of governmentregulation if they learned the FDA approved chemicals being put into their food were to prevent people from becomng gay?

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." attributed to George Washington
 
2012-12-11 04:32:08 PM
Oops, almost forgot about this one:

blastr.com

/I'll be in my bunk
 
2012-12-11 04:32:10 PM

Arkanaut: I've always thought it had something to do with the hormone level of the mother during pregnancy.


This has been a theory for a long time and some researches have indicated possible connection, but it has not stood up to rigorous study. The gay gene hypothesis was rejected at least 20 years ago, but it persists in popular media.
 
2012-12-11 04:32:22 PM
Homosexuality is a Learned Behaviour. The instinct for sex involves thrusting and groping and kissing and so forth. If you get horny at the sight of a naked man, or if you get horny at the sight of a naked woman, it is only because you have been taught to make that association.

Bushmen don't have any more interest in female breasts than they do in elbows. The Western fascination with breasts is not instinctive. Certain deviants find stinky feet to be objects of desire. There is very little 'hard-wiring' involved in sexual attraction. You grope and fondle and kiss with whatever you've been taught to be appropriate.

In Imperial China, foot-binding was used to produce the 'lotus foot'. In bowdlerised accounts, Westerners are told that it caused a woman to be housebound and dependent upon her husband. Actually, the 'lotus foot' was used for both manual (pedal?) masturbation of the man, and also as a plug to stimulate a man's anus when the woman wrapped her legs around him during sexual intercourse.
 
2012-12-11 04:34:09 PM

Ishkur: Cythraul: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

[www.emagill.com image 300x238]

/not technically a gay character
//but explored the theme of non-hetero relationships specifically
///and had a dark and bleak ending


Word has it that Jonathan Frakes wanted the character he falls in love with to be played by a man to make the underlining message of the episode more obvious, but the higher-ups shot that down real quick and put the Moe wig on a chick instead.
 
2012-12-11 04:34:17 PM

Two16: samjmiller.com

Would like to have a word with you.


That's the distant past, not the distant future.
 
2012-12-11 04:34:20 PM
No lesbian couple can be called "completely acceptable" unless unclothed, well oiled and in 69 mode.
 
2012-12-11 04:34:52 PM

letrole: Homosexuality is a Learned Behaviour. The instinct for sex involves thrusting and groping and kissing and so forth. If you get horny at the sight of a naked man, or if you get horny at the sight of a naked woman, it is only because you have been taught to make that association.

Bushmen don't have any more interest in female breasts than they do in elbows. The Western fascination with breasts is not instinctive. Certain deviants find stinky feet to be objects of desire. There is very little 'hard-wiring' involved in sexual attraction. You grope and fondle and kiss with whatever you've been taught to be appropriate.

In Imperial China, foot-binding was used to produce the 'lotus foot'. In bowdlerised accounts, Westerners are told that it caused a woman to be housebound and dependent upon her husband. Actually, the 'lotus foot' was used for both manual (pedal?) masturbation of the man, and also as a plug to stimulate a man's anus when the woman wrapped her legs around him during sexual intercourse.


ametia.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-11 04:35:38 PM

misanthropologist: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors. Given that the environment under discussion is a pregnant uterus, it won't be long before anti-gay folks are trying to fund and find treatments and preventative measures and demonize (and criminalize?) any intentional or unintentional action a pregnant woman might take that might contribute to phenotypic homosexuality.


lol, yeah right... they don't know the first thing about science to make that happen. Unless, "Put garlic near your twat to prevent the ghey," counts as science.
 
2012-12-11 04:36:45 PM

SarahDiddle: Here is the article I was talking about Cythraul and xaratherus. There's also a correlation between unequal barr bodies (deactivated X chromosomes) the mother has and if her sons are gay. So if her barr bodies aren't around equal in her body then her sons are more likely to be gay. That's some pretty neat epigenetic stuff too.


Okay I was wrong about the testosterone thing but This is an abstract for the maternal immune hypothesis of male sexuality. In essence the mother's immune system gets involved and antigens from the mother go on to affect the developing fetus' brain.

/this is crazy interesting
 
2012-12-11 04:37:18 PM
Why is this even still a debate? Come on, we ALL knew a gay kid. He'd play Barbie with the girls when you needed him to play football so that the teams would be even. He'd suck his teeth to express disappointment. He had "mannerisms" that his Dad/Uncles would try to break him out of ("Boy, stop holding your wrist limp like that" "Boy, stop talking like that. You been around your mama too long"). When I was in 4th grade the gay kids name was Erin. He hung with the popular girls but he never had a girlfriend. He jumped rope...We all knew he was gay, he just didn't have anyone to be gay with him.
 
2012-12-11 04:37:35 PM

Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.

I wasn't implying there were gay people in TNG... just pointing out that Roddenberry's comments apply just as well to gayness (gaiety?) as baldness. Gay people weren't on TNG because being gay was still awful taboo when the show was made. More modern sci-fi has lots of gay characters: that chick in Stargate: Universe, Adama's brother in Caprica, Vincent in Eureka... hell, even BSG's gay character was named Gaeta.


How does that phrase apply, when there were no gay people in TNG? That's almost like saying, 'in the future, no one will care what race you are,' while having absolutely nothing but white people on the show.
 
2012-12-11 04:38:19 PM
img.gawkerassets.com
media.syracuse.com
 
2012-12-11 04:38:24 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


Dax totally kissed a girl that one time.

I prefer to think that it's a non-issue in the future so people just don't feel the need to make a big deal about it and discuss the morality of it all the freaking time. There were probably plenty of crew members that had same sex partners it just wasn't an issue and everyone got treated the same. Remember those dudes from next gen that wore those silly skirt uniforms, maybe they were the gay ones.
 
2012-12-11 04:39:04 PM

Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.


science agrees: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=having-older-brothers -inc
 
2012-12-11 04:39:14 PM
So. . . it is a birth defect?

Sounds about right.
 
2012-12-11 04:39:44 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Why is this even still a debate? Come on, we ALL knew a gay kid. He'd play Barbie with the girls when you needed him to play football so that the teams would be even. He'd suck his teeth to express disappointment. He had "mannerisms" that his Dad/Uncles would try to break him out of ("Boy, stop holding your wrist limp like that" "Boy, stop talking like that. You been around your mama too long"). When I was in 4th grade the gay kids name was Erin. He hung with the popular girls but he never had a girlfriend. He jumped rope...We all knew he was gay, he just didn't have anyone to be gay with him.


I'm gay. I played with 'the boys.' Our favorite games were to go out camping, playing 'war' where we'd 'shoot' each other with plastic guns (later BB guns) and tackle your opponent if they tried to cheat and run away. I played with G.I. Joes, Transformers, and did other 'boy' things.

Not that this matters, since you're just trolling.
 
2012-12-11 04:39:59 PM
Prey4reign No lesbian couple can be called "completely acceptable" unless unclothed, well oiled and in 69 mode.

Lesbians are not hot. Lesbians are a fetish for involuntarily abstinent young men who have been desensitised to normal sexual imagery.
 
2012-12-11 04:41:28 PM

letrole: Prey4reign No lesbian couple can be called "completely acceptable" unless unclothed, well oiled and in 69 mode.

Lesbians are not hot. Lesbians are a fetish for involuntarily abstinent young men who have been desensitised to normal sexual imagery.


You're definitely gay.
 
2012-12-11 04:41:50 PM

lennavan: Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.


Yeah but fraternal twins usually do not share a placenta (it can happen, but it's rare). They may share the same area but they're encased in their own bubbles so to speak and can then get differing levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition, etc. So they may share the womb but womb conditions may vary for them,.
 
2012-12-11 04:42:28 PM

burndtdan: Also, related:

[25.media.tumblr.com image 160x122] 


/hot
/and hotlinked


thatreallyrustlesmyjimmies.jpg
 
2012-12-11 04:43:02 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


Given the higher rate of mental illness, sucide attempts etc in gays one could argue that it would be a cure.

Any man that would prefer sex with Barney Frank instead of Jessica Alba has to be mentally ill.
 
2012-12-11 04:43:08 PM
One request to HOT lesbian couples:

Make me a sammich!

/Please!
 
2012-12-11 04:43:42 PM

misanthropologist: The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.


That's an amazingly poor definition of the word epigenetic. DNA (and thus a gene) is made up of A, T, C and G. One way to change gene expression is to change that DNA sequence, to change an A, T, C or G (or more than one). Epigenetics is the study of anything heritable that alters gene expression that is not altering the A, T, C or G sequence. Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.
 
2012-12-11 04:43:51 PM

hasty ambush: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

Given the higher rate of mental illness, sucide attempts etc in gays one could argue that it would be a cure.

Any man that would prefer sex with Barney Frank instead of Jessica Alba has to be mentally ill.


8/10
 
2012-12-11 04:44:40 PM

Lumpmoose: So gays are born this way but we aren't conceived this way.


Are you outing yourself?
 
2012-12-11 04:44:41 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Why is this even still a debate? Come on, we ALL knew a gay kid. He'd play Barbie with the girls when you needed him to play football so that the teams would be even. He'd suck his teeth to express disappointment. He had "mannerisms" that his Dad/Uncles would try to break him out of ("Boy, stop holding your wrist limp like that" "Boy, stop talking like that. You been around your mama too long"). When I was in 4th grade the gay kids name was Erin. He hung with the popular girls but he never had a girlfriend. He jumped rope...We all knew he was gay, he just didn't have anyone to be gay with him.


All of this is stereotypical myth. One of my very best friends growing up was just like every other boy. Rough and tumble, into sports and with no feminine affectations. He started becoming a bit unsure of himself and withdrawn in high school. It took me awhile, but I finally got him to admit he believed he was gay. As it turns out, he was. He didn't act on his impulses until he joined the military and found there were a lot of guys like him. He died of cancer a few years back. In all the time I knew him, he never acted gay. You wouldn't have known it unless he told you. I know a lot of quite masculine gay men, who cannot abide the gay affectations.
 
2012-12-11 04:44:48 PM

letrole: Prey4reign No lesbian couple can be called "completely acceptable" unless unclothed, well oiled and in 69 mode.

Lesbians are not hot. Lesbians are a fetish for involuntarily abstinent young men who have been desensitised to normal sexual imagery.


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-11 04:44:52 PM
well i think sex is completely gay
 
2012-12-11 04:44:54 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.

I wasn't implying there were gay people in TNG... just pointing out that Roddenberry's comments apply just as well to gayness (gaiety?) as baldness. Gay people weren't on TNG because being gay was still awful taboo when the show was made. More modern sci-fi has lots of gay characters: that chick in Stargate: Universe, Adama's brother in Caprica, Vincent in Eureka... hell, even BSG's gay character was named Gaeta.

How does that phrase apply, when there were no gay people in TNG? That's almost like saying, 'in the future, no one will care what race you are,' while having absolutely nothing but white people on the show.


The phrase applies to your statement that in the future they would have been cured.

/that whooshing sound was the point flying over your head
 
2012-12-11 04:44:56 PM

letrole: Prey4reign No lesbian couple can be called "completely acceptable" unless unclothed, well oiled and in 69 mode.

Lesbians are not hot. Lesbians are a fetish for involuntarily abstinent young men who have been desensitised to normal sexual imagery.


Lesbians are, at the very least, a 2 for 1 special on naked ladies.
 
2012-12-11 04:44:58 PM

Smeggy Smurf: How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.



Because feti demonstrate gender-based sexual attraction in utero.
 
2012-12-11 04:45:49 PM
How long until straight parents get treatment to keep from having gay kids?

How long until gay parents get treatment to have gay kids.
 
2012-12-11 04:45:49 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: He'd play Barbie with the girls when you needed him to play football so that the teams would be even.



Obviously playing with girls denotes homosexuality and climbing all over sweaty boys is the height of hetero behavior. I had this conversation with a buddy after gym class, when myself and one other guy opted to do step aerobics instead of wrestling.

"Seriously man, you just spent the last 45 minutes rolling on the floor with sweaty dudes, I was standing at the back of a room full of girls in tight shorts."
 
2012-12-11 04:46:04 PM

lennavan: Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.


I don't know, I'm pretty sure I ate a cookie one time that made me gay.
 
2012-12-11 04:46:18 PM

Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.


Maybe he was born that way...
 
2012-12-11 04:46:58 PM

letrole: Prey4reign No lesbian couple can be called "completely acceptable" unless unclothed, well oiled and in 69 mode.

Lesbians are not hot. Lesbians are a fetish for involuntarily abstinent young men who have been desensitised to normal sexual imagery.


FTFY Mr The Troll.
 
2012-12-11 04:47:27 PM

Pro Zack: How long until straight parents get treatment to keep from having gay kids?

How long until gay parents get treatment to have gay kids.


You really think gay parents would prefer to have gay children?
 
2012-12-11 04:48:06 PM

tedthebellhopp: Maybe the fundies will change their minds on abortion now.


Two edged sword. How would liberals feel if people prescreened and aborted children that may turn out to be gay? Just fetal tissue right? In this case gay fetal tissue.
 
2012-12-11 04:48:17 PM

Gordian Cipher: At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:


So they had a press conference announcing that fact 2 years after the show premiered?
 
2012-12-11 04:48:22 PM

lennavan: misanthropologist: The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.

That's an amazingly poor definition of the word epigenetic. DNA (and thus a gene) is made up of A, T, C and G. One way to change gene expression is to change that DNA sequence, to change an A, T, C or G (or more than one). Epigenetics is the study of anything heritable that alters gene expression that is not altering the A, T, C or G sequence. Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.


Though there is that neat study in...Finland? Maybe? where in small villages where there were periods of starvation and periods of overabundance there were more negative epigenetic effects passed on to the offspring from those who came of age during overabundant times and over ate. So that cookie could very well be methylating your DNA right now.

/well, if you ate a bunch of cookies constantly
//the cookie monster is going to have some horribly ill children
///who would the cookie monster even do?
 
2012-12-11 04:48:24 PM

SarahDiddle: lennavan: Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.

Yeah but fraternal twins usually do not share a placenta (it can happen, but it's rare). They may share the same area but they're encased in their own bubbles so to speak and can then get differing levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition, etc. So they may share the womb but womb conditions may vary for them,.


That might be a fair point, I honestly don't know enough medically to agree or disagree. I find it difficult to believe the levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition etc would vary between fraternal twins to any relevant amount. For instance with hormones, there are regulation and feedback mechanisms to fine tune. Will that vary ever so slightly? Sure why not but I sincerely doubt whether you become gay or not is that finicky.
 
2012-12-11 04:48:47 PM

Cythraul: DROxINxTHExWIND: Why is this even still a debate? Come on, we ALL knew a gay kid. He'd play Barbie with the girls when you needed him to play football so that the teams would be even. He'd suck his teeth to express disappointment. He had "mannerisms" that his Dad/Uncles would try to break him out of ("Boy, stop holding your wrist limp like that" "Boy, stop talking like that. You been around your mama too long"). When I was in 4th grade the gay kids name was Erin. He hung with the popular girls but he never had a girlfriend. He jumped rope...We all knew he was gay, he just didn't have anyone to be gay with him.

I'm gay. I played with 'the boys.' Our favorite games were to go out camping, playing 'war' where we'd 'shoot' each other with plastic guns (later BB guns) and tackle your opponent if they tried to cheat and run away. I played with G.I. Joes, Transformers, and did other 'boy' things.

Not that this matters, since you're just trolling.


Naw, I'm not trolling and believe it or not I'm not trying to be as insensitive and dickish as my comment suggested. I'm speaking of anecdotal experience and trying to be humorous, while making the point that most gay people do not "choose" to be gay.
 
2012-12-11 04:49:07 PM

lennavan: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

A "gay gene" was found in Drosophila over 15 years ago. They named it "fruity" because mutations in that gene made the flies ... well it made males chase other males instead of females.

I just want to be clear, this "study" is merely a model:

To reach this conclusion, Rice and Friberg created a biological and mathematical model that charted the role of epigenetics in homosexuality.

They generated a hypothesis and looked at some other results and decided the results were consistent with their hypothesis. They have not actually tested their hypothesis. What's more, their prediction contradicts other observations. Here is the key part:

This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself.

Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.


Here's an article with discussion of twins

rnatalie: [img.gawkerassets.com image 640x360]
[media.syracuse.com image 380x246]


Nice!
 
2012-12-11 04:50:23 PM

lennavan: This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself.

Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.


I doubt their hypothesis is "If you are in a womb with X conditions you are gay", it is much more likely something to the effect of "If you are in a womb with X conditions there is a y% chance that you will be gay". It is entirely possible that on a 1/6 chance of being gay that one kid rolls a 1, the other rolls one of the other five options.
 
2012-12-11 04:50:35 PM
LOL. I see I'm getting fried here, today. Probably deserved in this instance.
 
2012-12-11 04:51:11 PM
If this claim becomes popularized, expect someone to start marketing a "cure" that is supposed to protect your child against becoming gay-ized in the womb.
 
2012-12-11 04:52:11 PM

SarahDiddle: lennavan: misanthropologist: The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.

That's an amazingly poor definition of the word epigenetic. DNA (and thus a gene) is made up of A, T, C and G. One way to change gene expression is to change that DNA sequence, to change an A, T, C or G (or more than one). Epigenetics is the study of anything heritable that alters gene expression that is not altering the A, T, C or G sequence. Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.

Though there is that neat study in...Finland? Maybe? where in small villages where there were periods of starvation and periods of overabundance there were more negative epigenetic effects passed on to the offspring from those who came of age during overabundant times and over ate. So that cookie could very well be methylating your DNA right now.

/well, if you ate a bunch of cookies constantly
//the cookie monster is going to have some horribly ill children
///who would the cookie monster even do?


So for giggles I pubmed'd cookie and cookies have acrylamide in them? WTF Link
 
2012-12-11 04:52:59 PM

burndtdan: lennavan: Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure I ate a cookie one time that made me gay.


Was it a fig screwton?
 
2012-12-11 04:53:09 PM
I love the smell of homophobia in the morning mid-afternoon.
 
2012-12-11 04:54:02 PM

HailRobonia: burndtdan: lennavan: Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure I ate a cookie one time that made me gay.

Was it a fig screwton?


Nutter Butter
 
2012-12-11 04:54:44 PM

pciszek: If this claim becomes popularized, expect someone to start marketing a "cure" that is supposed to protect your child against becoming gay-ized in the womb.


It would no more be a "cure" than choosing to have a daughter is a "cure" for being male. I think it is inevitable that many traits of children will be chosen. I don't see that sexual orientation will be sacrosanct.
 
2012-12-11 04:54:46 PM

Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.

I wasn't implying there were gay people in TNG... just pointing out that Roddenberry's comments apply just as well to gayness (gaiety?) as baldness. Gay people weren't on TNG because being gay was still awful taboo when the show was made. More modern sci-fi has lots of gay characters: that chick in Stargate: Universe, Adama's brother in Caprica, Vincent in Eureka... hell, even BSG's gay character was named Gaeta.

How does that phrase apply, when there were no gay people in TNG? That's almost like saying, 'in the future, no one will care what race you are,' while having absolutely nothing but white people on the show.

The phrase applies to your statement that in the future they would have been cured.

/that whooshing sound was the point flying over your head


Okay, so let me get this straight.

I make a claim that the lack of gay characters in pre-2000 science fiction might point to a theory that they somehow 'cure' homosexuality.

I use Star Trek: The Next Generation as an example.

You come in and quote Gene Roddenberry on his representation of bald men in the future and how no one will care if someone is bald, obviously trying to make some sort of connection about what he said about bald people with gay people, even though those two are a little bit different.

This does not change the fact that there were no freaking gay people in TNG.

If being gay was so cool with other people and no one cared, why were there no farking gay people in TNG? Where are all the gay people that everyone is supposed to be so cool with? Sure, there were probably no Australian aborigines either. But homosexuality was a bit more common than Australian aborigines in the cultures that made up the Enterprise crew. One would think you'd run into at least one throughout the series.

But somehow, I'm missing the point?
 
2012-12-11 04:54:52 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


Somehow, I cannot see gay people taking that option with anything resembling 'willingly taking it to be accepted'. The third X-Man movie springs to mind.

/Also, TFA has a major flaw, because bisexuality and 'sometimes but not always' are good indicators that this is not Mandelian genetics (however you spell that), and thus is not an on-off switch like TFA is assuming it is. It's a gradient, and it looks like they failed to account for that.
 
2012-12-11 04:54:58 PM

fracto: DROxINxTHExWIND: He'd play Barbie with the girls when you needed him to play football so that the teams would be even.


Obviously playing with girls denotes homosexuality and climbing all over sweaty boys is the height of hetero behavior. I had this conversation with a buddy after gym class, when myself and one other guy opted to do step aerobics instead of wrestling.

"Seriously man, you just spent the last 45 minutes rolling on the floor with sweaty dudes, I was standing at the back of a room full of girls in tight shorts."


This is why I'm going to encourage my nephew to go out for ballet when he's old enough. Whether he's gay or straight, he's going to be surrounded by nubile playmates.
 
2012-12-11 04:56:14 PM

letrole: Prey4reign No lesbian couple can be called "completely acceptable" unless unclothed, well oiled and in 69 mode.

Lesbians are not hot. Lesbians are a fetish for involuntarily abstinent young men who have been desensitised to normal sexual imagery.


or for those who don't find other guys having sex to be a turn on.
 
2012-12-11 04:56:18 PM

Buttknuckle: Cythraul: Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.

I have two older brothers, one older sister.

Yeah, I have one of each. The only one who goes against this that I know of is my SO. He's the oldest of three boys.


That you know of....
 
2012-12-11 04:56:48 PM

Cythraul: Pro Zack: How long until straight parents get treatment to keep from having gay kids?

How long until gay parents get treatment to have gay kids.

You really think gay parents would prefer to have gay children?


if they plan on having sex with their children that's a bad
 
2012-12-11 04:57:04 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


Sci-fi where heterosexuality becomes abnormal
 
2012-12-11 04:57:08 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


Are you saying that people who want gender-preference reassignment treatment are less deserving than people who want gender reassignment surgery?

You are a bigot.
 
2012-12-11 04:57:37 PM

lennavan: SarahDiddle: lennavan: Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.

Yeah but fraternal twins usually do not share a placenta (it can happen, but it's rare). They may share the same area but they're encased in their own bubbles so to speak and can then get differing levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition, etc. So they may share the womb but womb conditions may vary for them,.

That might be a fair point, I honestly don't know enough medically to agree or disagree. I find it difficult to believe the levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition etc would vary between fraternal twins to any relevant amount. For instance with hormones, there are regulation and feedback mechanisms to fine tune. Will that vary ever so slightly? Sure why not but I sincerely doubt whether you become gay or not is that finicky.


