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.

(Daily Mail)   Scientists claim to have discovered a "gay gene" that might prove homosexuality is decided by biology, not choice. Still can't explain how that gene gets passed down   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 209
    More: Interesting, DNA, gay gene, gay pride, Clearly, prenatal testing, genetic linkage, genes, gays and lesbians  
•       •       •

4584 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Feb 2014 at 12:46 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-14 01:54:53 AM

strangeluck: While I think that being gay is due to genetics, I just can't take the article seriously due to it being the Daily Fail.

But on the serious side here, this does make me consider that scientists, if they really have figured out which gene causes teh gay, there's gonna be someone trying to use that to make what they think is a cure.

Imagine the stories, people being forced to get the cure by homophobic relatives.

While scientific curiosity is great, they should just leave some things alone.

Nothing wrong with teh gay.


Devil's Advocate: Psychopathy or some such other disease, such as Parkinson's. Even farther, using Star Trek logic; making people smarter, or aborting mentally defective babies.

I personally don't want to be around for the genetic engineering debate. Hopefully when I am old and senile, where it won't effect my children.

/the line between birth defect and human condition seems to be divided on personal bias
//It gets even worse if you consider the born deaf vs. deaf-after-life hearing implants
///cochlear implant threads are fun
 
2014-02-14 01:57:49 AM
Wow...no "Daily Fail" comments. That's quite a change. What happened?
 
2014-02-14 02:02:25 AM
Since a lot of us are waggling "X-Men cure" references about all willy-nilly, here's a little question for the group:

Say a genetic cause is solidly identified for homosexuality, followed by the discovery of a simple, painless, side effect-free treatment that guarantees all your children will be straight as a ruler. Would you want it?
 
2014-02-14 02:02:57 AM

sethen320: Wow...no "Daily Fail" comments. That's quite a change. What happened?


You didn't read closely enough. There was at least one that I saw.
 
2014-02-14 02:04:23 AM

Mad_Radhu: Bela_Bar-talk: They go to art school and lose their virginity infront of an audience?

Speaking of art school...


Thanks for the good read.
 
2014-02-14 02:06:36 AM
OK geneticists, explain bisexuality then.
 
2014-02-14 02:07:23 AM

Gyrfalcon: The idea that ANYTHING in the human experience can be whittled down to "nature OR nurture" (i.e. genetic OR choice) is just too ridiculous for words. To me, anyway. And yet, people keep trying, trying, to prove that it's a floor wax OR a dessert topping!


(Assuming I've correctly understood your point) the subtext of many of the people who criticise the research is that they just want to involve themselves in "the debate" and that therefore in the eyes of their supporters there's a chance they might be right. Skeptics abuse scientific method to bag out any research they disagree with about complex systems, be these the Earth's climate, the human brain and sexuality or some aspects of evolutionary biology. They can't come up with their own real science so they pretend to find holes in the other side's arguments whether they are there or not.
 
2014-02-14 02:09:30 AM

Gyrfalcon: The idea that ANYTHING in the human experience can be whittled down to "nature OR nurture" (i.e. genetic OR choice) is just too ridiculous for words. To me, anyway. And yet, people keep trying, trying, to prove that it's a floor wax OR a dessert topping!


Thank goodness for whynotboth.jpg!

/the hero we need
 
2014-02-14 02:09:58 AM

COMALite J: "It's genetic" vs. "It's a choice" is the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy in action. There are other possiblities as well.

Many traits are congenital, which means that one is born with the trait and has it throughout life. Most cannot be altered, and those that can are often only cosmetically altered, and require substantial medical intervention at that. And yet, congenital traits are not necessarily genetic.


And on the flip side, partial penetrance describes how many genetically traits determined do not manifest in all individuals who carry those genes (Which also provides a possible solution to subby's "Still can't explain how that gene gets passed down" line).
 
2014-02-14 02:11:26 AM

ciberido: Gdalescrboz: This has to make the gay community breath a sigh of relief. If indeed its a genetic mutation that means it is a disease, which can hopefully be fixed with gene therapy.


Awwww.


You're so derpy it's downright adorable :)


I'm pretty sure he was kidding.
 
2014-02-14 02:12:01 AM

Prof. Frink: Most genes get passed straight down. This one reaches around.


