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 68
    More: Interesting, genes control, sexual development, womb, lesbians, gays and lesbians, Urban Friberg, William Rice, gay gene  
•       •       •

21774 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-11 04:18:28 PM  
7 votes:

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 11:21:13 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:17:12 PM  
4 votes:
"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 04:09:58 PM  
4 votes:
Good. Finding a 'gay gene' would just mean that some well-funded asshat would start working on a cure.
2012-12-11 04:24:18 PM  
3 votes:
I'm perfectly okay with attractive men hooking up with each other. Less competition for the women.
2012-12-11 04:17:05 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:14:54 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:51:17 PM  
3 votes:
So basically, it's all because of womb service?
2012-12-11 08:06:05 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:54:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:40:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:32:21 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:53:52 PM  
2 votes:
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 05:44:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:57:08 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:29:44 PM  
2 votes:

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
d3
2012-12-11 04:17:55 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:17:53 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-12-11 04:17:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:15:03 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:11:27 PM  
2 votes:
I've noticed that, amongst my friends and I, that the amount of older brothers that you have seems like a common thread.
2012-12-12 11:01:24 PM  
1 votes:

letrole: My surname is Le Trôle.


Is that a learned name or did you get it from your parents?
2012-12-11 09:07:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:52:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:18:22 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:13:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:09:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:06:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:58:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:45:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:42:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:35:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:34:04 PM  
1 votes:
img844.imageshack.us
2012-12-11 07:31:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:19:40 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:19:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:58:53 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:43:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:41:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:39:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:38:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:26:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:17:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:14:16 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:10:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:07:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:07:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:55:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:54:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:51:54 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:38:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:21:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:19:16 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:59:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:45:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:43:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:41:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:39:59 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:32:22 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:32:08 PM  
1 votes:
Oops, almost forgot about this one:

blastr.com

/I'll be in my bunk
2012-12-11 04:29:15 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:28:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:25:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:23:37 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:22:44 PM  
1 votes:
Just another thing to blame on women
2012-12-11 04:10:51 PM  
1 votes:
i.huffpost.com6
actual lesbians
2012-12-11 03:32:31 PM  
1 votes:
So gays are born this way but we aren't conceived this way.
2012-12-11 03:18:36 PM  
1 votes:
It's my mom's fault. She kept playing Barbara Streisand to me while I was still in the womb.
 
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report