There's also a phenomena where one twin can become "dominant" in the womb and receive more hormones, nutrition, etc than the other twin. I know this occurs with identical twins, I'm not sure about fraternal. Also if it's really epigenetic, that slight variation can be all it takes to make one twin gay and the other straight. If the DNA happens to get methylated or epigenetically altered in one specific spot due to a fluctuation in hormones that the other twin didn't get then apparently it's entirely possible for that to happen according to this study. I'm trying to find more than the abstract now but this is a twin study where one twin is gay. Again, it's the abstract and I haven't read the entire paper but it seems interesting at least. Keep in mind though that there may be a self-selecting bias in twin studies so that may have altered the outcome (again, unable to find the conditions of the study).
 
2012-12-11 04:57:51 PM

Cythraul: Pro Zack: How long until straight parents get treatment to keep from having gay kids?

How long until gay parents get treatment to have gay kids.

You really think gay parents would prefer to have gay children?


if not, teh gay will be rare as hen's teeth before long.
 
2012-12-11 04:58:40 PM

Hot Carl To Go: Here's an article with discussion of twins


Eh, it doesn't really address it. Honestly by far the best way to get the author's opinion on the matter is to read their paper. Recall the lesson you're supposed to learn from playing "telephone" when you were in 2nd grade. Now we're playing telephone with a complex scientific subject going Scientist - Journalist - Article - Me. That message almost always gets garbled and many times gets completely reversed because the journalist is stupid or a dick. Also, from your article:

Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce.

That's just fundamentally false. This journalist clearly has no idea how genetics or evolution works.
 
2012-12-11 04:58:50 PM

gingerjet: Cythraul: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.

Considering how awful TNG was - I don't consider the absence of a major gay character a bad thing.

/I also don't care


You mean Wesley Crusher was not gay?!
 
2012-12-11 04:58:57 PM

Pro Zack: Cythraul: Pro Zack: How long until straight parents get treatment to keep from having gay kids?

How long until gay parents get treatment to have gay kids.

You really think gay parents would prefer to have gay children?

if not, teh gay will be rare as hen's teeth before long.


You should talk to some gay parents about your theory.
 
2012-12-11 04:59:06 PM
Since they are people at conception then this proves that being gay is a choice.

I'm blinding you with science. Boop-Boop-Boop
 
2012-12-11 04:59:47 PM
So, it should be fairly obvious to most people that trying to "cure" a person who is gay is offensive. That's just who they are, it's clearly not a disease, and doesn't need a cure. However, if we were to pinpoint what conditions cause it during pregnancy and were able to prevent it without altering their genetic makeup, would that be equally offensive? I'm torn on the issue since a fetus plainly can't identify as gay so it's not like you're taking away who they are, but perhaps changing who they will be is no better?
 
2012-12-11 05:03:02 PM
epigenetics is really cool.
 
2012-12-11 05:03:10 PM

PsiChick: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

Somehow, I cannot see gay people taking that option with anything resembling 'willingly taking it to be accepted'. The third X-Man movie springs to mind.

/Also, TFA has a major flaw, because bisexuality and 'sometimes but not always' are good indicators that this is not Mandelian genetics (however you spell that), and thus is not an on-off switch like TFA is assuming it is. It's a gradient, and it looks like they failed to account for that.


They're not claiming it to be Mendelian genetics. Epigenetics is a whole 'nother ball game which could account for the gradient. Say There are 10 genes that when epigenetically altered the person identifies as gay. 0-4 altered can keep them straight, 5-8 can make them bi, and 9-10 can make them gay. Their DNA (ATGC) isn't changed at all (Mendel) but could have various chemical groups (i.e. methyl) attached which would be epigenetics.
 
2012-12-11 05:03:31 PM

gingerjet: Cythraul: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.

Considering how awful TNG was - I don't consider the absence of a major gay character a bad thing.

/I also don't care


TNG. Hey, impossible magic assholes and obviously-and-totally-not-magic psychic ladies are most definitely "science fiction" if it happens in space
 
2012-12-11 05:04:10 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


I don't see anybody putting up money for a "cure" for redheadedness, or not being able to curl your tongue.

And the right's aversion to human gene tinkering would probably win anyway.
 
2012-12-11 05:04:32 PM

Rezurok: So, it should be fairly obvious to most people that trying to "cure" a person who is gay is offensive. That's just who they are, it's clearly not a disease, and doesn't need a cure. However, if we were to pinpoint what conditions cause it during pregnancy and were able to prevent it without altering their genetic makeup, would that be equally offensive? I'm torn on the issue since a fetus plainly can't identify as gay so it's not like you're taking away who they are, but perhaps changing who they will be is no better?


Unless society changes greatly to where homosexuality is completely accepted, I don't think there will be many gay people in the future if they figure out how to engineer sexuality within unborn children. I think too many parents will make that choice to 'weed it out.' I'm not saying that's a good thing by the way.
 
2012-12-11 05:04:49 PM
Marcus Bachmann has some revolutionary Mouth-To-Penis based therapy to get rid of Teh Ghey. They run simulations on the holodeck all the time in Next Gen.
 
2012-12-11 05:05:22 PM

lennavan: SarahDiddle: lennavan: misanthropologist: The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.

That's an amazingly poor definition of the word epigenetic. DNA (and thus a gene) is made up of A, T, C and G. One way to change gene expression is to change that DNA sequence, to change an A, T, C or G (or more than one). Epigenetics is the study of anything heritable that alters gene expression that is not altering the A, T, C or G sequence. Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.

Though there is that neat study in...Finland? Maybe? where in small villages where there were periods of starvation and periods of overabundance there were more negative epigenetic effects passed on to the offspring from those who came of age during overabundant times and over ate. So that cookie could very well be methylating your DNA right now.

/well, if you ate a bunch of cookies constantly
//the cookie monster is going to have some horribly ill children
///who would the cookie monster even do?

So for giggles I pubmed'd cookie and cookies have acrylamide in them? WTF Link


So would acai berry or green tea cookies just cancel it out? Where did the acrylamide come from?
 
2012-12-11 05:05:29 PM

SarahDiddle: lennavan: SarahDiddle: lennavan: Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.

Yeah but fraternal twins usually do not share a placenta (it can happen, but it's rare). They may share the same area but they're encased in their own bubbles so to speak and can then get differing levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition, etc. So they may share the womb but womb conditions may vary for them,.

That might be a fair point, I honestly don't know enough medically to agree or disagree. I find it difficult to believe the levels of hormones, antibodies, nutrition etc would vary between fraternal twins to any relevant amount. For instance with hormones, there are regulation and feedback mechanisms to fine tune. Will that vary ever so slightly? Sure why not but I sincerely doubt whether you become gay or not is that finicky.

There's also a phenomena where one twin can become "dominant" in the womb and receive more hormones, nutrition, etc than the other twin. I know this occurs with identical twins, I'm not sure about fraternal. Also if it's really epigenetic, that slight variation can be all it takes to make one twin gay and the other straight. If the DNA happens to get methylated or epigenetically altered in one specific spot due to a fluctuation in hormones that the other twin didn't get then apparently it's entirely possible for that to happen according to this study. I'm trying to find more than the abstract now but this is a twin study where one twin is gay. Again, it's the abstract and I haven't read the entire paper but it seems interesting at least. Keep in mind though that there may be a self-selecting bias in twin studies so that may have ...


His name is Dwight Shrute
 
2012-12-11 05:05:46 PM

Cythraul: Okay, so let me get this straight.

I make a claim that the lack of gay characters in pre-2000 science fiction might point to a theory that they somehow 'cure' homosexuality.

I use Star Trek: The Next Generation as an example.

You come in and quote Gene Roddenberry on his representation of bald men in the future and how no one will care if someone is bald, obviously trying to make some sort of connection about what he said about bald people with gay people, even though those two are a little bit different.

This does not change the fact that there were no freaking gay people in TNG.

If being gay was so cool with other people and no one cared, why were there no farking gay people in TNG? Where are all the gay people that everyone is supposed to be so cool with? Sure, there were probably no Australian aborigines either. But homosexuality was a bit more common than Australian aborigines in the cultures that made up the Enterprise crew. One would think you'd run into at least one throughout the series.

But somehow, I'm missing the point?


Yep.
 
2012-12-11 05:06:24 PM
To reach this conclusion, Rice and Friberg created a biological and mathematical model that charted the role of epigenetics in homosexuality. They did so by applying evolutionary theory to recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development. This data was integrated with recent findings from the epigenetic control of gene expression, especially in embryonic stem cells. This allowed the researchers to develop and empirically support a mathematical model of epigenetic-based canalization of sexual development, or the tendency of heredity to restrict the development of some characteristics to just one or a few traits. Their model successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality in both sexes when canalizing epi-marks carry over across generations with nonzero probability. In their study, the team writes that they "tracked changes in chromatin structure that influence the transcription rate of genes (coding and noncoding, such as miRNAs), including nucleosome repositioning, DNA methylation, and/or modification of histone tails, but not including changes in DNA sequence." The resulting model predicted that homosexuality can be produced by transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.


P-farking-lease. They're just gay, okay - accept it and move the fark on.
 
2012-12-11 05:06:56 PM
DROxINxTHExWIND

Smartest
Funniest
2012-12-11 04:50:35 PM
LOL. I see I'm getting fried here, today. Probably deserved in this instance
.

Joking or not, it is ignorant as well as cliched.
 
2012-12-11 05:07:53 PM

SarahDiddle: They're not claiming it to be Mendelian genetics. Epigenetics is a whole 'nother ball game which could account for the gradient. Say There are 10 genes that when epigenetically altered the person identifies as gay. 0-4 altered can keep them straight, 5-8 can make them bi, and 9-10 can make them gay. Their DNA (ATGC) isn't changed at all (Mendel) but could have various chemical groups (i.e. methyl) attached which would be epigenetics.


That makes sense...TFA sucks ass at explaining that bit. You'd think they'd have put it in the first paragraph...
 
2012-12-11 05:08:30 PM

Cythraul: Rezurok: So, it should be fairly obvious to most people that trying to "cure" a person who is gay is offensive. That's just who they are, it's clearly not a disease, and doesn't need a cure. However, if we were to pinpoint what conditions cause it during pregnancy and were able to prevent it without altering their genetic makeup, would that be equally offensive? I'm torn on the issue since a fetus plainly can't identify as gay so it's not like you're taking away who they are, but perhaps changing who they will be is no better?

Unless society changes greatly to where homosexuality is completely accepted, I don't think there will be many gay people in the future if they figure out how to engineer sexuality within unborn children. I think too many parents will make that choice to 'weed it out.' I'm not saying that's a good thing by the way.


That would be awful. If we had the technology and I found out my fetus would probably be gay, I'd just go ahead and move to Seattle or Canada. Of course, the only genetic engineering I am in favor of is just for the eradication of genetic disease which I would totally opt for because I don't want a harlequin baby.

/seriously, that is my biggest fear
//really
 
2012-12-11 05:09:01 PM

dv-ous: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

I don't see anybody putting up money for a "cure" for redheadedness, or not being able to curl your tongue.

And the right's aversion to human gene tinkering would probably win anyway.


Nobody's trying to prevent red-headed people from marrying or adopting, either, or sending them away to Jesus camps to pray away the ginger.
 
2012-12-11 05:09:24 PM
the thing i hate about gay people is that they're ALWAYS touching each other TRYING to piss me off
 
2012-12-11 05:09:38 PM

SarahDiddle: I'm trying to find more than the abstract now but this is a twin study where one twin is gay


There are newer and better twin studies. The reasoning is like this - if being gay was entirely genetic, then if one identical twin was gay, the other twin would also always be gay. But this would not be true for fraternal twins. If being gay was entirely environmental, if one fraternal twin was gay, then the other fraternal twin would (pretty much) always be gay. This would also be true for identical twins.

Turns out neither of those is true and the answer is "a little of both." So you can take twin studies one step further and separate out the contribution from their environments - the shared environment versus their unique individual environment. Twins have the same mom raising them at home but perhaps different friends.

This is a very good study and is pretty easy to read: Link

TLDR; it's both, more environment than genetic and more unique than shared environment. What the specific genetic or environmental factors involved are remains unknown.
 
2012-12-11 05:10:23 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: the thing i hate about gay people is that they're ALWAYS touching each other TRYING to piss me off


Turns you on, doesn't it?
 
2012-12-11 05:10:26 PM

NkThrasher: lennavan: This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself.

Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.

I doubt their hypothesis is "If you are in a womb with X conditions you are gay", it is much more likely something to the effect of "If you are in a womb with X conditions there is a y% chance that you will be gay". It is entirely possible that on a 1/6 chance of being gay that one kid rolls a 1, the other rolls one of the other five options.


But if you roll a 20 and get a critical hit, you become

www.sabinabecker.com
 
2012-12-11 05:10:29 PM

lennavan: SarahDiddle: lennavan: misanthropologist: The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.

That's an amazingly poor definition of the word epigenetic. DNA (and thus a gene) is made up of A, T, C and G. One way to change gene expression is to change that DNA sequence, to change an A, T, C or G (or more than one). Epigenetics is the study of anything heritable that alters gene expression that is not altering the A, T, C or G sequence. Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.

Though there is that neat study in...Finland? Maybe? where in small villages where there were periods of starvation and periods of overabundance there were more negative epigenetic effects passed on to the offspring from those who came of age during overabundant times and over ate. So that cookie could very well be methylating your DNA right now.

/well, if you ate a bunch of cookies constantly
//the cookie monster is going to have some horribly ill children
///who would the cookie monster even do?

So for giggles I pubmed'd cookie and cookies have acrylamide in them? WTF Link


Wow.

Neat in some respects though, that all these thousands of years we've been baking bread that we've been ingesting acrylamide that formed through entirely natural processes.
 
2012-12-11 05:10:33 PM

misanthropologist: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors. Given that the environment under discussion is a pregnant uterus, it won't be long before anti-gay folks are trying to fund and find treatments and preventative measures and demonize (and criminalize?) any intentional or unintentional action a pregnant woman might take that might contribute to phenotypic homosexuality.


You can't avoid that, though. Homosexuality is genetic? Let's create a test so we can abort. Homosexuality is learned behaviour? Let's create an indoctrination summer camp. Homosexuaility is whatever else? Let's create ways to avoid whatever else. You can't win - don't play.
 
2012-12-11 05:10:44 PM

burndtdan: letrole: Prey4reign No lesbian couple can be called "completely acceptable" unless unclothed, well oiled and in 69 mode.

Lesbians are not hot. Lesbians are a fetish for involuntarily abstinent young men who have been desensitised to normal sexual imagery.

Lesbians are, at the very least, a 2 for 1 special on naked ladies.


I'm with you burndtdan, and as a bonus you get the expression of female sexual desire independent of male influence. Hot in itself.
 
2012-12-11 05:12:01 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: LOL. I see I'm getting fried here, today. Probably deserved in this instance.


Straight guys walk like this ------------

Gay guys walk like this \\

:)

/Didn't deserve to be called a troll
//I knew that kid, too
///as well as the one you'd never guess
 
2012-12-11 05:12:13 PM

SarahDiddle: lennavan: SarahDiddle: lennavan: misanthropologist: The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.

That's an amazingly poor definition of the word epigenetic. DNA (and thus a gene) is made up of A, T, C and G. One way to change gene expression is to change that DNA sequence, to change an A, T, C or G (or more than one). Epigenetics is the study of anything heritable that alters gene expression that is not altering the A, T, C or G sequence. Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.

Though there is that neat study in...Finland? Maybe? where in small villages where there were periods of starvation and periods of overabundance there were more negative epigenetic effects passed on to the offspring from those who came of age during overabundant times and over ate. So that cookie could very well be methylating your DNA right now.

/well, if you ate a bunch of cookies constantly
//the cookie monster is going to have some horribly ill children
///who would the cookie monster even do?

So for giggles I pubmed'd cookie and cookies have acrylamide in them? WTF Link

So would acai berry or green tea cookies just cancel it out? Where did the acrylamide come from?


Possibly the Maillard Reaction.
 
2012-12-11 05:12:26 PM
Can't you just like to get tooled in the tooter and smoke a few sausages now and then without being gay?
 
2012-12-11 05:12:27 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.


There were also no Mexicans or Puerto Ricans. Either they don't work in the 24th century, or they were eliminated?
 
2012-12-11 05:12:31 PM

hasty ambush: tedthebellhopp: Maybe the fundies will change their minds on abortion now.

Two edged sword. How would liberals feel if people prescreened and aborted children that may turn out to be gay? Just fetal tissue right? In this case gay fetal tissue.


Have you ever been NOT stupid?
 
2012-12-11 05:13:49 PM

meat0918: SarahDiddle: lennavan: SarahDiddle: lennavan: misanthropologist: The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.

That's an amazingly poor definition of the word epigenetic. DNA (and thus a gene) is made up of A, T, C and G. One way to change gene expression is to change that DNA sequence, to change an A, T, C or G (or more than one). Epigenetics is the study of anything heritable that alters gene expression that is not altering the A, T, C or G sequence. Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.

Though there is that neat study in...Finland? Maybe? where in small villages where there were periods of starvation and periods of overabundance there were more negative epigenetic effects passed on to the offspring from those who came of age during overabundant times and over ate. So that cookie could very well be methylating your DNA right now.

/well, if you ate a bunch of cookies constantly
//the cookie monster is going to have some horribly ill children
///who would the cookie monster even do?

So for giggles I pubmed'd cookie and cookies have acrylamide in them? WTF Link

So would acai berry or green tea cookies just cancel it out? Where did the acrylamide come from?

Possibly the Maillard Reaction.


Right. That would make sense. That damn tasty tasty reaction.
 
2012-12-11 05:14:32 PM

ekdikeo4: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.

There were also no Mexicans or Puerto Ricans. Either they don't work in the 24th century, or they were eliminated?


I already addressed that bullshiat argument earlier.
 
2012-12-11 05:14:33 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Cythraul: DROxINxTHExWIND: Why is this even still a debate? Come on, we ALL knew a gay kid. He'd play Barbie with the girls when you needed him to play football so that the teams would be even. He'd suck his teeth to express disappointment. He had "mannerisms" that his Dad/Uncles would try to break him out of ("Boy, stop holding your wrist limp like that" "Boy, stop talking like that. You been around your mama too long"). When I was in 4th grade the gay kids name was Erin. He hung with the popular girls but he never had a girlfriend. He jumped rope...We all knew he was gay, he just didn't have anyone to be gay with him.

I'm gay. I played with 'the boys.' Our favorite games were to go out camping, playing 'war' where we'd 'shoot' each other with plastic guns (later BB guns) and tackle your opponent if they tried to cheat and run away. I played with G.I. Joes, Transformers, and did other 'boy' things.

Not that this matters, since you're just trolling.

Naw, I'm not trolling and believe it or not I'm not trying to be as insensitive and dickish as my comment suggested. I'm speaking of anecdotal experience and trying to be humorous, while making the point that most gay people do not "choose" to be gay.


And lightly plagiarizing Chris Rock.
 
2012-12-11 05:17:10 PM

hasty ambush: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

Given the higher rate of mental illness, sucide attempts etc in gays one could argue that it would be a cure.

Any man that would prefer sex with Barney Frank instead of Jessica Alba has to be mentally ill.


Are there any men that have both opportunities?
 
2012-12-11 05:17:36 PM

Cythraul: Pro Zack: How long until straight parents get treatment to keep from having gay kids?

How long until gay parents get treatment to have gay kids.

You really think gay parents would prefer to have gay children?


I would suspect that, in a vast majority of cases, gay parents aren't going to be doing the choosing. Homosexuality may be a lot of things, but it's definitely not the most efficient way to pass on genetic or epigenetic make-up.
 
2012-12-11 05:19:15 PM
Im looking fwd to conservatives blaming all these gays for causing homosexuality
 
2012-12-11 05:19:16 PM
Folks... Little kids brains look at, touch, taste, smell, hear the world and based on what gets input, organize information and grow different tissues in different ways -- the process is totally mathematically chaotic and absolutely, deeply unknowable and I have no doubt that sexual identity and response is determined by these processes.
 
2012-12-11 05:20:58 PM

NkThrasher: lennavan: This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself.

Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.

I doubt their hypothesis is "If you are in a womb with X conditions you are gay", it is much more likely something to the effect of "If you are in a womb with X conditions there is a y% chance that you will be gay". It is entirely possible that on a 1/6 chance of being gay that one kid rolls a 1, the other rolls one of the other five options.


You should read the article.
 
2012-12-11 05:21:23 PM

letrole: Homosexuality is a Learned Behaviour. The instinct for sex involves thrusting and groping and kissing and so forth. If you get horny at the sight of a naked man, or if you get horny at the sight of a naked woman, it is only because you have been taught to make that association.

Bushmen don't have any more interest in female breasts than they do in elbows. The Western fascination with breasts is not instinctive. Certain deviants find stinky feet to be objects of desire. There is very little 'hard-wiring' involved in sexual attraction. You grope and fondle and kiss with whatever you've been taught to be appropriate.

In Imperial China, foot-binding was used to produce the 'lotus foot'. In bowdlerised accounts, Westerners are told that it caused a woman to be housebound and dependent upon her husband. Actually, the 'lotus foot' was used for both manual (pedal?) masturbation of the man, and also as a plug to stimulate a man's anus when the woman wrapped her legs around him during sexual intercourse.


i1125.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-11 05:22:21 PM
what if we gave datura tea to gays
 
2012-12-11 05:22:42 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Smeggy Smurf: How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Because feti demonstrate gender-based sexual attraction in utero.


Some fundie is going to abort a baby because she thinks it is queer. What'll be even more fun is when somebody associates gay with vaccines. The derp will divide by zero and destroy us all
 
2012-12-11 05:24:15 PM

strapp3r: [i.huffpost.com image 570x380]6
actual lesbians


I tagged this as funny, but that really does not do the post justice.

/FARK needs an "Oh crap I spit coffee all over my keyboard" button.
 
2012-12-11 05:26:48 PM

Cythraul: ekdikeo4: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.

There were also no Mexicans or Puerto Ricans. Either they don't work in the 24th century, or they were eliminated?

I already addressed that bullshiat argument earlier.



Yeah, it's inconceivable that the creators of a TV series set in the 23rd/24th Century would take the prejudices of a 1960s/1980s audience into account.

If there's ever another Star Trek series, you can bet that there WILL be gay crewmembers.

/huh-huh, i said members
 
2012-12-11 05:28:03 PM

Smeggy Smurf: common sense is an oxymoron: Smeggy Smurf: How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Because feti demonstrate gender-based sexual attraction in utero.

Some fundie is going to abort a baby because she thinks it is queer. What'll be even more fun is when somebody associates gay with vaccines. The derp will divide by zero and destroy us all


gay != vaccines

think about it

no one ever says the cure for polio is soo gay
 
2012-12-11 05:28:55 PM
Peeing into your mouth and banging guys in the ass is genetic, natural, and acceptable because dolphins and monkey's do it.
 