The "applause" sign is on.
 
2014-02-14 02:20:53 AM

Mark Ratner: What a gay jean might look like

[mimosameltdown.files.wordpress.com image 300x228]


LOOK AT IT! IT'S PERFECT! BRITISH SCIENTISTS USE IT TO CALIBRATE THEIR INSTRUMENTS!
 
2014-02-14 02:24:57 AM
Still can't explain how that gene gets passed down

I've also read that scientists can turn animals gay by altering the hormones they receive during fetal development. I think both this and the genetic thing could be compatible, explaining how this gene is passed down: perhaps the stretches of DNA these scientists found only affect mothers and make the mothers more likely to give birth to gay children.
 
2014-02-14 02:25:18 AM
I never understood the "It's biology!" argument...

It seems like a justification against religious bigots who claim homosexuality is a sin, so gays need to prove they were "born this way" and that it wasn't their choice.

Why?

We don't need to justify anything to religion. It's not as if someone deciding to bone a man is any more "awful" than being born that way.

It's still their bodies and their genitals. No third party should get involved.

I don't give a fark if gay people are like that because they were born like that or because they chose it. I'm sorry, it just reeks of unnecessary justification.
 
2014-02-14 02:25:26 AM

AppleOptionEsc: ///cochlear implant threads are fun


What is fun about the misguided notion that being a member of the deaf community is a special boon that outweighs missing an entire sense?

That is just sad.
 
2014-02-14 02:26:28 AM

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 500x740]


That doesnt explain homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
 
2014-02-14 02:29:08 AM

fusillade762: Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.


I'm with you.

Choice, genetic, environmental, whatever. Who in the hot, sweaty fark needs to know? Science should be focused on cures for dread disease and not foolishness like this.
 
2014-02-14 02:29:36 AM
Subby must not have done much research.
They found evidence for how it could be passed down a long time ago:


Homosexuality is a natural side-effect of genetic factors that help women to have more children, a study suggests.

A team led by Prof Andrea Camperio-Ciani, of Padua University, found that female maternal relatives of homosexual men seemed to have more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. There was no difference with female paternal relatives.



If the same gene increases the overall fertility of women, the gene gets passed down.  Ta da.
 
2014-02-14 02:31:07 AM

sethen320: Wow...no "Daily Fail" comments. That's quite a change. What happened?


Because it goes without saying?
 
2014-02-14 02:32:07 AM

rocky_howard: I never understood the "It's biology!" argument...


Uh.. because there is evidence for it?


rocky_howard: We don't need to justify anything to religion.


Nobody is justifying anything to religion, they're understanding biology.
 
2014-02-14 02:36:06 AM

AppleOptionEsc: strangeluck: While I think that being gay is due to genetics, I just can't take the article seriously due to it being the Daily Fail.

But on the serious side here, this does make me consider that scientists, if they really have figured out which gene causes teh gay, there's gonna be someone trying to use that to make what they think is a cure.

Imagine the stories, people being forced to get the cure by homophobic relatives.

While scientific curiosity is great, they should just leave some things alone.

Nothing wrong with teh gay.

Devil's Advocate: Psychopathy or some such other disease, such as Parkinson's. Even farther, using Star Trek logic; making people smarter, or aborting mentally defective babies.


That's not exactly science fiction.   Eugenics goes back at least 130 years, and arguably longer depending on how exactly you define the term.   Aborting female fetuses because the parents want a male child is a serious issue in many countries that is likely to get worse before it gets better.
 
2014-02-14 02:39:34 AM

EdgeRunner: Since a lot of us are waggling "X-Men cure" references about all willy-nilly, here's a little question for the group:

Say a genetic cause is solidly identified for homosexuality, followed by the discovery of a simple, painless, side effect-free treatment that guarantees all your children will be straight as a ruler. Would you want it?


On the contrary, if I had the power to do so, I would make all my daughters be lesbians until age 22 at least.  Then they get their switches flipped and start dating boys if they want.
 
2014-02-14 02:40:18 AM

fusillade762: He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.


Bingo.

To me the relevant concepts go like this: "there's no accounting for taste," "to each their own," "one person's meat is another one's poison," etc. etc. etc.