2012-12-11 05:31:20 PM

Jake Steed: Peeing into your mouth and banging guys in the ass is genetic, natural, and acceptable because dolphins and monkey's do it.


no. it's acceptable because it doesn't result in loss of life or money
 
2012-12-11 05:31:23 PM

Smeggy Smurf: How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.


If you can abort a viable fetus because it's inconvenient to your lifestyle, you should be able to abort it for any reason: Race, Possible Sexual Orientation, Sex, Hair Color, whatever.

It's only a matter of time until pregnant women of means can have their fetus scanned for perceived imperfections and make a decision to keep it or flush it.

Poor minorities will have the decision made for them based off of current and projected future crime rates and prison space availability assessments.
 
2012-12-11 05:32:55 PM

ekdikeo4: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

At a press conference in 1989 announcing that Patrick Stewart had been cast as Captain Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There was a bald character on Star Trek: The Next Generation. There were no gay characters on TNG. There were characters who flirted with the issue, or topics of an ambiguous nature that implied homosexuality, but no gay characters.

Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.

There were also no Mexicans or Puerto Ricans. Either they don't work in the 24th century, or they were eliminated?


What about the hispanic guy on the bridge in "Encounter at Farpoint?
 
2012-12-11 05:35:46 PM

Jake Steed: Peeing into your mouth and banging guys in the ass is genetic, natural, and acceptable because dolphins and monkey's do it.


Whatever floats your boat Jake.
 
2012-12-11 05:36:16 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


Lets really think about it, then: Riker, a main character, was from Alaska, therefore he's from what he would consider what USED to be America.

I've never seen any Afghani people on Star Trek. By YOUR logic...

/shhh let's see if he figures it out...
 
2012-12-11 05:37:27 PM

SarahDiddle: Cythraul: Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.

I have two older brothers, one older sister.

I could swear I read a study somewhere that said something along the lines of the youngest son is the most likely to be gay. This is only if he has older brothers though, if he has older sisters only then there is apparently no effect. I think it has something to do with lowered levels of testosterone in the womb by the time the youngest son is there.

/epigenetics are pretty cool


I have several older brothers and I'm not...wait a second...maybe...gay gay gay is there any other way!!1!

/whatever floats your boat
 
2012-12-11 05:38:13 PM

darth_badger: Can't you just like to get tooled in the tooter and smoke a few sausages now and then without being gay?


It's called "The Navy".
 
2012-12-11 05:38:54 PM

Cythraul: Bald people were represented. Gay people? Not at all.


How do you know there were no gay characters?
 
2012-12-11 05:39:12 PM

FarkinHostile: darth_badger: Can't you just like to get tooled in the tooter and smoke a few sausages now and then without being gay?

It's called "The Navy".


hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-11 05:40:53 PM

SarahDiddle: /epigenetics are pretty cool


We are on the cusp of a whole host of things being blamed on/caused by epigenetics.

I've seen some people blame parents getting vaccinated, not their children getting immunized, as the reason why kids are [fill in the blank with ADHD, ADD, autism, etc.]
 
2012-12-11 05:41:41 PM

orbister: How do you know there were no gay characters?



I never heard a guy talk with lisp on Star Trek, therefore they were all straight.

STRAIGHT, I TELL YOU!

/Im out of here
I need a drink
 
2012-12-11 05:41:46 PM

Jake Steed: Peeing into your mouth and banging guys in the ass is genetic, natural, and acceptable because dolphins and monkey's do it.


But when straight people do those things it's perfectly acceptable?
 
2012-12-11 05:41:46 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


I think it's more because the writers were unwilling to open up that can of worms. The best they ever did was androgyny, or the Trill.

X3 did try to address that concept quite nicely, however.

/off topic geek stuff, some ST books do address t3h gay, and it largely boils down to "we don't care/we can make alien/human babies ffs/some societies do care, but you can just move planets"
 
2012-12-11 05:42:24 PM

meat0918: SarahDiddle: /epigenetics are pretty cool

We are on the cusp of a whole host of things being blamed on/caused by epigenetics.

I've seen some people blame parents getting vaccinated, not their children getting immunized, as the reason why kids are [fill in the blank with ADHD, ADD, autism, etc.]


The world will never have a shortage of stupid people.
 
2012-12-11 05:44:03 PM

Jake Steed: Peeing into your mouth and banging guys in the ass is genetic, natural, and acceptable because dolphins and monkey's do it.


Also, the definition of "natural" is "it exists". Humans are the only things on Earth that can actively decide whether or not it's "acceptable", but we can't say it's unnatural, because if it was it wouldn't exist.
 
2012-12-11 05:45:58 PM

FarkinHostile: orbister: How do you know there were no gay characters?


I never heard a guy talk with lisp on Star Trek, therefore they were all straight.

STRAIGHT, I TELL YOU!

/Im out of here
I need a drink


that kid on family guy last night didn't talk with a lisp
 
2012-12-11 05:46:12 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


blogs.houstonpress.com
redeyerogue.com
 
2012-12-11 05:46:19 PM
So this means that if a couple finds out their child will be born gay, liberals would support their right to abort it, right?
 
2012-12-11 05:47:22 PM

Ishkur: That would make sense since the egg chooses a gender immediately at fertilization but the fetus doesn't start growing gender-specific body parts until around the 18th week. What this means is there is plenty of time to get those two events crossed. The wrong testosterone levels, etc. can produce homosexual, transgender, or hermaphroditic offspring and frequently has.


Try week 8. And the biochemical stuff kicks in earlier.

Gender is what the individual chooses for themselves in order to relate with society. Or, its used by prudes when they actually mean sex but don't want to say the three letter word.

True hermaphrodites are extremely, extremely rare. Most intersex conditions are genetic.

Whether or not hormones cause homosexuality and sexual indentity disorders is up for depate.
 
2012-12-11 05:47:47 PM
Well, in B5 Ivanova is a lesbian, if that helps the scifi discussion.
 
2012-12-11 05:47:47 PM

meat0918: SarahDiddle: /epigenetics are pretty cool

We are on the cusp of a whole host of things being blamed on/caused by epigenetics.

I've seen some people blame parents getting vaccinated, not their children getting immunized, as the reason why kids are [fill in the blank with ADHD, ADD, autism, etc.]


Well everything will always be blamed on everything else by people who don't understand. Right now it's vaccines. All we can hope for is to increase scientific literacy which, in the US at least, probably won't be happening any time soon.

/my future hypothetical babies are going to be filled with science
 
2012-12-11 05:47:59 PM

xaratherus: "Those who said that it's 'nature' - You're right. Those who said it's 'nurture' - you're right also. Those who said it's a choice - no, you're still assholes."


um it can be a choice too. i date females but if i go a few weeks without getting laid i can go to a gay bar and find someone to blow me.
 
2012-12-11 05:48:05 PM
Welcome to "a comments board that should be banned entirely by the Fark.com moderators, but won't be because it's attached to a news article".

The article shouldn't have even been greenlit.

// Got my comments removed for discussing this exact same damn thing in another comments board on this site.

Anyway, had to put that out there. I am glad to hear that they have finally determined that homosexuality arises in the womb, but is not genetic. This officially proves every piece of neurological evidence and MRI and CT scans that have ever been done.

Therefore, to those that are religious, the womb was created by God, homosexuality while not genetic happens in the womb, ipso facto, God created Gay People.

Now, can we give them the right to marry across the board and let them be fully equal to everyone else???
 
2012-12-11 05:48:29 PM

o5iiawah: So this means that if a couple finds out their child will be born gay, liberals would support their right to abort it, right?


abort, retry, or fail??

i'm guessing abort so i'm gonna type an A here and press RETURN
 
2012-12-11 05:50:31 PM
why not embrace the kids sexuality and listen to quality music like ERASURE and DEPECHE MODE
 
2012-12-11 05:51:08 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


Here's the problem with that theory. Assuming we know the cause of the gay that means we could also CAUSE people to become gay. So, I'm guessing that a large chunk of society would actually choose to become gay because let's face it, If women got the choice who the fark would still want to be attracted to men. We're disgusting, stupid, juvenile, slothful, filthy, fark tards the lot of us and women have boobs and smell good and what not. I'm Assuming a big chunk of men would also convert. I often envy the ease at which gay dudes get there fark on.
 
2012-12-11 05:51:54 PM
Here's my big problem with fretting over the cause: it shouldn't matter.

I'm gay. Was it genetic? Hormonal? Did I "learn" it Freudian style at a young age. Interesting, but irrelevant. I really don't care, nor should you unless it's somehow hurting you.
 
2012-12-11 05:52:03 PM

o5iiawah: So this means that if a couple finds out their child will be born gay, liberals would support their right to abort it, right?


Be pretty stupid of them to just come out and say "I want to abort because my child won't love the gender I think it should, and because God says it's evil and I won't bring more sin into the world!".
 
2012-12-11 05:52:54 PM

shavethewhales: Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.

science agrees: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=having-older-brothers -inc


I'm actually the first born. I'm gay, but my younger brother is straight. I wonder how unusual that is.
 
2012-12-11 05:53:52 PM
There's a solution to the controversy: DON'T HAVE KIDS.

Additional benefits include, but are not limited to:

1. More money.
2. More time.
3. Sleep.
4. Pets.
5. Replacement pets.
6. No bed time.
7. No "other kid" germs hitching a ride from school to make you sick.
8. Nothing to complicate your inevitable divorce.

...

1,372. No uncomfortableness regarding your kids' sexuality.
 
2012-12-11 05:53:57 PM

o5iiawah: So this means that if a couple finds out their child will be born gay, liberals would support their right to abort it, right?


You are gona get a lot of bites with this one.

Do you get paid per post or per reply?
 
2012-12-11 05:54:22 PM

Wayne 985: Here's my big problem with fretting over the cause: it shouldn't matter.

I'm gay. Was it genetic? Hormonal? Did I "learn" it Freudian style at a young age. Interesting, but irrelevant. I really don't care, nor should you unless it's somehow hurting you.


You really shouldn't give them that branch to cling to. Your very existence hurts them. They will use whatever excuse and retard logic they can to find you an abomination against them and their God and to advocate your death.
 
2012-12-11 05:54:36 PM

o5iiawah: So this means that if a couple finds out their child will be born gay, liberals would support their right to abort it, right?


You mean kinda like how crazy people go on rampages with guns killing innocent people and conservatives still support their right to own guns?
 
2012-12-11 05:55:18 PM

Lernaeus: There's a solution to the controversy: DON'T HAVE KIDS.

Additional benefits include, but are not limited to:

1. More money.
2. More time.
3. Sleep.
4. Pets.
5. Replacement pets.
6. No bed time.
7. No "other kid" germs hitching a ride from school to make you sick.
8. Nothing to complicate your inevitable divorce.

...

1,372. No uncomfortableness regarding your kids' sexuality.


9. no having slobber all over your computers, electronics, etc..
 
2012-12-11 05:55:23 PM

o5iiawah: So this means that if a couple finds out their child will be born gay, liberals would support their right to abort it, right?


Ethically? No. I think it's disgusting and remarkably shallow. Should it still be legal? Probably. Same with aborting girls or aborting a kid because his eye color may come out "wrong". People do plenty of abhorrently offensive things, but it's typically none of my business.

It's the bigot's body, not mine.
 
2012-12-11 05:56:22 PM

edgesrealm: Anyway, had to put that out there. I am glad to hear that they have finally determined that homosexuality arises in the womb, but is not genetic. This officially proves every piece of neurological evidence and MRI and CT scans that have ever been done.


For the rest of the class, this is a perfect example of confirmation bias.
 
2012-12-11 05:56:33 PM
If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.
 
2012-12-11 06:01:00 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


www.examiner.com
 
2012-12-11 06:01:10 PM

lennavan: edgesrealm: Anyway, had to put that out there. I am glad to hear that they have finally determined that homosexuality arises in the womb, but is not genetic. This officially proves every piece of neurological evidence and MRI and CT scans that have ever been done.

For the rest of the class, this is a perfect example of confirmation bias.



How so? Is there any neurophysical/neurochemical evidence (or any other type of evidence) to the contrary?
 
2012-12-11 06:01:15 PM

mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.


Helps prevent a population from growing too quickly, perhaps?
 
2012-12-11 06:02:15 PM

mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.


Recessive traits, I assume. Plus all the closeted gay folks who still have kids.
 
2012-12-11 06:02:42 PM

mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.


You don't really know anything about genetics do you?
 
2012-12-11 06:03:48 PM
homophobia and homosexuality are closely related

so the homophobes have kids.
 
2012-12-11 06:03:59 PM

mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.


Not necessarily. If you were living in a population that started to become unstable in terms of food, shelter, mates, etc. then homosexuality eases the pressure on society because they wouldn't be reproducing and would free up some resources.
 
2012-12-11 06:05:16 PM
How soon before there's a cure?
 
2012-12-11 06:06:08 PM

Wayne 985: mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.

Recessive traits, I assume. Plus all the closeted gay folks who still have kids.


is every bisexual person a closeted gay in your world ?
 
2012-12-11 06:06:54 PM

Brick-House: How soon before there's a cure?


why would you WANT a cure ? are u Frankenstein??
 
2012-12-11 06:07:12 PM

mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.


Sure. But if you believe in evolution and have ever taken a class on it, it's amazingly simple to understand how it could be genetic.

Here's a fun example - bees! There is a queen bee who gets to have sex and procreate with a lucky bee and a whole slew of drone/worker bees. How the fark does that make any sense? How on earth, if evolution is true, could it be possible that generation after generation of bees has a class of drone bees that never procreate and are willing to die to protect their queen? You'd think those things would be weeded out incredibly fast, right? Wait til you hear the answer (it's too complex to type out, you need pictures), it's kinda cool.

Back to gays. Imagine I have straight 9 siblings. All 10 of us have 2 kids. As a whole, we have 20 kids to take care of. We all just kinda take care of our own. Some of us do fine hunting and gathering food, the others of us not so much. So three of the kids die. Now imagine I have 8 straight siblings and 1 gay sibling. The straight ones have 2 kids. As a whole we have 18 kids. Some of us do fine hunting and gathering, the others not so much. So the gay sibling helps out. All 18 survive. 18 beats 17, go gay people woo!

But wait, evolution is about passing your genes on. The gay person never passed their genes on you say? Actually, they did. Did you look up that bees example? No, you didn't or you wouldn't have said that silly thing! All 18 of those kids share a fraction of the genetics with their gay aunt/uncle. The gay aunt uncle protected the DNA of their nieces/nephews, ensuring that DNA is passed on to the next generation. You could say they made the population more fit.
 
2012-12-11 06:07:19 PM

Cythraul: I make a claim that the lack of gay characters in pre-2000 science fiction might point to a theory that they somehow 'cure' homosexuality.


Which is absurd, because not every concession to television standards of the time is an indication of a deliberate implication by the writers about the invented world. Just about all non-sci-fi shows of the time also lacked gay characters, which was not an implication that the characters in those shows lived in worlds where homosexuality had been "cured", either.

And if you're taking this beyond the matter of what the writers intended, and instead engaging in the kind of fan-wankery of starting from an assumption that it should be treated like a real world and intensely scrutinized for hidden implications the writers probably never considered, and that those "findings" should be discussed with gravity (and even outrage), you're being just as absurd. It's one thing to jokingly discuss hypothesized tragic consequences of the falling Death Star II debris on the ecology of the forest moon of Endor; it's another to seriously fret that the story presented in Return of the Jedi is a despicable whitewashing of the circumstances surrounding the horrific near-extermination of the Ewok species.

Especially with something as "light" sci-fi as Star Trek, rule numero uno is "Don't seriously overthink it.". Just about every episode in ever incarnation already had several gaping logical holes by the first commercial break, if you analyzed things too much. The shows could nevertheless be quite entertaining, if you just bothered to engage in some recreational suspension of disbelief.
 
2012-12-11 06:07:55 PM

mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.


Evolution is based on the idea of random mutations leading to changes in species. It does NOT postulate that all random mutations will be helpful or will help the species' cause; it does NOT postulate that all random mutations that happen to become encoded in the DNA of a species or a subset of its members will be helpful or will help the species' cause. If a species is so dominant as to survive in spite of a potentially large number of unhelpful random mutations, then there is no reason why a dominant species wouldn't, by random chance, evolve a potentially large number of unhelpful or even harmful, genetic variations among its members.

I think what you mean to say is: If you believe in intelligent design and also believe that homosexuality is harmful to the species as a whole or the individual members of that species who happen to be homosexual, it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.
 
2012-12-11 06:08:19 PM

jaybeezey: Smeggy Smurf: How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

If you can abort a viable fetus because it's inconvenient to your lifestyle, you should be able to abort it for any reason: Race, Possible Sexual Orientation, Sex, Hair Color, whatever.

It's only a matter of time until pregnant women of means can have their fetus scanned for perceived imperfections and make a decision to keep it or flush it.

Poor minorities will have the decision made for them based off of current and projected future crime rates and prison space availability assessments.


Ah yes, the updated T-4 program. Better hope you're not somebody the government wants to eliminate. Queers, Rapeblicans, jews, etc.
 
2012-12-11 06:10:01 PM

Brick-House: How soon before there's a cure?


Why do we need a "cure"? How is it a "disease"? Is people loving others of the same gender really that upsetting to you?
 
2012-12-11 06:10:12 PM

darth_badger: Can't you just like to get tooled in the tooter and smoke a few sausages now and then without being gay?


/you don't tell on me - i don't tell on you
//want to go camping?
///actually...only one peeper i ever wanted to puff...MINE! 
//sorry
 
2012-12-11 06:10:49 PM
why don't u just leave homosexuals alone. they're like drug addicts. they're doing something that makes them happy.

leave me be
 
2012-12-11 06:11:15 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Brick-House: How soon before there's a cure?

Why do we need a "cure"? How is it a "disease"? Is people loving others of the same gender really that upsetting to you?


It does, shiathouse is a confirmed bigot.
 
2012-12-11 06:12:31 PM

Smeggy Smurf: jaybeezey: Smeggy Smurf: How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

If you can abort a viable fetus because it's inconvenient to your lifestyle, you should be able to abort it for any reason: Race, Possible Sexual Orientation, Sex, Hair Color, whatever.

It's only a matter of time until pregnant women of means can have their fetus scanned for perceived imperfections and make a decision to keep it or flush it.

Poor minorities will have the decision made for them based off of current and projected future crime rates and prison space availability assessments.

Ah yes, the updated T-4 program. Better hope you're not somebody the government wants to eliminate. Queers, Rapeblicans, jews, etc.

Queers


Funny, seems the government is treating them like equal American citizens and human beings. Far cry from your fantasy.
 
2012-12-11 06:13:54 PM
The either/or categorization doesn't hold up against empirical data. To wit, prison activities, LUGs, married homosexuals who produce offspring. The ancient Greeks and Romans were bi.
 
2012-12-11 06:14:04 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: why don't u just leave homosexuals alone. they're like drug addicts. they're doing something that makes them happy.

leave me be


Dipshiat.

Raharu: Keizer_Ghidorah: Brick-House: How soon before there's a cure?

Why do we need a "cure"? How is it a "disease"? Is people loving others of the same gender really that upsetting to you?

It does, shiathouse is a confirmed bigot.


He's a confirmed farktard, I've known that for a while.
 
2012-12-11 06:14:16 PM
Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


In Torchwood and Doctor Who, Captain Jack seemed to prefer the boys. Sure he'd go after just about anything or anyone, but he there were times where his preferences were definitely for men. I believe there have been other gay characters in Doctor Who also, including a horse.

In TNG there was an alien diplomat that was a parasite in a host body that came on to Crusher, even after switching into a female host.

Babylon 5, Ivanova and Talia Winters had a brief affair and Ivanova later revealed she had loved Talia.

Of course Sci-Fi is often reflective of themes in modern society. The original Star Trek was very progressive for having Russians, Asians and African Americans, and even aliens, all on the bridge of the Enterprise. But does anyone really believe they could have gotten away with a homosexual character on TV in the 60's?
 
2012-12-11 06:14:50 PM

ekdikeo4: hasty ambush: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

Given the higher rate of mental illness, sucide attempts etc in gays one could argue that it would be a cure.

Any man that would prefer sex with Barney Frank instead of Jessica Alba has to be mentally ill.

Are there any men that have both opportunities?


Well there was that one time in Vegas...
 
2012-12-11 06:15:59 PM
What about the "Outcast" episode of TNG?
 
2012-12-11 06:16:09 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Smeggy Smurf: jaybeezey: Smeggy Smurf: How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

If you can abort a viable fetus because it's inconvenient to your lifestyle, you should be able to abort it for any reason: Race, Possible Sexual Orientation, Sex, Hair Color, whatever.

It's only a matter of time until pregnant women of means can have their fetus scanned for perceived imperfections and make a decision to keep it or flush it.

Poor minorities will have the decision made for them based off of current and projected future crime rates and prison space availability assessments.

Ah yes, the updated T-4 program. Better hope you're not somebody the government wants to eliminate. Queers, Rapeblicans, jews, etc.

Queers

Funny, seems the government is treating them like equal American citizens and human beings. Far cry from your fantasy.


The rapeublicans are going to get back in power some day. They'll have years of killing queers to make up for. You'd have to be foolish to give them that opportunity. Both getting back in power and having that ability.
 
2012-12-11 06:16:50 PM

KeithLM: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

In Torchwood and Doctor Who, Captain Jack seemed to prefer the boys. Sure he'd go after just about anything or anyone, but he there were times where his preferences were definitely for men. I believe there have been other gay characters in Doctor Who also, including a horse.

In TNG there was an alien diplomat that was a parasite in a host body that came on to Crusher, even after switching into a female host.

Babylon 5, Ivanova and Talia Winters had a brief affair and Ivanova later revealed she had loved Talia.

Of course Sci-Fi is often reflective of themes in modern society. The original Star Trek was very progressive for having Russians, Asians and African Americans, and even aliens, all on the bridge of the Enterprise. But does anyone really believe they could have gotten away with a homosexual character on TV in the 60's?


And before anyone posts more Sulu, the CHARACTER was straight. The ACTOR is gay. And he didn't come out until fairly recently.
 
2012-12-11 06:17:26 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: lennavan: edgesrealm: Anyway, had to put that out there. I am glad to hear that they have finally determined that homosexuality arises in the womb, but is not genetic. This officially proves every piece of neurological evidence and MRI and CT scans that have ever been done.

For the rest of the class, this is a perfect example of confirmation bias.


How so? Is there any neurophysical/neurochemical evidence (or any other type of evidence) to the contrary?


This was not an experiment, this was a model predicting shiat. This is not a "final determination." Fark, it wasn't even an attempt at a final determination.

I think we all agree, if someone found exactly what caused homosexuality vs heterosexuality, that would be big news, right? It would be huge in the science community. And now, this article suggests that thing is not what all scientists believe it to be. Pretty much all scientists agree it is both genetic and environmental. This study says otherwise. That would be enormous in the science community. Huge papers are published in Science and/or Nature. Enormous papers are published in Science and/or Nature. This would be a hugely enormous paper. It will be published in "The Quarterly Review of Biology." You're telling me this kid in pee-wee football quarterback is the greatest QB ever. I'm telling you if they are so great, they would be in the NFL. That word in the title is also a huge tip-off - "Review" That means it's not actual primary science, it's not attempting to prove anything new.

I mean you said a lot of good stuff regarding gay rights and whatnot but just because you really want it to be not genetic at all doesn't make it true. You read what you wanted to read from this article, not what it actually said. That's confirmation bias.
 
2012-12-11 06:17:33 PM

SarahDiddle: mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.

Not necessarily. If you were living in a population that started to become unstable in terms of food, shelter, mates, etc. then homosexuality eases the pressure on society because they wouldn't be reproducing and would free up some resources.


I don't know about that.

Consider this... males who willing remain behind on the hunt, who are not sexually interested in females would be very good at helping to protect the tribes females and home. Seeing males in the tribal home or village may even dissuade other raid groups from even attacking.

Also Consider Females, who are not sexually interested in males, going out on the hunt... its often said that females make better communicators... which would be good in pack hunting.

There are a lot of reasons that homosexuality, whether genetic or not, have been passed along in many species.
 
2012-12-11 06:18:03 PM

Arkanaut: I've always thought it had something to do with the hormone level of the mother during pregnancy.


ring finger to pointer finger length/ratio...
 
2012-12-11 06:18:06 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Keizer_Ghidorah: Smeggy Smurf: jaybeezey: Smeggy Smurf: How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

If you can abort a viable fetus because it's inconvenient to your lifestyle, you should be able to abort it for any reason: Race, Possible Sexual Orientation, Sex, Hair Color, whatever.

It's only a matter of time until pregnant women of means can have their fetus scanned for perceived imperfections and make a decision to keep it or flush it.

Poor minorities will have the decision made for them based off of current and projected future crime rates and prison space availability assessments.

Ah yes, the updated T-4 program. Better hope you're not somebody the government wants to eliminate. Queers, Rapeblicans, jews, etc.

Queers

Funny, seems the government is treating them like equal American citizens and human beings. Far cry from your fantasy.

The rapeublicans are going to get back in power some day. They'll have years of killing queers to make up for. You'd have to be foolish to give them that opportunity. Both getting back in power and having that ability.


Oh, believe me, I don't want those assholes back in charge. Hopefully the half of America who does gets their senses back soon.
 
2012-12-11 06:18:29 PM
So these lesbians look good enough to be accepted?
 
2012-12-11 06:19:25 PM

Lumpmoose: Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.

That might be a thing. It makes sense for Darwinian selection. As a tribe/community reaches a certain number of children, you want a certain percentage to become childless adults that can help raise or adopt children of relatives. It increases the overall survival rate of the tribe.


Weirdest part of that article: The fraternal birth order effect appears to interact with handedness, as the incidence of homosexuality correlated with an increase in older brothers is seen only in right-handed males.

So right handed males are more likely to be gay if they have older brothers, but not left handed males, or right or left handed females.
 
Ehh
2012-12-11 06:19:34 PM

SarahDiddle: There's also a phenomena where one twin can become "dominant" in the womb and receive more hormones, nutrition, etc than the other twin.


IIRC, Liberace had a twin who was born dead.
 
2012-12-11 06:20:54 PM
So the Tea party is considering becoming pro-abortion, in certain cases?
 
2012-12-11 06:25:12 PM

Smeggy Smurf: How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Already started: http://www.plagal.org/
 
2012-12-11 06:25:14 PM

phrawgh: So the Tea party is considering becoming pro-abortion, in certain cases?


It wouldn't surprise me.
 
2012-12-11 06:25:48 PM

Mimic_Octopus: Wayne 985: mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.

Recessive traits, I assume. Plus all the closeted gay folks who still have kids.

is every bisexual person a closeted gay in your world ?


Point taken.
 
2012-12-11 06:26:59 PM

hartzdog: mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.

Evolution is based on the idea of random mutations leading to changes in species. It does NOT postulate that all random mutations will be helpful or will help the species' cause; it does NOT postulate that all random mutations that happen to become encoded in the DNA of a species or a subset of its members will be helpful or will help the species' cause.


It is not unreasonable to suggest if something is maintained in a population, it is maintained for a reason (it "helps"). It is a perfectly valid evolution question to ask why homosexuality would be maintained.

hartzdog: If a species is so dominant as to survive in spite of a potentially large number of unhelpful random mutations, then there is no reason why a dominant species wouldn't, by random chance, evolve a potentially large number of unhelpful or even harmful, genetic variations among its members.


I don't think you are thinking on an evolutionary time scale. Humans and chimps diverged millions of years ago. Chimps display homosexual behavior, suggesting homosexuality predates the species divergence millions of years ago. I don't know that humans were as dominant as you suggest millions of years ago.
 
2012-12-11 06:28:09 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: so basically it comes down to whether the pregnant woman watches SNL and finds it funny??


Plenty on SNL is funny. Not all, but plenty.
 
2012-12-11 06:28:59 PM
So it's genetic in the practical sense that most non-scientists would understand. Gotcha.
 
2012-12-11 06:31:54 PM

Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.


any left-handedness in the group? ever checked the 2D/4D ratio?
 
2012-12-11 06:32:28 PM
FTA: is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment.

What a coincidence! That's how we ensure that the right number of Alphas, Betas, and so on are decanted, too. Take your soma, kids!
 
2012-12-11 06:33:06 PM

lennavan: I don't think you are thinking on an evolutionary time scale. Humans and chimps diverged millions of years ago. Chimps display homosexual behavior, suggesting homosexuality predates the species divergence millions of years ago. I don't know that humans were as dominant as you suggest millions of years ago.


Did they catch some apes scissoring? Or some male apes sticking it in anything warm?
 
2012-12-11 06:33:17 PM

DrWhy: Smeggy Smurf: How long till the queers start demanding abortion be illegal? The first kid to be aborted for being gay is going to be the catalyst for a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Already started: http://www.plagal.org/


What connection to Rush Limbaugh do they have? He's been going on for years about this subject.
 
2012-12-11 06:34:53 PM
images.wikia.com
 
2012-12-11 06:37:05 PM

styckx: Why is this even being studied? What's the purpose?


Lots of reasons, but these three are probably the biggest:

A: Because we want to learn EVERYthing about DNA that we can, why certain things happen certain ways, and only to certain people. More specifically, we want to lear everything about the human genome.

B: Because you have groups that want to "cure" gayness, and groups that want to show that it's not a "choice".

C: Just to piss you off.
 
2012-12-11 06:38:27 PM

trappedspirit: lennavan: I don't think you are thinking on an evolutionary time scale. Humans and chimps diverged millions of years ago. Chimps display homosexual behavior, suggesting homosexuality predates the species divergence millions of years ago. I don't know that humans were as dominant as you suggest millions of years ago.

Did they catch some apes scissoring? Or some male apes sticking it in anything warm?


Bonobos, cousins to chimps. They're all over each other regardless of their sex.
 
2012-12-11 06:39:00 PM

misanthropologist: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors. Given that the environment under discussion is a pregnant uterus, it won't be long before anti-gay folks are trying to fund and find treatments and preventative measures and demonize (and criminalize?) any intentional or unintentional action a pregnant woman might take that might contribute to phenotypic homosexuality.


That's not necessarily the case. The epigenetic markers for your sperm tend to get set at the time you go through puberty. So the diet and environment of the father from age 10-15 might have a huge impact. If the issue is simply a lack of folic acid in the diet (which is needed to set the markers) giving middle school students lunches enriched with folic acid could wipe out the gay for the next generation. Unless it's the other way and you need to restrict folic acid in which case the next generation would be fabulous!
 
2012-12-11 06:39:51 PM

o5iiawah: So this means that if a couple finds out their child will be born gay, liberals would support their right to abort it, right?


You're damn lucky your own parents didn't know how you turned out.
 
2012-12-11 06:40:23 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


Except Torchwood. Everyone is gay there.

But I think the reason that it isn't mentioned isn't that it's eradicated but that it's talked about like heterosexuality: not at all.

Your sexual partners are just not something you bring up because it's not a big deal. My opinion, of course.
 
2012-12-11 06:40:24 PM
Not sure how this research explains feminine women who like men and women.
 
2012-12-11 06:41:37 PM

Mr. Eugenides: misanthropologist: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors. Given that the environment under discussion is a pregnant uterus, it won't be long before anti-gay folks are trying to fund and find treatments and preventative measures and demonize (and criminalize?) any intentional or unintentional action a pregnant woman might take that might contribute to phenotypic homosexuality.

That's not necessarily the case. The epigenetic markers for your sperm tend to get set at the time you go through puberty. So the diet and environment of the father from age 10-15 might have a huge impact. If the issue is simply a lack of folic acid in the diet (which is needed to set the markers) giving middle school students lunches enriched with folic acid could wipe out the gay for the next generation. Unless it's the other way and you need to restrict folic acid in which case the next generation would be fabulous!


I just have to say, the mix of nerdy with comedy in this post made it fabulous. I love your style.
 
2012-12-11 06:42:12 PM
Someday they may even find a cure.
 
2012-12-11 06:43:26 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


The answer is really two-fold. First, people with the power to say so often would discourage "that kind of thing" from being shown on their TV series. Their bottom line was guaranteed more money without the creatives directly confronting social issues that people feel uncomfortable talking about. As homosexuality has become a more open subject of discussion over the past 20 years, so too has the appearance of outwardly gay characters in TV series in general, not just science fiction.

Which brings the second answer around, science fiction has a history pioneered by Star Trek and other legacies of attempting to talk about social issues that people aren't comfortable with through allegorical context. Star Trek itself has, as you have pointed out, a pretty lackluster development of gender identity discussion except the earlier-mentioned standout episode The Outcast.

Ronald D. Moore has spoken about the lack of homosexual issues in Star Trek, and goes on to make both those points:

"'Tell me why there are no gay characters in STAR TREK,' says Ron Moore. 'This is one of those uncomfortable questions I hate getting when I was working on the show, because there is no good answer for it. There is no answer for it other than people in charge don't want gay characters in STAR TREK, period. This stuff about, 'How would you know? Maybe there are lots of people walking through those corridors that are actually gay. What would you have us do? Show them holding hands? That would be ridiculous. Our regulars don't hold hands,' which its own kind of a sad commentary on the state of human relations, that they can't even hold hands. Just think about what it would say to have a gay Starfleet captain. It would mean something in STAR TREK. It would mean something in science fiction. It would mean something in television. Why isn't STAR TREK leading the way anymore, in the social, political front? Gene always said, whether this is true or not, that he saw STAR TREK as a way to explore social issues, without the networks catching on. Because it was all couched in space aliens, and ray guns, and space opera type stuff, it gave him a chance to explore these other issues.'"

Also, 5 minutes on Wikipedia can get some basic info on the discussion:

About Star Trek

And science-fiction in all sorts of mediums

Having said all that, it's not improbable at all to think that in the pre-90's popular concept of homosexuality, some producer actually said, while nixing the possibility of gay characters, "They'll cure that by then."
 
2012-12-11 06:50:07 PM

Raharu: SarahDiddle: mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.

Not necessarily. If you were living in a population that started to become unstable in terms of food, shelter, mates, etc. then homosexuality eases the pressure on society because they wouldn't be reproducing and would free up some resources.

I don't know about that.

Consider this... males who willing remain behind on the hunt, who are not sexually interested in females would be very good at helping to protect the tribes females and home. Seeing males in the tribal home or village may even dissuade other raid groups from even attacking.

Also Consider Females, who are not sexually interested in males, going out on the hunt... its often said that females make better communicators... which would be good in pack hunting.

There are a lot of reasons that homosexuality, whether genetic or not, have been passed along in many species.


That's assuming a villiage setup. Assume a pack setup- one mature male, a few immature males, and mature and immature females. It should be obvious that adding a pair of mature males greatly increases the chance of survival. For those areas with a pack setup, such as Arabia, they actually created eunuchs when they didn't have enough homosexual males.

I suppose it's sexist, but I don't think homosexuality in women makes any difference in survival. Lesbians get pregnant just as easily as heterosexual women do, and if they didn't want to get pregnant, they likely would have been pressured to do so. Unlike males, where only one in a pack is having sex with the opposite gender, every woman would be expected to have sex, willing or not.
 
2012-12-11 06:50:59 PM
I'd hit that!

media.syracuse.com
 
2012-12-11 06:58:53 PM
A lot of predictable, ignorant, ignorant homophobia here.

First of all........sexual orientation is too complex and it generally doesn't even fully develop until mid-late adolescence. There is no single gene, it is not purely genetic, it is not purely hormonal, and the factors to prevent the homosexuality from occurring are always going to be EXTREMELY difficult to exactly pinpoint. Let alone the fact that trying to mess with a child's DNA/expression of their DNA when you cannot even pinpoint the exact cause of the homosexuality you're trying to abort will likely lead to severe developmental issues. So the chances of homosexuality being aborted in the womb is zero to very low in the current landscape of at the very least, the upcoming future, and there aren't going to be any reputable organizations supporting or moving to seek a cure for something that IS NOT A DISEASE.

What some straight people don't get is, their attitudes around homosexuality is the problem that needs to be solved. Not the homosexuality.
 
2012-12-11 07:00:19 PM
Aw geez, not this shiat again. Pheromones and receptors. Some people are wired differently.Sum total of the facts.
 
2012-12-11 07:01:04 PM

Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.


Well, what is wrong with that?
 
2012-12-11 07:03:27 PM

kim jong-un: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

Well, what is wrong with that?


First tell us what's wrong with being gay. That's NOT "Because God" or "Because I think".
 
2012-12-11 07:04:30 PM

Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.


Where that idea got started:

www.shockya.com
 
2012-12-11 07:04:37 PM

mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.


Except that valuable traits can express differently between genders or in combination with other traits - for instance, it is more than theoretically possible that a trait that causes female offspring to be more fertile or attractive may make half the male offspring less likely to reproduce. It may mean a trait that makes for stronger or more survivable male offspring makes for a good percentage of females from that parent that are less likely to reproduce. In either case the gene may be passed on in full compliance with Darwinian rules.

For example, lets say a genetic trait that radically increased hetero sex drive in female offspring also led to much of the male offspring from that parent being gay. Is that a trait that will die out, or continue? See the issue with the idea a 'gay' gene would disappear?

/Just because it negatively affects the reproductive chances of -SOME- of the offspring doesn't mean it hurts all of them. In the big picture, if there is a positive balance it will continue.
 
2012-12-11 07:08:33 PM
So it's all my Mom's fault. Great. Thanks Mom!
 
2012-12-11 07:09:29 PM

Ishkur: cross


Why say crossed? I might choose expanded. But then I knew I had the ghey in the 3rd/4th grade. I remember watching a rerun of the Star Trek episode "That which Survives" with Losira who could only touch one character at a time and kept running around saying "I am for " and I immediately knew what it meant that I was "for men." So Star Trek and Lee Meriwether outed me I guess!

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-11 07:13:16 PM
What's funny is how the scientists said homosexuality has it's own individual evolutionary benefits (BTW, gay doesn't=sterile, it doesn't mean they don't want to have kids, and gay couples comprise of over half of new adoptions), yet some here keep calling it a defect and something that needs to be cured.

Most people aren't 100% straight. If you're seeking a no homo world then a lot of babies and adults need to be cured, pronto.
 
2012-12-11 07:15:09 PM

101flyboy: A lot of predictable, ignorant, ignorant homophobia here.

First of all........sexual orientation is too complex and it generally doesn't even fully develop until mid-late adolescence. There is no single gene, it is not purely genetic, it is not purely hormonal, and the factors to prevent the homosexuality from occurring are always going to be EXTREMELY difficult to exactly pinpoint. Let alone the fact that trying to mess with a child's DNA/expression of their DNA when you cannot even pinpoint the exact cause of the homosexuality you're trying to abort will likely lead to severe developmental issues. So the chances of homosexuality being aborted in the womb is zero to very low in the current landscape of at the very least, the upcoming future, and there aren't going to be any reputable organizations supporting or moving to seek a cure for something that IS NOT A DISEASE.

What some straight people don't get is, their attitudes around homosexuality is the problem that needs to be solved. Not the homosexuality.


Uh, yeah, that's called puberty. It works the same for straight people, from what I hear. I'd like to see where you get your facts from, since you seem to be the only one here that claims to have all the answers. I agree with you that it is not a disease, but you sure claim to have a lot of knowledge about the very thing you purport to be so unknowable.
 
2012-12-11 07:15:40 PM

lennavan: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

A "gay gene" was found in Drosophila over 15 years ago. They named it "fruity" because mutations in that gene made the flies ... well it made males chase other males instead of females.

I just want to be clear, this "study" is merely a model:

To reach this conclusion, Rice and Friberg created a biological and mathematical model that charted the role of epigenetics in homosexuality.

They generated a hypothesis and looked at some other results and decided the results were consistent with their hypothesis. They have not actually tested their hypothesis. What's more, their prediction contradicts other observations. Here is the key part:

This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself.

Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay. That is not true. Right there, I have disproven their hypothesis. I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.


Well, 60% of the time, it works every time.
 
2012-12-11 07:17:37 PM
internationaltrebuchet.com
 
2012-12-11 07:19:11 PM

101flyboy: Most people aren't 100% straight.


People say this a lot, but I'm skeptical of it. It seems like something that gay or bi people tell themselves to feel normal. And if you deny it, well you must be ultra-gay and in denial.
 
2012-12-11 07:19:31 PM
img407.imageshack.us

101flyboy: First of all........sexual orientation is too complex and it generally doesn't even fully develop until mid-late adolescence.


Try 7 or 8 years old. I remember clearly 'admiring' my fathers friends, the mailman with the big mustache, the beat cop in my neighborhood, and watching all the dirty, unshaven extras in early sitcoms like Gunsmoke, Bonanza and The Rifleman. The extras, not the stars themselves.

And I was never interested in other boys my age. At all.

There is no way in hell, a kid that young could possibly understand sexual orientation, or have the ability to 'choose' what is attractive, much less age preference.

It's no different from someone being born left handed. They didn't choose that. And I'm not going to hate them for it.

Leftophobe does sound kinda cool though.
 
2012-12-11 07:19:40 PM
I always wondered if science invented a "pill" that would cause one's sexual preference to become its opposite, how many people would take it. Gay or Straight...

I have no opinion on the matter, just always thought the scenario interesting.
 
2012-12-11 07:19:43 PM

101flyboy: Most people aren't 100% straight.


You made that up.

101flyboy: some here keep calling it a defect and something that needs to be cured.


Only one person called it a defect (and who knows if he was actually serious) and I don't think anyone said it needs to be cured and actually meant it.

Other than that, there is a guy named "le trole" posting stuff.

Do I really need to explain this shiat to you?

[welcometofark.png]

101flyboy: First of all........sexual orientation is too complex and blah blah blah


You have no idea what you are talking about. You're not helping.
 
2012-12-11 07:20:25 PM
img.gawkerassets.compics3.vampirefreaks.com
 
2012-12-11 07:22:53 PM

Godscrack: [img407.imageshack.us image 440x544]
101flyboy: First of all........sexual orientation is too complex and it generally doesn't even fully develop until mid-late adolescence.



Leftophobe does sound kinda cool though.


Sinister means left-handed in latin. It is amazing the reasons people will find to hate each other.
 
2012-12-11 07:24:57 PM

Godscrack: [img407.imageshack.us image 440x544]
101flyboy: First of all........sexual orientation is too complex and it generally doesn't even fully develop until mid-late adolescence.

Try 7 or 8 years old. I remember clearly 'admiring' my fathers friends, the mailman with the big mustache, the beat cop in my neighborhood, and watching all the dirty, unshaven extras in early sitcoms like Gunsmoke, Bonanza and The Rifleman. The extras, not the stars themselves.


Hot. Please, continue.
 
2012-12-11 07:25:49 PM
There's no science here, it's all political.

Only a couple of years ago the "gay is genetic" argument WAS the "fact" of the day. Never mind my (and others') argument that such a gene would never survive the evolutionary process, almost by definition.

And now this...people are just BEGGING it to not be a choice. So now we have this...takes away all responsibility.

Without a tinge of morality, I say this is a choice. The science doesn't support anything else (as much as they try) and peoples' feelings of NOT having a choice are, to me, anecdotal and subjective.
 
2012-12-11 07:28:45 PM
img145.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-11 07:29:31 PM

Godscrack: [img145.imageshack.us image 776x698]


I'll be in my bunk.
 
2012-12-11 07:29:46 PM

DaCaptain19: Only a couple of years ago the "gay is genetic" argument WAS the "fact" of the day. Never mind my (and others') argument that such a gene would never survive the evolutionary process, almost by definition.


Just out of curiosity, considering homosexual behavior is found in something like 1,500 species including our closest relatives, as well as the fact that many complex traits are governed by multiple genes, who the fark would make that argument?
 
2012-12-11 07:31:06 PM

DaCaptain19: There's no science here, it's all political.

Only a couple of years ago the "gay is genetic" argument WAS the "fact" of the day. Never mind my (and others') argument that such a gene would never survive the evolutionary process, almost by definition.

And now this...people are just BEGGING it to not be a choice. So now we have this...takes away all responsibility.

Without a tinge of morality, I say this is a choice. The science doesn't support anything else (as much as they try) and peoples' feelings of NOT having a choice are, to me, anecdotal and subjective.


Okay. Assuming you're straight. Choose to be gay. Go ahead.. I'm waiting.
 
2012-12-11 07:32:21 PM

spamdog: 101flyboy: Most people aren't 100% straight.

People say this a lot, but I'm skeptical of it. It seems like something that gay or bi people tell themselves to feel normal. And if you deny it, well you must be ultra-gay and in denial.


Sexual orientation is a continuum. The two extremes are 100% heterosexuality and 100% homosexuality. Facts are facts, google is your friend. I don't have to tell myself anything. Anti-gay people are idiots and I don't care about what they have to say accordingly.
 
2012-12-11 07:33:37 PM

Raharu: Also Consider Females, who are not sexually interested in males, going out on the hunt... its often said that females make better communicators... which would be good in pack hunting.


Clever girl...
 
2012-12-11 07:34:04 PM
img844.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-11 07:34:06 PM

101flyboy: spamdog: 101flyboy: Most people aren't 100% straight.

People say this a lot, but I'm skeptical of it. It seems like something that gay or bi people tell themselves to feel normal. And if you deny it, well you must be ultra-gay and in denial.

Sexual orientation is a continuum. The two extremes are 100% heterosexuality and 100% homosexuality. Facts are facts, google is your friend. I don't have to tell myself anything. Anti-gay people are idiots and I don't care about what they have to say accordingly.


So you're anti-gay?
 
2012-12-11 07:35:35 PM

DaCaptain19: There's no science here, it's all political.

Only a couple of years ago the "gay is genetic" argument WAS the "fact" of the day. Never mind my (and others') argument that such a gene would never survive the evolutionary process, almost by definition.

And now this...people are just BEGGING it to not be a choice. So now we have this...takes away all responsibility.

Without a tinge of morality, I say this is a choice. The science doesn't support anything else (as much as they try) and peoples' feelings of NOT having a choice are, to me, anecdotal and subjective.


Well I'm telling you as a gay man it's not a choice. There you go. And even if it were, there is nothing wrong with being gay regardless, so the question itself is irrelevant.

BTW, the gay gene argument was almost totally pushed by homophobes. In fact, most in the gay community sought to essentially end scientific research on the entire gay gene theory because they didn't want it to be true, because they were scared it would lead to abortions. No-one relevant has pushed the gay gene theory since the mid-2000s. About 2007/2008 was the last of that theory.
 
2012-12-11 07:36:10 PM

lennavan: 101flyboy: spamdog: 101flyboy: Most people aren't 100% straight.

People say this a lot, but I'm skeptical of it. It seems like something that gay or bi people tell themselves to feel normal. And if you deny it, well you must be ultra-gay and in denial.

Sexual orientation is a continuum. The two extremes are 100% heterosexuality and 100% homosexuality. Facts are facts, google is your friend. I don't have to tell myself anything. Anti-gay people are idiots and I don't care about what they have to say accordingly.

So you're anti-gay?


I'm not an idiot.
 
2012-12-11 07:37:32 PM
i think gays are good
 
2012-12-11 07:37:37 PM

d3: I like to ask conservatives if they would be in favor of government regulation of industry if they learned the chemicals being put into products were turning people gay. It turns into a fun thought experiment until their heads explode.


You forget that neoconservatives, and their inbred offspring the Tea Partiers, refuse to believe that chemicals leaked into air or into water can have any adverse (bearing in mind that, to such individuals, becoming homosexual is adverse) effects.
 
2012-12-11 07:38:15 PM

lennavan: common sense is an oxymoron: lennavan: edgesrealm: Anyway, had to put that out there. I am glad to hear that they have finally determined that homosexuality arises in the womb, but is not genetic. This officially proves every piece of neurological evidence and MRI and CT scans that have ever been done.

For the rest of the class, this is a perfect example of confirmation bias.


How so? Is there any neurophysical/neurochemical evidence (or any other type of evidence) to the contrary?

This was not an experiment, this was a model predicting shiat. This is not a "final determination." Fark, it wasn't even an attempt at a final determination.

I think we all agree, if someone found exactly what caused homosexuality vs heterosexuality, that would be big news, right? It would be huge in the science community. And now, this article suggests that thing is not what all scientists believe it to be. Pretty much all scientists agree it is both genetic and environmental. This study says otherwise. That would be enormous in the science community. Huge papers are published in Science and/or Nature. Enormous papers are published in Science and/or Nature. This would be a hugely enormous paper. It will be published in "The Quarterly Review of Biology." You're telling me this kid in pee-wee football quarterback is the greatest QB ever. I'm telling you if they are so great, they would be in the NFL. That word in the title is also a huge tip-off - "Review" That means it's not actual primary science, it's not attempting to prove anything new.

I mean you said a lot of good stuff regarding gay rights and whatnot but just because you really want it to be not genetic at all doesn't make it true. You read what you wanted to read from this article, not what it actually said. That's confirmation bias.



No, that's *exactly* what the study says: Sexual orientation is most likely the result of environmental factors in utero affecting genetic expression.
 
2012-12-11 07:38:37 PM

KeithLM:
Of course Sci-Fi is often reflective of themes in modern society. The original Star Trek was very progressive for having Russians, Asians and African Americans, and even aliens, all on the bridge of the Enterprise. But does anyone really believe they could have gotten away with a homosexual character on TV in the 60's?


i42.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-11 07:40:32 PM

lennavan: 101flyboy: Most people aren't 100% straight.

You made that up.

101flyboy: some here keep calling it a defect and something that needs to be cured.

Only one person called it a defect (and who knows if he was actually serious) and I don't think anyone said it needs to be cured and actually meant it.

Other than that, there is a guy named "le trole" posting stuff.

Do I really need to explain this shiat to you?

[welcometofark.png]

101flyboy: First of all........sexual orientation is too complex and blah blah blah

You have no idea what you are talking about. You're not helping.


I didn't make it up.

Yes, I get the attempts at humor and the trolling, but they've all failed.

And nothing I've said hasn't been said by the experts, I don't speak on behalf of anything but myself and what I've read and what I know as a gay man.

Sexuality is very complex. It's not a single gene, there is no single X reason as to why a person is gay, and there is no single reason to determine those reasons why a person is gay. That's all I'm saying. So anyone attempting to push a cure I doubt will get far.
 
2012-12-11 07:40:36 PM

DaCaptain19: There's no science here, it's all political.

Only a couple of years ago the "gay is genetic" argument WAS the "fact" of the day. Never mind my (and others') argument that such a gene would never survive the evolutionary process, almost by definition.

And now this...people are just BEGGING it to not be a choice. So now we have this...takes away all responsibility.

Without a tinge of morality, I say this is a choice. The science doesn't support anything else (as much as they try) and peoples' feelings of NOT having a choice are, to me, anecdotal and subjective.


Born to a typical family, where the parents loved each other. Have an older brother, we did typical brother things. Went to typical schools, had typical friends, did typical things. Wasn't exposed to sex or sexuality in any negative or overwhelming way.

When I started having the funny feelings, both men and women made me have them. And to this day I'm attracted to both. I didn't choose to be attracted to both. I didn't wake up one day and proclaim "You know, I want some cock along with pussy forever and ever!". It was natural, it felt natural, and it still feels natural.

So, why would people choose to be treated as second-class citizens and sub-human? Can you choose to become gay for a month? Come on, wake up tomorrow and proclaim that you forsake the pussy and desire the dick. Prove it to the world.

And now this...people are just BEGGING it to not be a choice. So now we have this...takes away all responsibility.

Responsibility for what? What about homosexuality makes you so angry and offended? Left-handedness isn't a choice. Red-headedness isn't a choice. Green-eyedness isn't a choice.
 
2012-12-11 07:42:06 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: DaCaptain19: There's no science here, it's all political.

Only a couple of years ago the "gay is genetic" argument WAS the "fact" of the day. Never mind my (and others') argument that such a gene would never survive the evolutionary process, almost by definition.

And now this...people are just BEGGING it to not be a choice. So now we have this...takes away all responsibility.

Without a tinge of morality, I say this is a choice. The science doesn't support anything else (as much as they try) and peoples' feelings of NOT having a choice are, to me, anecdotal and subjective.

Born to a typical family, where the parents loved each other. Have an older brother, we did typical brother things. Went to typical schools, had typical friends, did typical things. Wasn't exposed to sex or sexuality in any negative or overwhelming way.

When I started having the funny feelings, both men and women made me have them. And to this day I'm attracted to both. I didn't choose to be attracted to both. I didn't wake up one day and proclaim "You know, I want some cock along with pussy forever and ever!". It was natural, it felt natural, and it still feels natural.

So, why would people choose to be treated as second-class citizens and sub-human? Can you choose to become gay for a month? Come on, wake up tomorrow and proclaim that you forsake the pussy and desire the dick. Prove it to the world.

And now this...people are just BEGGING it to not be a choice. So now we have this...takes away all responsibility.

Responsibility for what? What about homosexuality makes you so angry and offended? Left-handedness isn't a choice. Red-headedness isn't a choice. Green-eyedness isn't a choice.


I've often wondered what it is about homosexuality that just drives some people off the deep end. Also, it's usually men that get the most up-in-arms about it.

Hmmm
 
2012-12-11 07:42:10 PM
101flyboy

Well I'm telling you as a gay man it's not a choice for me. 
 


I've known a couple of gay men who did admit to picking the side of the fence they wanted to be on. I guess they're probably technically bi, however have decided to only be romantic with men.
 
2012-12-11 07:42:23 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: lennavan: common sense is an oxymoron: lennavan: edgesrealm: Anyway, had to put that out there. I am glad to hear that they have finally determined that homosexuality arises in the womb, but is not genetic. This officially proves every piece of neurological evidence and MRI and CT scans that have ever been done.

For the rest of the class, this is a perfect example of confirmation bias.


How so? Is there any neurophysical/neurochemical evidence (or any other type of evidence) to the contrary?

This was not an experiment, this was a model predicting shiat. This is not a "final determination." Fark, it wasn't even an attempt at a final determination.

I think we all agree, if someone found exactly what caused homosexuality vs heterosexuality, that would be big news, right? It would be huge in the science community. And now, this article suggests that thing is not what all scientists believe it to be. Pretty much all scientists agree it is both genetic and environmental. This study says otherwise. That would be enormous in the science community. Huge papers are published in Science and/or Nature. Enormous papers are published in Science and/or Nature. This would be a hugely enormous paper. It will be published in "The Quarterly Review of Biology." You're telling me this kid in pee-wee football quarterback is the greatest QB ever. I'm telling you if they are so great, they would be in the NFL. That word in the title is also a huge tip-off - "Review" That means it's not actual primary science, it's not attempting to prove anything new.

I mean you said a lot of good stuff regarding gay rights and whatnot but just because you really want it to be not genetic at all doesn't make it true. You read what you wanted to read from this article, not what it actually said. That's confirmation bias.


No, that's *exactly* what the study says: Sexual orientation is most likely the result of environmental factors in utero affecting genetic expression.


The term "genetic" they mean the A, T, C and G DNA sequence that is passed on from generation to generation. This in silico "study" says the ATCG sequence is irrelevant.
 
2012-12-11 07:42:39 PM

KeithLM: But does anyone really believe they could have gotten away with a homosexual character on TV in the 60's?


www.alansues.com

culturemedia.s3.amazonaws.com

userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2012-12-11 07:45:50 PM

KeithLM: But does anyone really believe they could have gotten away with a homosexual character on TV in the 60's?


Forgot:

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-11 07:45:59 PM

pxlboy: I've often wondered what it is about homosexuality that just drives some people off the deep end. Also, it's usually men that get the most up-in-arms about it.

Hmmm


Seriously, you think straight men would be HAPPY about gay guys, because it means there's more pussy for them.

But it seems that straight men are afraid because they think that gay men will try to turn them, seduce them, or rape them. And that if those happen, then they will somehow turn gay themselves. They also seem to think that the stereotypical idea of gay men (weedy, wimpy, fruity) will somehow make them look and feel less masculine by association.

Straight men are really weird.
 
2012-12-11 07:48:03 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: kim jong-un: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

Well, what is wrong with that?

First tell us what's wrong with being gay. That's NOT "Because God" or "Because I think".


Because life is harder for gay people. Even gay parents would find it hard to honestly say, 'I hope my child turns out gay.'
 
2012-12-11 07:48:39 PM

lohphat: KeithLM: But does anyone really believe they could have gotten away with a homosexual character on TV in the 60's?

Forgot:

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 528x388]


Sesame Street was started in the 70s, AFAIK.
 
2012-12-11 07:48:48 PM

101flyboy: Sexual orientation is a continuum.


That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for. For bisexuals, it might seem that way. But I maintain that there isn't much backing for this statement and that it is just a comforting mantra for some gay and bisexual people.
 
2012-12-11 07:50:14 PM

spamdog: 101flyboy: Sexual orientation is a continuum.

That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for. For bisexuals, it might seem that way. But I maintain that there isn't much backing for this statement and that it is just a comforting mantra for some gay and bisexual people.


Comforting mantra? LOL I don't really give a fark about the sexuality of other people. Gay, straight, bisexual.. I don't really care.
 
2012-12-11 07:50:19 PM

101flyboy: And nothing I've said hasn't been said by the experts, I don't speak on behalf of anything but myself and what I've read and what I know as a gay man.

Sexuality is very complex. It's not a single gene, there is no single X reason as to why a person is gay, and there is no single reason to determine those reasons why a person is gay. That's all I'm saying. So anyone attempting to push a cure I doubt will get far.


No offense but your posts read like you're afraid yourself. Of what, I don't know. But you're clearly afraid of scientists figuring it out. And you know what, I don't blame you. I guess I would equate this to the evolution / creation argument. If you accept evolution is true, that doesn't suddenly mean god doesn't exist. If you scientists figure out X, Y and Z cause homosexuality, that doesn't mean it's a disease that we need to treat. We're also working on figuring out how A, B and C cause you to have exactly 5 fingers. I don't know of anyone proposing a drug that can create 6 fingers in a person (which by the way, I could name a few if there are any pregnant ladies out there who want a 6+ fingered baby...).
 
2012-12-11 07:53:36 PM

cyberspacedout: lohphat: KeithLM: But does anyone really believe they could have gotten away with a homosexual character on TV in the 60's?

Forgot:

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 528x388]

Sesame Street was started in the 70s, AFAIK.


The program premiered on public broadcasting television stations on November 10, 1969.[4]
 
2012-12-11 07:54:28 PM

lennavan: 101flyboy: spamdog: 101flyboy: Most people aren't 100% straight.

People say this a lot, but I'm skeptical of it. It seems like something that gay or bi people tell themselves to feel normal. And if you deny it, well you must be ultra-gay and in denial.

Sexual orientation is a continuum. The two extremes are 100% heterosexuality and 100% homosexuality. Facts are facts, google is your friend. I don't have to tell myself anything. Anti-gay people are idiots and I don't care about what they have to say accordingly.

So you're anti-gay?


meh

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-11 07:54:49 PM

kim jong-un: Keizer_Ghidorah: kim jong-un: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

Well, what is wrong with that?

First tell us what's wrong with being gay. That's NOT "Because God" or "Because I think".

Because life is harder for gay people. Even gay parents would find it hard to honestly say, 'I hope my child turns out gay.'


It's only harder because of dipshiats and bigots. Factor them out and life is the same no matter what genitals you like to play with.
 
2012-12-11 07:55:21 PM

Cythraul: LOL I don't really give a fark about the sexuality of other people. Gay, straight, bisexual.. I don't really care.


That's why I only said "some". I am not a homophobe and I don't believe homosexuality (or any other kind of sexuality) is a choice. I just think this belief is an oversimplification.
 
2012-12-11 07:55:22 PM

spamdog: 101flyboy: Sexual orientation is a continuum.

That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for. For bisexuals, it might seem that way. But I maintain that there isn't much backing for this statement and that it is just a comforting mantra for some gay and bisexual people.


Comforting? No. It is just a fact. Being comforting or not is irrelevant.

Sexuality is a continuum. Not even gender is either/or.
 
2012-12-11 07:56:24 PM

UseTheForksLuke: lennavan: 101flyboy: spamdog: 101flyboy: Most people aren't 100% straight.

People say this a lot, but I'm skeptical of it. It seems like something that gay or bi people tell themselves to feel normal. And if you deny it, well you must be ultra-gay and in denial.

Sexual orientation is a continuum. The two extremes are 100% heterosexuality and 100% homosexuality. Facts are facts, google is your friend. I don't have to tell myself anything. Anti-gay people are idiots and I don't care about what they have to say accordingly.

So you're anti-gay?

meh

[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x323]


*fap fap fap*
 
2012-12-11 07:58:59 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


I have no intention of fixing either my baldness or my sexual orientation.

Solutions are for problems, and I have none of either.
 
2012-12-11 07:59:08 PM
imageshack.us

Hooraay! This thread is gay!

nttiawwt
 
2012-12-11 08:02:53 PM
Oh dear. I see a bare booty in this thread.
 
2012-12-11 08:04:03 PM
NOOOOO
 
2012-12-11 08:06:05 PM
I'm sick and tired of this gay/straight crap. If you love someone and they love you, isn't that enough?
 
2012-12-11 08:06:23 PM

kim jong-un: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

Well, what is wrong with that?


It'd be about as offensive as finding a "cure" to being black.

Gay people aren't problems to be solved, they're the people who get shiat done while you're busy overpopulating our already overpopulated planet.
 
2012-12-11 08:06:24 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [imageshack.us image 432x576]

Hooraay! This thread is gay!

nttiawwt


*fap fap fap fap fap fap*
 
2012-12-11 08:08:57 PM

lennavan: Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay.


No.
Even if they shared a placenta, which they probably don't, fraternal twins are disygotic; they do not share identical genetic sequences. Since epigenetic factors effects depend on their interaction with the underlying genetic sequence, altering the genetic sequence can be expected to possibly alter the effect as well. The only case in which this theory can be expected to produce twins that share sexual orientation 100% of the time is in twins that are both monozygotic and monoamniotic. And even then, as someone else mentioned, they do not always share equally from the mother.
 
2012-12-11 08:09:37 PM
FTFA: Most epi-marks don't normally pass between generations and are essentially "erased." Rice and Friberg say this explains why homosexuality appears to run in families

Ummmm.....
 
2012-12-11 08:09:49 PM

spamdog: 101flyboy: Sexual orientation is a continuum.

That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for. For bisexuals, it might seem that way. But I maintain that there isn't much backing for this statement and that it is just a comforting mantra for some gay and bisexual people.


That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for. For heterosexuals, it might seem that way. But I maintain that there isn't much backing for this statement and that it is just a comforting mantra for some insecure heterosexual people.
 
2012-12-11 08:10:53 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: kim jong-un: Keizer_Ghidorah: kim jong-un: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

Well, what is wrong with that?

First tell us what's wrong with being gay. That's NOT "Because God" or "Because I think".

Because life is harder for gay people. Even gay parents would find it hard to honestly say, 'I hope my child turns out gay.'

It's only harder because of dipshiats and bigots. Factor them out and life is the same no matter what genitals you like to play with.


So true.
 
2012-12-11 08:11:42 PM

lennavan: 101flyboy: And nothing I've said hasn't been said by the experts, I don't speak on behalf of anything but myself and what I've read and what I know as a gay man.

Sexuality is very complex. It's not a single gene, there is no single X reason as to why a person is gay, and there is no single reason to determine those reasons why a person is gay. That's all I'm saying. So anyone attempting to push a cure I doubt will get far.

No offense but your posts read like you're afraid yourself. Of what, I don't know. But you're clearly afraid of scientists figuring it out. And you know what, I don't blame you. I guess I would equate this to the evolution / creation argument. If you accept evolution is true, that doesn't suddenly mean god doesn't exist. If you scientists figure out X, Y and Z cause homosexuality, that doesn't mean it's a disease that we need to treat. We're also working on figuring out how A, B and C cause you to have exactly 5 fingers. I don't know of anyone proposing a drug that can create 6 fingers in a person (which by the way, I could name a few if there are any pregnant ladies out there who want a 6+ fingered baby...).


In fact, I want scientists to prove to homophobes it's inborn and the exact mechanics behind it so they can be exposed as the hateful bigots they are when they say they want it to be cured/want gay kids aborted. So you're wrong there. I actually would prefer to put this to bed now. It needs to be put to bed so ex-gay therapies can be destroyed, and teens struggling with their identity can feel comfortable and normal.

However.............sexuality is a complex issue. Hence the is it a gene, is is epigenetic, is it hormonal, is it environment during youth, is it traced to one experience at youth..........all of these theories, no concrete answers. People are looking for concrete answers to a question that doesn't have a concrete response. At least not yet.
 
2012-12-11 08:12:58 PM

kim jong-un: spamdog: 101flyboy: Sexual orientation is a continuum.

That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for. For bisexuals, it might seem that way. But I maintain that there isn't much backing for this statement and that it is just a comforting mantra for some gay and bisexual people.

Comforting? No. It is just a fact. Being comforting or not is irrelevant.

Sexuality is a continuum. Not even gender is either/or.


Yep, and this study sounds interesting and something I've wondered about for awhile.
 
2012-12-11 08:13:13 PM

lennavan: misanthropologist: The implication of this study is that even though it's not "genetic," it's epigenetic - meaning that it has to do with how gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.

That's an amazingly poor definition of the word epigenetic. DNA (and thus a gene) is made up of A, T, C and G. One way to change gene expression is to change that DNA sequence, to change an A, T, C or G (or more than one). Epigenetics is the study of anything heritable that alters gene expression that is not altering the A, T, C or G sequence. Epigentics is not the study of how eating a cookie alters gene expression.



Actually, histone code is altered by nutrition. As an example, they've found that honey bees that consume different quantities of royal jelly--likely determine if the larvae differentiate into a worker vs. a queen (It also may explain why certain pesticides, while not deadly--are drastically affecting colonies);

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-components-epigenetic-code-honey-bee.htm l



Really though, who gives a shiat if it's true nuclear DNA, a mutation caused by a gamma ray burst or higher levels of protein ingested during the first 6 weeks of pregnancy---the argument that matters is the question of free will. Personally, I think it will be made obvious in coming years that as individuals, we are just as reactionary to our decisions as everyone else--we just happen to know that it's happening before everyone else does (Well, unless they have a fMRI scanner hooked up to us--in which case they might know before we do). People are homosexual and very likely have little to no choice in the matter. And it doesn't bother me a damn bit--the world could use more love.
 
2012-12-11 08:16:28 PM

Uniquely Common: 101flyboy

Well I'm telling you as a gay man it's not a choice for me.  


I've known a couple of gay men who did admit to picking the side of the fence they wanted to be on. I guess they're probably technically bi, however have decided to only be romantic with men.


Identity and orientation are two different things. Most people have the ability to be romantic and/or sexual with both sexes but prefer one or the other.
 
2012-12-11 08:17:09 PM

lennavan: The term "genetic" they mean the A, T, C and G DNA sequence that is passed on from generation to generation. This in silico "study" says the ATCG sequence is irrelevant.



Genetics = based on the nucleotide sequence

Epigenetics = the effects of extrinsic factors on the expression (when, where, to what extent) of the underlying nucleotide sequence.

The presence of gene Z + uterine environment A = heterosexual
The absence of gene Z + uterine environment A = heterosexual
The presence of gene Z + uterine environment B = homosexual
The absence of gene Z + uterine environment B = heterosexual

In other words, the presence of a "gay gene" is essential, but not sufficient in and of itself, for the expression of homosexuality.
 
2012-12-11 08:18:22 PM
My point... as Kinsey wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats...The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time. Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.

www2.hu-berlin.de
 
2012-12-11 08:18:27 PM

firefly212: I know you are but what am I?


Obviously I've jumped into a heated discussion without reading the mood of the thread first.

I still maintain it has no actual backing. The wikipedia articles on it (here's one) have all kinds of notices on them regarding citations and whatnot. The Kinsey studies are also from the 40's and it seems they have been at least partially superceded by more recent studies.
 
2012-12-11 08:18:53 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.

Helps prevent a population from growing too quickly, perhaps?


And that trait is passed down through the generations how? Has population control via homosexuality been observed in any species? Human population control hasn't been a problem because our technology provides us with the extra resources, and when those resources are strained we kill each other through warfare.

Don't get me wrong. If someone does choose to be gay they should be allowed to make that choice. If a gay gene was found, would that mean that only people with that gene are allowed to have same sex marriages? I just think that a genetic cause is unlikely and is kind of a cop out. Be proud of who you are, don't cry "I can't help it". even if it is the case.
 
2012-12-11 08:19:28 PM

firefly212: spamdog: 101flyboy: Sexual orientation is a continuum.

That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for. For bisexuals, it might seem that way. But I maintain that there isn't much backing for this statement and that it is just a comforting mantra for some gay and bisexual people.

That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for. For heterosexuals, it might seem that way. But I maintain that there isn't much backing for this statement and that it is just a comforting mantra for some insecure heterosexual people.


To repeat myself:
The either/or categorization doesn't hold up against empirical data. To wit, prison activities, LUGs, married homosexuals who produce offspring. The ancient Greeks and Romans were bi.
 
2012-12-11 08:22:12 PM

kukukupo: So. . . it is a birth defect?

Sounds about right.


That's what it sounds like.
 
2012-12-11 08:26:13 PM

Wayne 985: Here's my big problem with fretting over the cause: it shouldn't matter.

I'm gay. Was it genetic? Hormonal? Did I "learn" it Freudian style at a young age. Interesting, but irrelevant.


While I agree that it shouldn't really matter, the difference is not strictly academic.
It could have bearing on things like "protected class" status, or the acceptability / legality of things like those psychological-religious camps for "straightening out" gay kids. If it is decided that gayness is learned, someone will liken anti-gay therapy to psychotherapy for abused children as a way to legitimize it.


mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.


Not really.
 
2012-12-11 08:26:26 PM

mizchief: Keizer_Ghidorah: mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.

Helps prevent a population from growing too quickly, perhaps?

And that trait is passed down through the generations how? Has population control via homosexuality been observed in any species? Human population control hasn't been a problem because our technology provides us with the extra resources, and when those resources are strained we kill each other through warfare.

Don't get me wrong. If someone does choose to be gay they should be allowed to make that choice. If a gay gene was found, would that mean that only people with that gene are allowed to have same sex marriages? I just think that a genetic cause is unlikely and is kind of a cop out. Be proud of who you are, don't cry "I can't help it". even if it is the case.


I don't know, it was a half-serious guess.

Sexuality is a far more complex thing than many people think. And in the end, it shouldn't matter in the slightest who is attracted to who, because humanity will survive and exist, just as it had before we had the ability to think about things like this.
 
2012-12-11 08:26:43 PM

Gawdzila: lennavan: Fraternal twins share a womb. If one fraternal twin is gay, the prediction from these scientists is the other fraternal twin will always be gay.

No.
Even if they shared a placenta, which they probably don't, fraternal twins are disygotic; they do not share identical genetic sequences. Since epigenetic factors effects depend on their interaction with the underlying genetic sequence, altering the genetic sequence can be expected to possibly alter the effect as well.


The authors are arguing genetics plays zero role. This is from the very first two sentences:

A team of international researchers has completed a study that suggests we will probably never find a 'gay gene.' Sexual orientation is not about genetics

If genetics plays zero role, it is irrelevant whether you are identical or fraternal twin. That is why you choose fraternal twins, exactly because they do NOT share DNA. I cannot make it any easier to understand than that and I sincerely apologize. I do think the general public understanding science is an important thing. But I just finished up work and am heading home. You're just going to have to turn your brain on and think through it.
 
2012-12-11 08:27:42 PM

zippythechimp: kukukupo: So. . . it is a birth defect?

Sounds about right.

That's what it sounds like.


Double the stupid, double the fun.
 
2012-12-11 08:29:28 PM

spamdog: firefly212: I know you are but what am I?

Obviously I've jumped into a heated discussion without reading the mood of the thread first.

I still maintain it has no actual backing. The wikipedia articles on it (here's one) have all kinds of notices on them regarding citations and whatnot. The Kinsey studies are also from the 40's and it seems they have been at least partially superceded by more recent studies.


Klein first described the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid in his 1987 book The Bisexual Option.

Others have stepped forward to define it further. In 1980, Michael Storms proposed a two dimensional chart with an X and Y axis.

Time for a new study? The data has not changed, no animals were harmed.
 
2012-12-11 08:31:48 PM

Lumpmoose: Buttknuckle: I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.

That might be a thing. It makes sense for Darwinian selection. As a tribe/community reaches a certain number of children, you want a certain percentage to become childless adults that can help raise or adopt children of relatives. It increases the overall survival rate of the tribe.


Um, no. Survival of the fittest. You're confusing Group Selection theories with that. Darwin would be face-palming right now.

Genes don't create solutions ahead of time. A human is how our genes replicate themselves and what you propose goes completely against that. We're not creatures like ants and similar that do what you propose.
 
2012-12-11 08:33:19 PM

DaCaptain19: Never mind my (and others') argument that such a gene would never survive the evolutionary process, almost by definition.


There's where your wrong. Evolution doesn't give a shiat about individuals. Evolution wouldn't care about a few homosexuals any more than it cares about the runt in a litter or the thousands of eggs laid by the likes of reptiles and insects that aren't going to make it to adulthood. All it cares about is the species surviving.
 
2012-12-11 08:35:53 PM
Cythraul: Okay, so let me get this straight.

I make a claim that the lack of gay characters in pre-2000 science fiction might point to a theory that they somehow 'cure' homosexuality.


Babylon 5. Ivanova was gay. (Or possibly bisexual.)

UseTheForksLuke: My point... as Kinsey wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats...The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time. Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.

[www2.hu-berlin.de image 547x306]


Kinsey's studies were flawed!

/trollolol
// The re-evaluation barely changed the stats, except to show a higher percentage of homosexual males.

I know of a few people who have ended up in homosexual relationships due to past abuse, finding it easier to actually trust people of the opposite gender to the person/people who abused them.
 
2012-12-11 08:36:59 PM
ZOMG, FREUD WAS RIGHT!!!!!1
 
2012-12-11 08:40:03 PM

12349876: DaCaptain19: Never mind my (and others') argument that such a gene would never survive the evolutionary process, almost by definition.

There's where your wrong. Evolution doesn't give a shiat about individuals. Evolution wouldn't care about a few homosexuals any more than it cares about the runt in a litter or the thousands of eggs laid by the likes of reptiles and insects that aren't going to make it to adulthood. All it cares about is the species surviving.


Ah yes, but intead of calling it Evolution doesn't give a shiat about individials we call it 'variation within a species'.
 
2012-12-11 08:42:11 PM

spamdog: 101flyboy: Sexual orientation is a continuum.

That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for.


You clearly have absolutely no idea.


lennavan: The authors are arguing genetics plays zero role. This is from the very first two sentences:


Yes, I read that part, but those are the words of the article author, not the words of the researchers themselves.
But arguing that epigenetics have nothing at all to do with genetics is nonsense. It isn't even a coherent idea. Epigenetic factors regulate or change gene expression. Thus, it stands to reason that changes in the genes themselves might very well change the regulatory action of those epigenetics: differently constructed genes might experience different levels of interaction with those epigenetic factors.


lennavan: I cannot make it any easier to understand than that and I sincerely apologize. I do think the general public understanding science is an important thing. But I just finished up work and am heading home. You're just going to have to turn your brain on and think through it.


Wow you're a douche. The hilarious thing is that you're basing your evaluation of the theory on this pop science article rather than apparently having any actual understanding of the underlying biology, and yet you condescend to someone else about understanding science? If you can't imagine a single way that epigenetics might change along with the genetic sequences that they act on, maybe YOU need to "turn your brain on and think about it".
 
2012-12-11 08:42:46 PM

UseTheForksLuke: My point... as Kinsey wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats...The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time. Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.

[www2.hu-berlin.de image 547x306]


I'm the number 5 who makes number 1 hate his erection.
 
2012-12-11 08:43:39 PM

spamdog: firefly212: I know you are but what am I?

Obviously I've jumped into a heated discussion without reading the mood of the thread first.

I still maintain it has no actual backing. The wikipedia articles on it (here's one) have all kinds of notices on them regarding citations and whatnot. The Kinsey studies are also from the 40's and it seems they have been at least partially superceded by more recent studies.


It just seemed like you're spewing generalities.. you haven't seen much evidence, er go what you believed before is true... It just seems to me that your argument is simply that the other side doesn't have much evidence that you're aware of, but you've presented nothing substantive to the contrary.

Also, the age of science does not make it inherently less correct... Galileo was, is, and will be correct for a few billion years yet, and once the sun turns to a red giant and envelopes the earth, that won't be too big of a concern anyways.
 
2012-12-11 08:44:34 PM

spamdog: 101flyboy: Sexual orientation is a continuum.

That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for. For bisexuals, it might seem that way. But I maintain that there isn't much backing for this statement and that it is just a comforting mantra for some gay and bisexual people.

 
2012-12-11 08:45:16 PM

UseTheForksLuke: My point... as Kinsey wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats...The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time. Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.

[www2.hu-berlin.de image 547x306]


Kinsey's limitation was only looking at behaviour. If you only take that into account, I'm currently as straight as. . . . well, I have no idea what a straight equivalent would be. June Cleaver?? But in my head, well. . . that's for my bunk. ;)

CSS: In college after finals my Women's Studies class went out for beer at the on-campus pub. We ended up describing a 3-axis analysis by including behavior, thoughts/fantasies, and poly/mono, and then tried to figure out a fourth to include platonic vs erotic. Yes, much beer was involved.
 
2012-12-11 08:45:46 PM

simplicimus: firefly212: spamdog: 101flyboy: Sexual orientation is a continuum.

That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for. For bisexuals, it might seem that way. But I maintain that there isn't much backing for this statement and that it is just a comforting mantra for some gay and bisexual people.

That's another pithy statement that people say but I've never actually seen much evidence for. For heterosexuals, it might seem that way. But I maintain that there isn't much backing for this statement and that it is just a comforting mantra for some insecure heterosexual people.

To repeat myself:
The either/or categorization doesn't hold up against empirical data. To wit, prison activities, LUGs, married homosexuals who produce offspring. The ancient Greeks and Romans were bi.


I agree, all the Santorum makes it difficult to get a clear picture of what's going on. I was just pointing out that arguing that you've not seen enough evidence of one side of the argument is not, in and of itself, an argument against it.
 
2012-12-11 08:47:05 PM

Peki: UseTheForksLuke: My point... as Kinsey wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats...The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time. Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.

[www2.hu-berlin.de image 547x306]

Kinsey's limitation was only looking at behaviour. If you only take that into account, I'm currently as straight as. . . . well, I have no idea what a straight equivalent would be. June Cleaver?? But in my head, well. . . that's for my bunk. ;)

CSS: In college after finals my Women's Studies class went out for beer at the on-campus pub. We ended up describing a 3-axis analysis by including behavior, thoughts/fantasies, and poly/mono, and then tried to figure out a fourth to include platonic vs erotic. Yes, much beer was involved.


There's also a function of love v. sex... I could have sex with either gender, but I only fall in love with other guys.
 
2012-12-11 08:47:44 PM

UseTheForksLuke: My point... as Kinsey wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats...The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time. Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.

www2.hu-berlin.de


You DO realize that's a made up chart with words to make it look like something was "discovered"" when actually the fact is that either someone is having or wanting sex with both sexes, or their sex, or the other sex. One or the other. I could add 10 more groupings in the same as they added 4 in that one and write descriptions as I please even though people are having either heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual behaviors.

I could take any survey like this, make various graphs, and "discover" things that aren't there.

If there were 3 sexes, then there would be a higher number, but as it is, that's just making stuff up. 

Really. Either someone is having or wanting sex with the opposite sex, both, or their own. Tinkering with graphs in this manner as the person who made it did is similar to much of the Global Warming graphing situation and just as misleading.
 
2012-12-11 08:48:02 PM

Ghastly: UseTheForksLuke: My point... as Kinsey wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats...The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time. Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.

[www2.hu-berlin.de image 547x306]

I'm the number 5 who makes number 1 hate his erection.


No, you're just the one that everyone regardless of sexuality or gender love : )
 
2012-12-11 08:50:13 PM

Legios: Kinsey's studies were flawed!

/trollolol
// The re-evaluation barely changed the stats, except to show a higher percentage of homosexual males.

I know of a few people who have ended up in homosexual relationships due to past abuse, finding it easier to actually trust people of the opposite gender to the person/people who abused them.


This was my responce to a previous post where they used terms such as 100% hetrosexual / 100% homosexual...

Maybe the statistical distrobution has changed over time, but the fact that everyone in not purely homosexual or hetrosexual has not. Personally I think everyone is bisexual they just can not accept it, surpressing their inate urges.
 
2012-12-11 08:52:35 PM

Gwyrddu: This really isn't a new theory, the idea of womb environment being the determining factor along with some evidence along those lines has been around for a while. Stress, birth order, and getting bathed with to many hormones have been given as possible causes, none of them mutually exclusive. Anyway, I've pretty much assumed for years based on the research that the homosexuality was probably epigenetic.


Yeah whenever you find a science story in the news you can bet that it's just something that people in that field have known about for ages, and probably out of date, and exaggerated beyond all recognition. It tends to be a mark of a slow news day, or an editorial agenda. We had an example given in our MSc class about the reality of the evidence for "criminal genes" vs what the papers said. Basically scientific research doesn't just come out of the blue, each paper represents a tiny, tiny advance on a shiatton of other research in the field. And that's not even getting into the bullshiat reporting itself. The researchers are probably cringing at this article right now.
 
2012-12-11 08:52:46 PM

Sofa King Smart: Arkanaut: I've always thought it had something to do with the hormone level of the mother during pregnancy.

ring finger to pointer finger length/ratio...


Yup! That's one of the things I was talking about. The other thing that I remember reading that correlated unexpectedly with homosexuality is being the second-born son -- supposedly the first-born son would have drained too much testosterone from the mother. Frankly it sounds sillier the more I talk about it since I'm not sure what the mechanism is for transferring hormones from mother to child, but it certainly makes you wonder about the various factors that affect hormonal levels in the womb.
 
2012-12-11 08:53:48 PM
This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

You're too stupid to talk to.
 
2012-12-11 08:55:02 PM

That Guy...From That Show!: UseTheForksLuke: My point... as Kinsey wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats...The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time. Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.

[www2.hu-berlin.de image 547x306]

You DO realize that's a made up chart with words to make it look like something was "discovered"" when actually the fact is that either someone is having or wanting sex with both sexes, or their sex, or the other sex. One or the other. I could add 10 more groupings in the same as they added 4 in that one and write descriptions as I please even though people are having either heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual behaviors.

I could take any survey like this, make various graphs, and "discover" things that aren't there.

If there were 3 sexes, then there would be a higher number, but as it is, that's just making stuff up. 

Really. Either someone is having or wanting sex with the opposite sex, both, or their own. Tinkering with graphs in this manner as the person who made it did is similar to much of the Global Warming graphing situation and just as misleading.


You know at the time the Kinsey studies came out it was ground breaking stuff, sure we've added to the knowledge but he was on the right track that sexuality wasn't binary and now were on to gender is not binary which sure others have known for along time but wasn't talked about in the good ol' USA.
 
2012-12-11 08:55:54 PM

That Guy...From That Show!:  

Really. Either someone is having or wanting sex with the opposite sex, both, or their own. Tinkering with graphs in this manner as the person who made it did is similar to much of the Global Warming graphing situation and just as misleading.


And there you have it, homosexuality is caused by the lack of pirates in the world today?
 
2012-12-11 08:59:51 PM

UseTheForksLuke: That Guy...From That Show!:  

Really. Either someone is having or wanting sex with the opposite sex, both, or their own. Tinkering with graphs in this manner as the person who made it did is similar to much of the Global Warming graphing situation and just as misleading.

And there you have it, homosexuality is caused by the lack of pirates in the world today?


Well, it could actually be that the pirates were primarily gay and when they couldn't be seamen anymore they ended up spreading it around on the land masses.
 
2012-12-11 09:00:53 PM

UseTheForksLuke: Legios: Kinsey's studies were flawed!

/trollolol
// The re-evaluation barely changed the stats, except to show a higher percentage of homosexual males.

I know of a few people who have ended up in homosexual relationships due to past abuse, finding it easier to actually trust people of the opposite gender to the person/people who abused them.

This was my responce to a previous post where they used terms such as 100% hetrosexual / 100% homosexual...

Maybe the statistical distrobution has changed over time, but the fact that everyone in not purely homosexual or hetrosexual has not. Personally I think everyone is bisexual they just can not accept it, surpressing their inate urges.


I'm on the fence about the last bit (everyone is bisexual but suppresses it.) As far as genetics/epigenetics go, I know far too little to make any comment about it. But they did find that peoples 'disgust' to things is something we learn. There's a fascinating read here which would make me agree with you.
 
2012-12-11 09:01:32 PM

That Guy...From That Show!: Well, it could actually be that the pirates were primarily gay and when they couldn't be seamen anymore they ended up spreading it around on the land masses.


I thought that what you would say. -ha
 
2012-12-11 09:03:22 PM

UseTheForksLuke: Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.


Was bisexuality scientifically recognized at the time of the Kinsey studies?
Anyway, this paragraph sums up what I'm saying. The vast majority are exclusively one or the other. It doesn't mean that everyone's got a little gay (or straight) in them. That seems to be a factoid that people repeat without having checked out the facts themselves. Don't get all pissy with me, alright?
 
2012-12-11 09:07:17 PM

letrole: Homosexuality is a Learned Behaviour.


It has been actively observed in over 600 species (whereas homophobia has been actively observed in only one).

So where are the animals getting this Learned Behavior from?
 
2012-12-11 09:08:49 PM

Legios:
Maybe the statistical distrobution has changed over time, but the fact that everyone in not purely homosexual or hetrosexual has not. Personally I think everyone is bisexual they just can not accept it, surpressing their inate urges.

I'm on the fence about the last bit (everyone is bisexual but suppresses it.) As far as genetics/epigenetics go, I know far too little to make any comment about it. But they did find that peoples 'disgust' to things is something we learn. There's a fascinating read here which would make me agree with you.


Well I did not spend a great amount of time skimming over that six parg article. Supported my hypothosis did it?

No need to cure bisexuality then... we we all be screwed. (pun not intended.. extinct!)
 
2012-12-11 09:14:34 PM
I went to high school with a pair of identical twin sisters. One was gay, one wasn't. I took the gay one to a dance.

Dammit.
 
2012-12-11 09:19:01 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The lack of girl on girl pictures makes me sad..


[img59.imageshack.us image 682x1023] 

So here is some girl on girl on girl action...


So what was up with that boy, girl, boy, girl thing in elementary school, remember?
 
2012-12-11 09:22:24 PM

Cyno01: letrole: Prey4reign No lesbian couple can be called "completely acceptable" unless unclothed, well oiled and in 69 mode.

Lesbians are not hot. Lesbians are a fetish for involuntarily abstinent young men who have been desensitised to normal sexual imagery.

FTFY Mr The Troll.


In before he claims it is just his last name.
 
2012-12-11 09:23:06 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The lack of girl on girl pictures makes me sad..


[img59.imageshack.us image 682x1023] 

So here is some girl on girl on girl action...


Opps, you're pic didn't work but here some more gay action ( yea mostly because I've seen what a derper you can be : ) )
i445.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-11 09:23:11 PM

snowjack: I went to high school with a pair of identical twin sisters. One was gay, one wasn't. I took the gay one to a dance.

Dammit.


and? Can you enlighten us? Who did the straight twin go to the prom with? Did you get laid? So many questions....
 
2012-12-11 09:24:40 PM

Ishkur: letrole: Homosexuality is a Learned Behaviour.

It has been actively observed in over 600 species (whereas homophobia has been actively observed in only one).

So where are the animals getting this Learned Behavior from?


NBC
 
2012-12-11 09:26:13 PM
Oh one more at least : )
bp1.blogger.com
 
2012-12-11 09:30:32 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh one more at least : )
[bp1.blogger.com image 371x375]



And another...

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2012-12-11 09:32:07 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh one more at least : )
[bp1.blogger.com image 371x375]


And another...

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 290x300]


That's so sweet : )
 
2012-12-11 09:35:19 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The lack of girl on girl pictures makes me sad..
[img59.imageshack.us image 682x1023] 
So here is some girl on girl on girl action...


It was great while it lasted, now it's farked.

tinfoil-hat maggie: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The lack of girl on girl pictures makes me sad..
[img59.imageshack.us image 682x1023] 
So here is some girl on girl on girl action...
Opps, you're pic didn't work but here some more gay action ( yea mostly because I've seen what a derper you can be : ) )
[i445.photobucket.com image 425x640]

tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh one more at least : )
[bp1.blogger.com image 371x375]


Thoes guys are HOT! You must be straight woman with good taste in gay men.
 
2012-12-11 09:37:48 PM

UseTheForksLuke: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The lack of girl on girl pictures makes me sad..
[img59.imageshack.us image 682x1023] 
So here is some girl on girl on girl action...

It was great while it lasted, now it's farked.

tinfoil-hat maggie: The Stealth Hippopotamus: The lack of girl on girl pictures makes me sad..
[img59.imageshack.us image 682x1023] 
So here is some girl on girl on girl action...
Opps, you're pic didn't work but here some more gay action ( yea mostly because I've seen what a derper you can be : ) )
[i445.photobucket.com image 425x640]
tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh one more at least : )
[bp1.blogger.com image 371x375]

Thoes guys are HOT! You must be straight woman with good taste in gay men.


Very bisexual and thank you muchly : )
 
2012-12-11 09:39:57 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: o5iiawah: So this means that if a couple finds out their child will be born gay, liberals would support their right to abort it, right?

abort, retry, or fail??

i'm guessing abort so i'm gonna type an A here and press RETURN


So, I see you are type A personality.

/here all week.
 
2012-12-11 09:41:15 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie:
Very bisexual and thank you muchly : )


Oh Thanks. My bisexual hypothsis proven again. I should have known.
 
2012-12-11 09:42:04 PM
Trust me I can also pic out hot women : )
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-11 09:43:20 PM

Ishkur: letrole: Homosexuality is a Learned Behaviour.

It has been actively observed in over 600 species (whereas homophobia has been actively observed in only one).

So where are the animals getting this Learned Behavior from?


Animals often have to learn their sexual responses as well. This can be a problem with zoo animals imprinting on humans as sexual partners instead of their own species. Actually I would imagine that, just as with almost anything in psychology/neurology, the truth is a combination of several different possible genes and environmental factors (including hormones in the womb, own hormones, learned behaviour and god knows what else).
 
2012-12-11 09:43:29 PM

edgesrealm: Welcome to "a comments board that should be banned entirely by the Fark.com moderators, but won't be because it's attached to a news article".

The article shouldn't have even been greenlit.


??? Why? It's been an interesting conversation; I've learned a few things.

I've often wondered if the difficulties of my birth had something to do with my ending up gay.

I was a preemie, spend the first 6 weeks of my life alone in an incubator. Just about killed my Mom on the way out - she almost bled out - and I had to be delivered by cesarean. God or whatever really didn't want me on the planet for some reason. Thank goodness for SCIENCE!!! HAHAHA!! Take that God!

I'm also a first born and left-handed. And I have a big dick. So I guess I'm stereotypically gay?
 
2012-12-11 09:43:58 PM

UseTheForksLuke: My point... as Kinsey wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats...The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time. Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.

[www2.hu-berlin.de image 547x306]


What exactly defines "incidental homosexual behavior"? Is that like when you're sandwiching a girl and your balls touch? Or is it more benign, like maybe an Eiffel Tower?
 
2012-12-11 09:44:21 PM

UseTheForksLuke: tinfoil-hat maggie:
Very bisexual and thank you muchly : )

Oh Thanks. My bisexual hypothsis proven again. I should have known.


What's you're hypothesis I'm curious? ( yea, like you haven't heard that from a bisexual before : ) )
 
2012-12-11 09:47:09 PM

UseTheForksLuke: Legios:
Maybe the statistical distrobution has changed over time, but the fact that everyone in not purely homosexual or hetrosexual has not. Personally I think everyone is bisexual they just can not accept it, surpressing their inate urges.

I'm on the fence about the last bit (everyone is bisexual but suppresses it.) As far as genetics/epigenetics go, I know far too little to make any comment about it. But they did find that peoples 'disgust' to things is something we learn. There's a fascinating read here which would make me agree with you.

Well I did not spend a great amount of time skimming over that six parg article. Supported my hypothosis did it?

No need to cure bisexuality then... we we all be screwed. (pun not intended.. extinct!)


Yeah sorry, it's a bit long... But it does talk about sexual disgust. This is probably the most pertinent part:

'Freud saw disgust as an artificial response designed to tame children's sexuality. But he was, in this case, way off. In the 1940s, psychotherapist Andras Angyal argued that the mouth is crucial to disgust, and subsequent researchers have concluded that it is mainly an oral defense. "Disgust starts with food," says Jonathan Haidt, Ph.D., once a student of Rozin's and now an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, "and then moves on to other things, sex being just one of them."'
 
2012-12-11 09:57:03 PM

StashMonster: Animals often have to learn their sexual responses as well.


Actually, when the entire animal kingdom is taken into account, consensual monogamous courtship is pretty rare. Most animals engage in abundant levels of rape, coercion, brutality, infidelity, homosexuality, situational sexual behavior, group sex, masturbation and explicit life-threatening and occasionally fatal sexual perversions - everything from cannibalism and necrophilia to castration and coprophagia and felching and everything in between - with clear conscience. Humans are the only ones who have socio-sexual morals. The law of the natural world with regards to sex is one of promiscuity and opportunism. Outside of that there are no laws.
 
2012-12-11 09:57:47 PM

Godscrack: [img407.imageshack.us image 440x544]
101flyboy: First of all........sexual orientation is too complex and it generally doesn't even fully develop until mid-late adolescence.

Try 7 or 8 years old. I remember clearly 'admiring' my fathers friends, the mailman with the big mustache, the beat cop in my neighborhood, and watching all the dirty, unshaven extras in early sitcoms like Gunsmoke, Bonanza and The Rifleman. The extras, not the stars themselves.

And I was never interested in other boys my age. At all.

There is no way in hell, a kid that young could possibly understand sexual orientation, or have the ability to 'choose' what is attractive, much less age preference.

It's no different from someone being born left handed. They didn't choose that. And I'm not going to hate them for it.

Leftophobe does sound kinda cool though.


I've always said these exact same things! Except I loved the cowboys (and detectives) since about age four. I have always been 100% rapturously in love with men. But, well, I am female.

And left-handed, and whenever people start in on that gay choice thing, it's just the analogy I use. It's just a minority characteristic; a little different than most people, but not much.

I have half-formed thoughts about why going on too much about it not being a choice can be harmful, though. Seems like that's invalidating a core part of someone's identity. "Born this way" should be validated or celebrated, not excused or pitied.
 
2012-12-11 10:09:23 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Trust me I can also pic out hot women : )
[25.media.tumblr.com image 400x580]


distilleryimage11.s3.amazonaws.com

www.cutewithchris.com

t1.gstatic.com

3.bp.blogspot.com


We need to rough this up a bit.
 
2012-12-11 10:17:00 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie:
What's you're hypothesis I'm curious? ( yea, like you haven't heard that from a bisexual before : ) )

That everyone is bisexual! I said it way back there some where. ^ supressing inate urges, somebody on the fence agreed and supplied their own reference. I did not have to time to read it all.

Trust me I can also pic out hot women : )
[25.media.tumblr.com image 400x580]


Thanks for being so honest! And I loved the penguin story a tango makes three, it's so cute. Mean while back in reality they seperated them at the zoo and imprisoned them with female's thinking they would mate with them. 

serial_crusher: What exactly defines "incidental homosexual behavior"? Is that like when you're sandwiching a girl and your balls touch? Or is it more benign, like maybe an Eiffel Tower?


Wilt Chamberlain comes to mind, he had sex with 14,000 women and he accidently touched his cousins willie when he was three. That might be an incident. When you exibit mostly hetrosexual behavior but wreseled aroung with the guys that time when you were drunk at the frat party and got a boner. Ok, you are bisexual but perfer women. You had one or more homosexual experiances but hetrosexual experance out numbers them. My best guess.  I'm not exactly sure what an Eiffle Tower is, but I'm sure I have been there.
 
2012-12-11 10:20:15 PM

Max Awesome: KeithLM:
Of course Sci-Fi is often reflective of themes in modern society. The original Star Trek was very progressive for having Russians, Asians and African Americans, and even aliens, all on the bridge of the Enterprise. But does anyone really believe they could have gotten away with a homosexual character on TV in the 60's?

[i42.photobucket.com image 850x678]


That show had the most awesome theme song.
 
2012-12-11 10:26:40 PM

Cythraul: tinfoil-hat maggie: Trust me I can also pic out hot women : )
[25.media.tumblr.com image 400x580]

[distilleryimage11.s3.amazonaws.com image 306x306]

[www.cutewithchris.com image 480x319]

[t1.gstatic.com image 216x234]

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 313x320]


We need to rough this up a bit.


I love bears they're some of the best friends I've ever had.
 
2012-12-11 10:28:53 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: what if we gave datura tea to gays


they would trip quite aesomely?
 
2012-12-11 10:32:56 PM

UseTheForksLuke: tinfoil-hat maggie:
What's you're hypothesis I'm curious? ( yea, like you haven't heard that from a bisexual before : ) )

That everyone is bisexual! I said it way back there some where. ^ supressing inate urges, somebody on the fence agreed and supplied their own reference. I did not have to time to read it all.

Trust me I can also pic out hot women : )
[25.media.tumblr.com image 400x580]

Thanks for being so honest! And I loved the penguin story a tango makes three, it's so cute. Mean while back in reality they seperated them at the zoo and imprisoned them with female's thinking they would mate with them. 

serial_crusher: What exactly defines "incidental homosexual behavior"? Is that like when you're sandwiching a girl and your balls touch? Or is it more benign, like maybe an Eiffel Tower?

Wilt Chamberlain comes to mind, he had sex with 14,000 women and he accidently touched his cousins willie when he was three. That might be an incident. When you exibit mostly hetrosexual behavior but wreseled aroung with the guys that time when you were drunk at the frat party and got a boner. Ok, you are bisexual but perfer women. You had one or more homosexual experiances but hetrosexual experance out numbers them. My best guess.  I'm not exactly sure what an Eiffle Tower is, but I'm sure I have been there.


Well you forgot spoiler alert but I'll forgive you, and while I do think the majority of the population is bisexual I do believe there are those that are truly straight or truly gay.
1.bp.blogspot.com
Another pic to help people decide for themselves : )
 
2012-12-11 10:42:00 PM

Max Awesome: [i42.photobucket.com image 850x678]


Wait, that's not Gay...
 
2012-12-11 10:46:19 PM

KeithLM: Of course Sci-Fi is often reflective of themes in modern society. The original Star Trek was very progressive for having Russians, Asians and African Americans, and even aliens, all on the bridge of the Enterprise


Sci-fi/Fantasy has been like that since far before Star Trek. Star Trek wasn't progressive at all in that respect and didn't differ much from other stories overall. Voyage stories in particular highlighted that people looked different in different places and behaved differently. After all, if people aren't different in different places what's the point in going to meet them in those different places?  It'd be much better to seek out the same lack of differences by taking a 5 block voyage to see them there rather than going much farther to see what you've already seen.
 
2012-12-11 10:57:25 PM

UseTheForksLuke: tinfoil-hat maggie:
What's you're hypothesis I'm curious? ( yea, like you haven't heard that from a bisexual before : ) )

That everyone is bisexual! I said it way back there some where. ^ supressing inate urges, somebody on the fence agreed and supplied their own reference. I did not have to time to read it all.

Trust me I can also pic out hot women : )
[25.media.tumblr.com image 400x580]

Thanks for being so honest! And I loved the penguin story a tango makes three, it's so cute. Mean while back in reality they seperated them at the zoo and imprisoned them with female's thinking they would mate with them. 

serial_crusher: What exactly defines "incidental homosexual behavior"? Is that like when you're sandwiching a girl and your balls touch? Or is it more benign, like maybe an Eiffel Tower?

Wilt Chamberlain comes to mind, he had sex with 14,000 women and he accidently touched his cousins willie when he was three. That might be an incident. When you exibit mostly hetrosexual behavior but wreseled aroung with the guys that time when you were drunk at the frat party and got a boner. Ok, you are bisexual but perfer women. You had one or more homosexual experiances but hetrosexual experance out numbers them. My best guess.  I'm not exactly sure what an Eiffle Tower is, but I'm sure I have been there.


Yea, although he could just be a hypersexualized anomaly but yea lot's of men that are unsure of their sexuality go into very masculine professions. Sport's, military ,etc.
 
2012-12-11 10:59:04 PM

SarahDiddle: mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.

Not necessarily. If you were living in a population that started to become unstable in terms of food, shelter, mates, etc. then homosexuality eases the pressure on society because they wouldn't be reproducing and would free up some resources.


There have been studies, such as the number of youths who identified as homosexual AFTER the bombings in Dresden as a for instance. There have been a few others, that show an increase in the number of folks who identify as homosexual in post war areas. This could be from a number of factors, but one hypothesis has been stress on the mother during pregnancy is a factor. Which, does make some sense. Even in the case of twins--one twin carries on to make babies, the other, is support in the troop structure, which helps their shared genetic legacy continue on. While homosexuals may not make babies on their own--at least not without help--they still perform support duties to assist the troop in caring for the next generation, and thus their brethren's or sistren's children carry the trigger mechanism that expresses sexuality onward, thus insuring that the mechanism gets passed on.

Which means that human survival strategies have been linked for some time to cooperative survival strategies. Not just for bringing down game and finding mates, but in caring for the offspring, and the strategies are layered by what seems to work. In this case, if it can be borne out in a decent study that homosexuality is indeed something that is triggered by factors that affect the mother during pregnancy, then you are going to watch a LOT of folks' heads asplode. As the Religious Right have to slog through data that suggests that the best way to eliminate the gheys, is to provide a better social safety net, and less stress in communities by taking on real crime, poverty, and strife within marriages.

Want less gheys? Better have some decent health care in the wings, better job security, less drug related crimes, and stability within communities. Otherwise, the Social Darwinism that the Rabid Right loves so much, may reap a LOT more FABULOUS folks who probably won't vote Republican. Unless they're deeply closeted and self loathing, but then again, there is certainly that element already in place...
 
2012-12-11 11:01:09 PM

KeithLM: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

In Torchwood and Doctor Who, Captain Jack seemed to prefer the boys. Sure he'd go after just about anything or anyone, but he there were times where his preferences were definitely for men. I believe there have been other gay characters in Doctor Who also, including a horse.

In TNG there was an alien diplomat that was a parasite in a host body that came on to Crusher, even after switching into a female host.

Babylon 5, Ivanova and Talia Winters had a brief affair and Ivanova later revealed she had loved Talia.

Of course Sci-Fi is often reflective of themes in modern society. The original Star Trek was very progressive for having Russians, Asians and African Americans, and even aliens, all on the bridge of the Enterprise. But does anyone really believe they could have gotten away with a homosexual character on TV in the 60's?


They did try in the 90's, with Deep Space Nine. The initial plan was to have Garak and Bashir have a relationship that was a lot more romantic than what made it on screen. The censors wouldn't let them, so they toned it down to a deep, strong, platonic relationship (with a fair amount of subtext, as Garak's actor himself admitted). They did get away with a bit with Dax and her past hosts, but not like how they had initially planned. So it was more not being able to get it past the censors than anything else, honestly. Pity, as they could've gone so many ways with it - not just male/male relationship, but Bashir was dating the "enemy", more or less. It would've strained his relationship with Miles, and maybe even gotten him in trouble, and heaven knows Garak's enemies could've used it as leverage....

/Sighing over what could've been
 
2012-12-11 11:04:42 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: ...and while I do think the majority of the population is bisexual I do believe there are those that are truly straight or truly gay.


How can we be sure of that, that some are truly straight or truly gay? Let us go back to the article and say no gentical difference exists for sexual perference; and in fact it is envormental wether in the womb due to epigenetic control of gene expression or some othe other unknown factor. Then we should find specific epigenetital controls for expressing exclusive absolute straight or gay extremes. This research still does not demonstraight a single cause for sexual orientation and it still has not been conclusively demonstrated by this preliminay research. At this point we have to rely on ones own self admission of thier sexual preference. That in itself is an initial influential experimental error.
 
2012-12-11 11:05:01 PM

Cythraul: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.


IIRC, Barclay was supposed to be gay but they nixed that because they didn't want to ailienate any people.

On the other hand. if you're into science fiction that requires reading, you'll see a lot of gay characters. Hell, I picked up a Heinlein juvenile that had gay characters in it (forgot the title, was written 1960-ish) although it was downplayed a bit. You'll find that most people who are open-minded enough to be into science fiction don't really give a crap about peoples' orientation, and a lot of the writers don't care either.

/and then there's that moon/colony/whatever from Cowboy Bebop where the men were men and the women were also men, and they all ignored Faye
 
2012-12-11 11:05:50 PM

hubiestubert: SarahDiddle: mizchief: If you believe in evolution, then it's kind of hard to imagine how homosexuality would be genetic.

Not necessarily. If you were living in a population that started to become unstable in terms of food, shelter, mates, etc. then homosexuality eases the pressure on society because they wouldn't be reproducing and would free up some resources.

There have been studies, such as the number of youths who identified as homosexual AFTER the bombings in Dresden as a for instance. There have been a few others, that show an increase in the number of folks who identify as homosexual in post war areas. This could be from a number of factors, but one hypothesis has been stress on the mother during pregnancy is a factor. Which, does make some sense. Even in the case of twins--one twin carries on to make babies, the other, is support in the troop structure, which helps their shared genetic legacy continue on. While homosexuals may not make babies on their own--at least not without help--they still perform support duties to assist the troop in caring for the next generation, and thus their brethren's or sistren's children carry the trigger mechanism that expresses sexuality onward, thus insuring that the mechanism gets passed on.

Which means that human survival strategies have been linked for some time to cooperative survival strategies. Not just for bringing down game and finding mates, but in caring for the offspring, and the strategies are layered by what seems to work. In this case, if it can be borne out in a decent study that homosexuality is indeed something that is triggered by factors that affect the mother during pregnancy, then you are going to watch a LOT of folks' heads asplode. As the Religious Right have to slog through data that suggests that the best way to eliminate the gheys, is to provide a better social safety net, and less stress in communities by taking on real crime, poverty, and strife within marriages.

Want less gheys? Better have s ...


While that's an interesting perspective, I'm not sure I understand or buy it. But I do think too try and tamper with it whether by DNA or hormones will end up badly and that the best thing we can all do is be good human beings.
 
2012-12-11 11:07:34 PM
Frost: Hey, I sure wouldn't mind getting some more of that Arcturian poontang! Remember that time?
Spunkmeyer: Yeah, Frost, but the one that you had was a male!
Frost: It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby!
 
2012-12-11 11:15:13 PM

jeffreyh: So... are there any gay hatched animals besides big bird?


Actully, there is a study out there that a certain breed of tern, that have healthier offspring when raised by two female terns.
 
2012-12-11 11:16:44 PM

Lumpmoose: So gays are born this way but we aren't conceived this way.


And now, for another installment of ‶Words Mean Things" (™ Rush Limbaugh?), it's COMALite J the Semanticist!

‶Congenital" ≠ ‶Genetic"!

• Congenital ― something you′re born with and will have lifelong, regardless of cause.
• Genetic ― something that results from genes (whether inherited or mutation), regardless of when the trait manifests (e.g. Alzheimer′s appears to be at least partly genetic, but is not congenital since it does not manifest until long after birth).

Conditions which are known to be congenital yet not genetic include, but are not limited to:
• Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (caused by ― duh! ― fetal exposure to alcohol in the womb)
• Spina Bifida and similar neural tube defects (caused by insufficient folate levels in the womb)
• Harelip / Cleft Palate
• ‶Thalidomide Babies" and similar chemically induced fetal developmental defects
• Rubella (‶German measles") contracted by the mother during pregnancy resulting in birth defects of various types
• And many more.

An example of a neonatal nigh-congenital condition is retrolental fibroplasia, a form of lifelong near-total blindness that occurs shortly after birth among premies if too much oxygen is given in the NICU. The excess oxygen causes the still-developing retina′s macula / fovea centralis to grow out of control, forming a pillar that stretches from the center of the retina to the back of the lens, blocking most light from entering the eye. This is now a known risk, and often the tradeoff decision has to be made: do you want to do all we can to save the baby′s life knowing that s/he′ll likely be near totally blind for life as a result?
 
2012-12-11 11:16:47 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: While that's an interesting perspective, I'm not sure I understand or buy it. But I do think too try and tamper with it whether by DNA or hormones will end up badly and that the best thing we can all do is be good human beings.


I'm just saying that it could be fun to see the Religious Right suddenly go for an economic safety net, not because of charity for others, and the whole, glean not the entirety of your vineyards Leviticus motif, but because they REALLY despise gheys more.

Sort of like back in Texas, there was a wealthy businessman who sponsored a good sized scholarship for black and Latino youths. Not because he was generous, but because he was a racist bastiche who wanted to see less of the brown and black kids on the streets, and he figured that a competitive scholarship might dangle something before them to get them on the right track, and out of the crappy neighborhoods, and possibly into jobs that took them right the Hells out of his town...
 
2012-12-11 11:17:08 PM

hubiestubert: Want less gheys? Better have some decent health care in the wings, better job security, less drug related crimes, and stability within communities. Otherwise, the Social Darwinism that the Rabid Right loves so much, may reap a LOT more FABULOUS folks who probably won't vote Republican. Unless they're deeply closeted and self loathing, but then again, there is certainly that element already in place...


Maybe the point of doing this research is to make sure we have plenty of extra ghey people in the future to solve all these problems?
 
2012-12-11 11:21:13 PM

strapp3r: [i.huffpost.com image 570x380]6
actual lesbians


fess up: that was not cool. i apologize
what is cool? these two newly-weds

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-11 11:25:21 PM

UseTheForksLuke: tinfoil-hat maggie: ...and while I do think the majority of the population is bisexual I do believe there are those that are truly straight or truly gay.

How can we be sure of that, that some are truly straight or truly gay? Let us go back to the article and say no gentical difference exists for sexual perference; and in fact it is envormental wether in the womb due to epigenetic control of gene expression or some othe other unknown factor. Then we should find specific epigenetital controls for expressing exclusive absolute straight or gay extremes. This research still does not demonstraight a single cause for sexual orientation and it still has not been conclusively demonstrated by this preliminay research. At this point we have to rely on ones own self admission of thier sexual preference. That in itself is an initial influential experimental error.


Well, I certainly can't offer proof only anecdotal evidence but I mostly feel that only 5 to 10 % of the population is completely homosexual and the same percentages completely heterosexual. Everyone else falling somewhere in between and then it becomes a social factor of what's accepted but I do believe in the basic Kinsey model. I am bi but I prefer women for my relationships. So I think society will continue to breed on.
 
2012-12-11 11:26:13 PM

Isildur: Max Awesome: [i42.photobucket.com image 850x678]

Wait, that's not Gay...


Ha! I loved that scene. Lt. Gay was such a practical girl, able to quickly convert her space-suit into a cute casual outfit with the just addition of a silver mini-skirt.

I just watched this episode yesterday. It's the gayest non-gay sci fi series I've ever seen:

i42.photobucket.com

i42.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-11 11:28:29 PM

hubiestubert: tinfoil-hat maggie: While that's an interesting perspective, I'm not sure I understand or buy it. But I do think too try and tamper with it whether by DNA or hormones will end up badly and that the best thing we can all do is be good human beings.

I'm just saying that it could be fun to see the Religious Right suddenly go for an economic safety net, not because of charity for others, and the whole, glean not the entirety of your vineyards Leviticus motif, but because they REALLY despise gheys more.

Sort of like back in Texas, there was a wealthy businessman who sponsored a good sized scholarship for black and Latino youths. Not because he was generous, but because he was a racist bastiche who wanted to see less of the brown and black kids on the streets, and he figured that a competitive scholarship might dangle something before them to get them on the right track, and out of the crappy neighborhoods, and possibly into jobs that took them right the Hells out of his town...


Being Texas I'm surprised it wasn't a football related scholarship.
 
2012-12-11 11:30:15 PM
No one has brought up a mother smoking obscene amounts of cigarettes as a potential factor yet? Nowadays you don't have as many mothers smoking during pregnanicies, but in the 80s (born in '81) it was a lot of people. What a mother puts into her body can change things drastically on a hormonal level as well as other areas. It'd make sense if they did a study focusing on smoking and homosexuality, bisexuality, transgendered, even penis size since epigenetics goes along with the genitals as well. I'd be irritated if my penis is smaller because my mother smoked tons while she was pregnant with me.
 
2012-12-11 11:31:03 PM

Max Awesome: Isildur: Max Awesome: [i42.photobucket.com image 850x678]

Wait, that's not Gay...

Ha! I loved that scene. Lt. Gay was such a practical girl, able to quickly convert her space-suit into a cute casual outfit with the just addition of a silver mini-skirt.

I just watched this episode yesterday. It's the gayest non-gay sci fi series I've ever seen:

[i42.photobucket.com image 850x646]

[i42.photobucket.com image 626x768]


I don't see it that looks completely non-gay to me : )
/Damn had a difficult time not laughing while writing that.
 
2012-12-11 11:31:04 PM

madanimalscientist: KeithLM: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

In Torchwood and Doctor Who, Captain Jack seemed to prefer the boys. Sure he'd go after just about anything or anyone, but he there were times where his preferences were definitely for men. I believe there have been other gay characters in Doctor Who also, including a horse.

In TNG there was an alien diplomat that was a parasite in a host body that came on to Crusher, even after switching into a female host.

Babylon 5, Ivanova and Talia Winters had a brief affair and Ivanova later revealed she had loved Talia.

Of course Sci-Fi is often reflective of themes in modern society. The original Star Trek was very progressive for having Russians, Asians and African Americans, and even aliens, all on the bridge of the Enterprise. But does anyone really believe they could have gotten away with a homosexual character on TV in the 60's?

They did try in the 90's, with Deep Space Nine. The initial plan was to have Garak and Bashir have a relationship that was a lot more romantic than what made it on screen. The censors wouldn't let them, so they toned it down to a deep, strong, platonic relationship (with a fair amount of subtext, as Garak's actor himself admitted). They did get away with a bit with Dax and her past hosts, but not like how they had initially planned. So it was more not being able to get it past the censors than anything else, honestly. Pity, as they could've gone so many ways with it - not just male/male relationship, but Bashir was dating the "enemy", more or less. It would've strained his relationship with Miles, and maybe even gotten him in trouble, and heaven knows Garak's enemies could've used it as leverage....

/Sighing over what could've been


Hmm, I never heard that. I'm re-watching it now, so I'll look at the rest of the garak/bashir episodes a lot differently now. Thanks for the new perspective.
 
2012-12-11 11:39:39 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Well, I certainly can't offer proof only anecdotal evidence but I mostly feel that only 5 to 10 % of the population is completely homosexual and the same percentages completely heterosexual. Everyone else falling somewhere in between and then it becomes a social factor of what's accepted but I do believe in the basic Kinsey model. I am bi but I prefer women for my relationships. So I think society will continue to breed on.


I would tend to agree there is no lack of breeding going on.
What if it continues at the current rate?
Well at least the experts say the population will peak around 10 Billion people.

www.paulchefurka.ca
 
2012-12-11 11:46:27 PM
What if it turns out that having gay children is caused by a fear of critical thinking and a lack of empathy towards others?

Heads. Will. Explode.
 
2012-12-11 11:50:18 PM

Cythraul: tinfoil-hat maggie: Trust me I can also pic out hot women : )
[25.media.tumblr.com image 400x580]

[distilleryimage11.s3.amazonaws.com image 306x306]

[www.cutewithchris.com image 480x319]

[t1.gstatic.com image 216x234]

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 313x320]


We need to rough this up a bit.


I like how you think, Cythraul
 
2012-12-11 11:57:33 PM

UseTheForksLuke: tinfoil-hat maggie: Well, I certainly can't offer proof only anecdotal evidence but I mostly feel that only 5 to 10 % of the population is completely homosexual and the same percentages completely heterosexual. Everyone else falling somewhere in between and then it becomes a social factor of what's accepted but I do believe in the basic Kinsey model. I am bi but I prefer women for my relationships. So I think society will continue to breed on.

I would tend to agree there is no lack of breeding going on.
What if it continues at the current rate?
Well at least the experts say the population will peak around 10 Billion people.

[www.paulchefurka.ca image 637x458]


Well unfortunately we have finite resources, that many studies are showing are at or near peak, but that's another topic.
25.media.tumblr.com
/Hot : )
 
2012-12-12 12:03:03 AM

FunkOut: trappedspirit: lennavan: I don't think you are thinking on an evolutionary time scale. Humans and chimps diverged millions of years ago. Chimps display homosexual behavior, suggesting homosexuality predates the species divergence millions of years ago. I don't know that humans were as dominant as you suggest millions of years ago.

Did they catch some apes scissoring? Or some male apes sticking it in anything warm?

Bonobos, cousins to chimps. They're all over each other regardless of their sex.


That's because their name starts with Bono. And Bono entices sexual feelings from all known form of species and inorganic matter.
 
2012-12-12 12:22:03 AM

Gawdzila: While I agree that it shouldn't really matter, the difference is not strictly academic.
It could have bearing on things like "protected class" status, or the acceptability / legality of things like those psychological-religious camps for "straightening out" gay kids. If it is decided that gayness is learned, someone will liken anti-gay therapy to psychotherapy for abused children as a way to legitimize it.


Good point. I guess I hadn't considered that.
 
2012-12-12 12:29:56 AM
I've just been watching this thread like a voyeur.

Then pictures of hot chicks

And hot dudes

And I've been drinking Irish Mist

There's just...I don't know... I think... Um...

I'm going back over to the coat hanger article. I need an adult.
 
2012-12-12 12:44:47 AM

megarian: I've just been watching this thread like a voyeur.

Then pictures of hot chicks

And hot dudes

And I've been drinking Irish Mist

There's just...I don't know... I think... Um...

I'm going back over to the coat hanger article. I need an adult.


I'd be more than happy to chaperon you : )
I'm not really seeing what you're concern is?
blindgossip.com
25.media.tumblr.com 
images.tangomag.com
 
2012-12-12 12:50:48 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: megarian: I've just been watching this thread like a voyeur.

Then pictures of hot chicks

And hot dudes

And I've been drinking Irish Mist

There's just...I don't know... I think... Um...

I'm going back over to the coat hanger article. I need an adult.

I'd be more than happy to chaperon you : )
I'm not really seeing what you're concern is?

 


Everyone wins!

Plus bonus points.

all of the bonus points...
 
2012-12-12 01:05:44 AM

Ehh: SarahDiddle: There's also a phenomena where one twin can become "dominant" in the womb and receive more hormones, nutrition, etc than the other twin.

IIRC, Liberace had a twin who was born dead.


So did Elvis. Or were you conflating Liberace with Elvis?
 
2012-12-12 01:05:55 AM

megarian: tinfoil-hat maggie: megarian: I've just been watching this thread like a voyeur.

Then pictures of hot chicks

And hot dudes

And I've been drinking Irish Mist

There's just...I don't know... I think... Um...

I'm going back over to the coat hanger article. I need an adult.

I'd be more than happy to chaperon you : )
I'm not really seeing what you're concern is?

 

Everyone wins!

Plus bonus points.

all of the bonus points...


Hehehe, there's bonus point's yay : )
What do I win ?
Oh, I guess it's the knowledge that when I type in people kissing on google image search it only comes up with straight couples kissing.
So...
www.asiandreamguys.com
data.whicdn.com
 
2012-12-12 01:12:31 AM
So if I have this right: when babby is formed, if the hormones go askew, these little epigenetic markers come in and clean shiat up so that the mom and fetus aren't harmed. And sometimes these little markers just hang out in the babby after it's born, and grows up, and forms its own babby, and then if ithe markers and the babby are the opposite sex, they explode in a cloud of glitter and/or flannel and the babby turns out gay?

If that's correct, then that means my granddad's got some 'splainin to do... ;D
 
2012-12-12 01:20:10 AM

Kevin72: Ehh: SarahDiddle: There's also a phenomena where one twin can become "dominant" in the womb and receive more hormones, nutrition, etc than the other twin.

IIRC, Liberace had a twin who was born dead.

So did Elvis. Or were you conflating Liberace with Elvis?


Well, they both wore funny glasses and a lot of sequins.
 
2012-12-12 01:27:38 AM

brigid: So if I have this right: when babby is formed, if the hormones go askew, these little epigenetic markers come in and clean shiat up so that the mom and fetus aren't harmed. And sometimes these little markers just hang out in the babby after it's born, and grows up, and forms its own babby, and then if ithe markers and the babby are the opposite sex, they explode in a cloud of glitter and/or flannel and the babby turns out gay?

If that's correct, then that means my granddad's got some 'splainin to do... ;D


Ha, although I like this it's not that different from what they've been saying on intersexed and transsexuals, a lot of things can happen with brain development and body development depending on when and how much of what hormone is released, what seems to be different is that there are genes that are triggered buy certain hormones that also impact on development.
 
2012-12-12 01:28:41 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: megarian: tinfoil-hat maggie: megarian: I've just been watching this thread like a voyeur.

Then pictures of hot chicks

And hot dudes

And I've been drinking Irish Mist

There's just...I don't know... I think... Um...

I'm going back over to the coat hanger article. I need an adult.

I'd be more than happy to chaperon you : )
I'm not really seeing what you're concern is?

 

Everyone wins!

Plus bonus points.

all of the bonus points...

Hehehe, there's bonus point's yay : )
What do I win ?
Oh, I guess it's the knowledge that when I type in people kissing on google image search it only comes up with straight couples kissing.
So...


On that note... This chick needs either moar alcohol or less Fark. And I'm not good at math.

/I'll be in my bunk.
 
2012-12-12 01:31:24 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: pxlboy: I've often wondered what it is about homosexuality that just drives some people off the deep end. Also, it's usually men that get the most up-in-arms about it.

Hmmm

Seriously, you think straight men would be HAPPY about gay guys, because it means there's more pussy for them.

But it seems that straight men are afraid because they think that gay men will try to turn them, seduce them, or rape them. And that if those happen, then they will somehow turn gay themselves. They also seem to think that the stereotypical idea of gay men (weedy, wimpy, fruity) will somehow make them look and feel less masculine by association.

Straight men are really weird.


Or they're afraid of being treating the way they treat women.
 
2012-12-12 01:43:06 AM

megarian: tinfoil-hat maggie: megarian: tinfoil-hat maggie: megarian: I've just been watching this thread like a voyeur.

Then pictures of hot chicks

And hot dudes

And I've been drinking Irish Mist

There's just...I don't know... I think... Um...

I'm going back over to the coat hanger article. I need an adult.

I'd be more than happy to chaperon you : )
I'm not really seeing what you're concern is?

 

Everyone wins!

Plus bonus points.

all of the bonus points...

Hehehe, there's bonus point's yay : )
What do I win ?
Oh, I guess it's the knowledge that when I type in people kissing on google image search it only comes up with straight couples kissing.
So...

On that note... This chick needs either moar alcohol or less Fark. And I'm not good at math.

/I'll be in my bunk.


Nite hon : )
/ I would chaperone you any time : )
//Maybe not a very good chaperone.
/// more slashies ; )
 
2012-12-12 01:44:57 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
What a Space Gay in the 60's might have looked like.
 
2012-12-12 01:46:52 AM

All_Farked_Up: I'm sick and tired of this gay/straight crap. If you love someone and they love you, isn't that enough?


Nope. They need a pussy for me to stick my dick in. I'm old fashioned that way. No other but that's the fun of being the farked up me
 
2012-12-12 02:19:55 AM

strapp3r: strapp3r: [i.huffpost.com image 570x380]6
actual lesbians

fess up: that was not cool. i apologize
what is cool? these two newly-weds

[i.imgur.com image 850x566]


Those two gents look like they timewarped in from the 19th century.
 
2012-12-12 02:28:18 AM

rynthetyn: strapp3r: strapp3r: [i.huffpost.com image 570x380]6
actual lesbians

fess up: that was not cool. i apologize
what is cool? these two newly-weds

[i.imgur.com image 850x566]

Those two gents look like they timewarped in from the 19th century.


It's awesome isn't it and now for a fictional account from last century, at least I think so?
www.afterellen.com
/Oh yea I went there : )
 
2012-12-12 02:44:19 AM
The question is raised: How could anyone be stupid enough to think that homosexuality is genetic?

Think about it. Natural selection, by default, eliminates any genetic component or trait that makes an organism unwilling or unable to naturally reproduce.
 
2012-12-12 03:09:19 AM

NephilimNexus: The question is raised: How could anyone be stupid enough to think that homosexuality is genetic?

Think about it. Natural selection, by default, eliminates any genetic component or trait that makes an organism unwilling or unable to naturally reproduce.


Your question is loaded with bias. Let me start by saying I am not strait and have no children and definitely no plans to have any. That said I have 1 uncle and 1aunt. The have produced 4 kids between the two individuals that are on opposite sides of the family. ie: the uncle is my fathers brother and the aunt is my mothers sister. Now there children the 4 of them have produced 13 children. I would guess enough of those children carry pretty much the same genetic info I do. And if wondering yea there's talk among the family about a few of them being possible gay or other.
 
2012-12-12 05:39:52 AM

martid4: I'd hit that!

[media.syracuse.com image 380x246]


Doug, is that you?
 
2012-12-12 07:43:33 AM
So-called homosexuality in animals isn't actual sodomy. It's simply dishonest to equate pairing behaviour in animals with the desire of a woofter to take a turgid meat missile up the back passage.

That being said, if homosexuality in humans is to be justified by behaviours that are observed in nature, then eating shiat and killing your own young are no longer taboo, for animals do those as well.
 
2012-12-12 08:07:59 AM

letrole: So-called homosexuality in animals isn't actual sodomy. It's simply dishonest to equate pairing behaviour in animals with the desire of a woofter to take a turgid meat missile up the back passage.

That being said, if homosexuality in humans is to be justified by behaviours that are observed in nature, then eating shiat and killing your own young are no longer taboo, for animals do those as well.


Well, you would be the authority on that.
 
2012-12-12 08:40:16 AM

letrole: So-called homosexuality in animals isn't actual sodomy. It's simply dishonest to equate pairing behaviour in animals with the desire of a woofter to take a turgid meat missile up the back passage.

That being said, if homosexuality in humans is to be justified by behaviours that are observed in nature, then eating shiat and killing your own young are no longer taboo, for animals do those as well.


One of these things is not like the other, One of these things is not quite the same.
 
2012-12-12 08:51:21 AM

strapp3r: darth_badger: Can't you just like to get tooled in the tooter and smoke a few sausages now and then without being gay?

/you don't tell on me - i don't tell on you
//want to go camping? I'll bring the canteen
///actually...only one peeper i ever wanted to puff...MINE!  dreamer ... sigh
//sorry

np
 
2012-12-12 10:22:27 AM
Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.

A higher proportion of heterosexual paedophiles is shown only in cases where the girls involved are at least 14 and less than 18. A man of 20 who sleeps with a 15 year old girl is no doubt a scabby loser, but not strictly speaking a paedophile.
 
2012-12-12 10:23:55 AM

letrole: Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.

A higher proportion of heterosexual paedophiles is shown only in cases where the girls involved are at least 14 and less than 18. A man of 20 who sleeps with a 15 year old girl is no doubt a scabby loser, but not strictly speaking a paedophile.


You're so pathetically transparent as a troll, it's amusing. Why do you bother wasting your time?
 
2012-12-12 10:26:26 AM

Cythraul: letrole: Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.

A higher proportion of heterosexual paedophiles is shown only in cases where the girls involved are at least 14 and less than 18. A man of 20 who sleeps with a 15 year old girl is no doubt a scabby loser, but not strictly speaking a paedophile.

You're so pathetically transparent as a troll, it's amusing. Why do you bother wasting your time?


FFS, check the username.
 
2012-12-12 10:28:17 AM

simplicimus: Cythraul: letrole: Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.

A higher proportion of heterosexual paedophiles is shown only in cases where the girls involved are at least 14 and less than 18. A man of 20 who sleeps with a 15 year old girl is no doubt a scabby loser, but not strictly speaking a paedophile.

You're so pathetically transparent as a troll, it's amusing. Why do you bother wasting your time?

FFS, check the username.


Which is one of the many reasons why I said his trolling is transparent. Yeah. Are you telling me something new here?

But I thought trolling was supposed to be more subtle, less obvious. Guess not.
 
2012-12-12 10:28:34 AM
My surname is Le Trôle.
 
2012-12-12 10:34:12 AM
simplicimus: FFS, check the username.
Cythraul: But I thought trolling was supposed to be more subtle, less obvious. Guess not.

I reckon the problem here is that I'm simply expressing opinions that cannot be disputed without ad hominem and shout-downs and plain old histrionics. That does not make those opinions right. But, it certainly shows that they may not be wrong.
 
2012-12-12 10:39:15 AM

TheAgeOfEgos: Really though, who gives a shiat if it's true nuclear DNA, a mutation caused by a gamma ray burst or higher levels of protein ingested during the first 6 weeks of pregnancy---the argument that matters is the question of free will.


I couldn't agree more.
 
2012-12-12 10:43:56 AM

Gawdzila: Wow you're a douche. The hilarious thing is that you're basing your evaluation of the theory on this pop science article rather than apparently having any actual understanding of the underlying biology


You do realize, the post of mine you quoted and responded to actually said that right? No, of course you didn't. Here it is again:

lennavan: I tried to find the article online (things get published online in advance all the time) but couldn't find it, so I have no idea if they addressed that or not.


I actually said in my very initial post I wanted to read it directly from the authors and not via this article. You know what I said elsewhere in the thread?

lennavan: Eh, it doesn't really address it. Honestly by far the best way to get the author's opinion on the matter is to read their paper. Recall the lesson you're supposed to learn from playing "telephone" when you were in 2nd grade. Now we're playing telephone with a complex scientific subject going Scientist - Journalist - Article - Me. That message almost always gets garbled and many times gets completely reversed because the journalist is stupid or a dick.


But thanks for letting me know these were not the words of the scientists and that the journalist may have farked up. That was kind of you.
 
2012-12-12 10:55:02 AM
What an acceptable lesbian couple may look like:

farm3.static.flickr.com

i2.listal.com

/both hot
//although I don't care for the red hair dye
 
2012-12-12 11:17:21 AM

NephilimNexus: The question is raised: How could anyone be stupid enough to think that homosexuality is genetic?

Think about it. Natural selection, by default, eliminates any genetic component or trait that makes an organism unwilling or unable to naturally reproduce.


OK then explain how WOW players have managed to breed
 
2012-12-12 11:18:14 AM

Cappalotti: [24.media.tumblr.com image 300x382]
What a Space Gay in the 60's might have looked like.


I lol'ed.
 
2012-12-12 11:23:56 AM
img805.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-12 11:31:50 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: NephilimNexus: The question is raised: How could anyone be stupid enough to think that homosexuality is genetic?

Think about it. Natural selection, by default, eliminates any genetic component or trait that makes an organism unwilling or unable to naturally reproduce.

Your question is loaded with bias. Let me start by saying I am not strait and have no children and definitely no plans to have any. That said I have 1 uncle and 1aunt. The have produced 4 kids between the two individuals that are on opposite sides of the family. ie: the uncle is my fathers brother and the aunt is my mothers sister. Now there children the 4 of them have produced 13 children. I would guess enough of those children carry pretty much the same genetic info I do. And if wondering yea there's talk among the family about a few of them being possible gay or other.


I just want to take your example one step further, because it's a good one. The way you wrote it, you being not straight with no plans to have kids neither helps nor hurts the genes you have and want to pass on. So over time you might expect them to slowly "drift" away. But in your example, there 13 children all of whom need care. That's a struggle for their parents, raising kids ain't easy, especially not a few thousand years ago which is the blink of an eye in evolution terms. Good thing they have a (presumably) awesome aunt like you to help raise them. Those 13 kids are more likely to survive and pass their genes on.

There is no doubt there is a genetic component, that has been well established. So it's a great question - how on earth does the population maintain homosexuality if it would be selected against evolutionarily. Imagine how strong of a pressure it is that is selecting against gays. They (for the most part) don't procreate. I mean that's crazy strong. Yet gays still exist and there is a genetic component. So that means gays add fitness to our population at a level that is even stronger.
 
2012-12-12 12:24:13 PM

Godscrack: [img805.imageshack.us image 800x516]


You're either grandfather aged, or you're into some kinky stuff.
 
2012-12-12 12:35:38 PM

Cythraul: Godscrack: [img805.imageshack.us image 800x516]

You're either grandfather aged, or you're into some kinky stuff.


Why, because I like old guys, and not soft pretty queens who've been tapped by half the town because they're so cute and popular?
 
2012-12-12 01:03:53 PM

Lernaeus: There's a solution to the controversy: DON'T HAVE KIDS.

Additional benefits include, but are not limited to:

1. More money.
2. More time.
3. Sleep.
4. Pets.
5. Replacement pets.
6. No bed time.
7. No "other kid" germs hitching a ride from school to make you sick.
8. Nothing to complicate your inevitable divorce.

...

1,372. No uncomfortableness regarding your kids' sexuality.


i45.tinypic.com

cannot be overstated.

/frak kids
 
Ehh
2012-12-12 02:26:10 PM
Elvis and Liberace both...

http://www.elvis-history-blog.com/elvis-liberace.html
 
2012-12-12 02:47:21 PM

letrole: My surname is Le Trôle.


letrole: My surname is Le Trôle.


That doesn't excuse your behavior.
 
2012-12-12 05:08:50 PM
So now can you tell the sexuality before birth? What's your stance on abortion NOW?
 
2012-12-12 05:49:14 PM

serial_crusher: madanimalscientist: KeithLM: Gordian Cipher: Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.

This is why there are / were no gay people in science fiction films and books set in the future. Think about it. Star Trek? No gay people. And why is that? I always just assumed they came up with a 'cure,' and gay people willingly took it, rather than be rejected by half of society.

In Torchwood and Doctor Who, Captain Jack seemed to prefer the boys. Sure he'd go after just about anything or anyone, but he there were times where his preferences were definitely for men. I believe there have been other gay characters in Doctor Who also, including a horse.

In TNG there was an alien diplomat that was a parasite in a host body that came on to Crusher, even after switching into a female host.

Babylon 5, Ivanova and Talia Winters had a brief affair and Ivanova later revealed she had loved Talia.

Of course Sci-Fi is often reflective of themes in modern society. The original Star Trek was very progressive for having Russians, Asians and African Americans, and even aliens, all on the bridge of the Enterprise. But does anyone really believe they could have gotten away with a homosexual character on TV in the 60's?

They did try in the 90's, with Deep Space Nine. The initial plan was to have Garak and Bashir have a relationship that was a lot more romantic than what made it on screen. The censors wouldn't let them, so they toned it down to a deep, strong, platonic relationship (with a fair amount of subtext, as Garak's actor himself admitted). They did get away with a bit with Dax and her past hosts, but not like how they had initially planned. So it was more not being able to get it past the censors than anything else, honestly. Pity, as they could've gone so many ways with it - not just male/male relationship, but Bashir was dating the "enemy", more or less. It would've strained his relationship with Miles, and ...


You can really see it in "The Wire", which shows quite well how deep their relationship has gotten by that point, though "Cardassians" is a good episode from the earlier part of their relationship. And how Julian misses Garak when he's not around. It's a very strong, deep relationship, romantic or not. And it's fun to watch. Especially when they bicker over literature - which takes on new meaning when you find out later what bickering means to a Cardassian.
 
2012-12-12 11:01:24 PM

letrole: My surname is Le Trôle.


Is that a learned name or did you get it from your parents?
 
Displayed 471 of 471 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report