Academic questions  are academic: people were dropping apples before anybody wrote a paper on why it happens. The subject of sexuality is fundamentally about social goods, not scientific ones. Even if it is genetic there's no need to look at it that way.

The rational approach is due to people getting irrational about the silliest things in the silliest ways, like the guy who complains that liberals & queers want to force gay marriage on him: he doesn't mean that we're out to force him to marry another guy, only that we're trying to institute a a social policy that he disagrees with, but from tizzy he goes into you'd think 60 homos had seriously proposed running a train on him.

So for some reason some guys want to marry other guys; what's it to him?!?
 
2014-02-14 02:41:45 AM

Aussie_As: Not sure how you define 'sex hormones' exactly but what evidence is there to support your statement about them?


Plenty of experimental evidence on animal models going back decades.  Sexual patterning in mammals (including nonhuman primates) is primarily determined by a brief but intense spike in testosterone levels in the fetal or neonatal animal (the exact timing varies by species).  Suppressing or inducing a testosterone spike during this critical window can reliably determine the gender behaviors of the animal, while giving a similar spike during a different period of time will not.

Human male fetuses also show the same testosterone pulse, the only time they will have substantial levels of testosterone before puberty, though of course for ethical reasons you can't do the same experimental interventions and conclusively prove this pulse is the main determiner of gender identity.

Still, it will be interesting to see what the function of these genes are.  For example, do they code for one or more of the receptors or signal transduction proteins that would be activated by testosterone, do they code for enzymes used in hormone synthesis, etc.
 
2014-02-14 02:48:28 AM

AppleOptionEsc: strangeluck: While I think that being gay is due to genetics, I just can't take the article seriously due to it being the Daily Fail.

But on the serious side here, this does make me consider that scientists, if they really have figured out which gene causes teh gay, there's gonna be someone trying to use that to make what they think is a cure.

Imagine the stories, people being forced to get the cure by homophobic relatives.

While scientific curiosity is great, they should just leave some things alone.

Nothing wrong with teh gay.

Devil's Advocate: Psychopathy or some such other disease, such as Parkinson's. Even farther, using Star Trek logic; making people smarter, or aborting mentally defective babies.

I personally don't want to be around for the genetic engineering debate. Hopefully when I am old and senile, where it won't effect my children.

/the line between birth defect and human condition seems to be divided on personal bias
//It gets even worse if you consider the born deaf vs. deaf-after-life hearing implants
///cochlear implant threads are fun


Have a look at Andrew Solomon's book "Far from the Tree."
 
2014-02-14 02:48:33 AM

ciberido: AppleOptionEsc: strangeluck: While I think that being gay is due to genetics, I just can't take the article seriously due to it being the Daily Fail.

But on the serious side here, this does make me consider that scientists, if they really have figured out which gene causes teh gay, there's gonna be someone trying to use that to make what they think is a cure.

Imagine the stories, people being forced to get the cure by homophobic relatives.

While scientific curiosity is great, they should just leave some things alone.

Nothing wrong with teh gay.

Devil's Advocate: Psychopathy or some such other disease, such as Parkinson's. Even farther, using Star Trek logic; making people smarter, or aborting mentally defective babies.

That's not exactly science fiction.   Eugenics goes back at least 130 years, and arguably longer depending on how exactly you define the term.   Aborting female fetuses because the parents want a male child is a serious issue in many countries that is likely to get worse before it gets better.


All -- when you work backwards to the causal issue -- predicated on the outdated notion of intergenerational transfer of wealth.  The inheritance anachronism needs to go bye-bye, just as slavery went.

/*prethwarting effort for any illiterates* no, i'm not saying inheritance is slavery DHURR. only that they're both outdated socioeconomic institutions.
//not referring in any way to you or anything you said, ciberido, just to be clear. (=
///... just... always have to preface things around here, because illiteracy
 
2014-02-14 02:55:04 AM

brimed03: ciberido: Gdalescrboz: This has to make the gay community breath a sigh of relief. If indeed its a genetic mutation that means it is a disease, which can hopefully be fixed with gene therapy.


Awwww.


You're so derpy it's downright adorable :)

I'm pretty sure he was kidding.



Since I already had Gdalescrboz down as

"anti-feminist (x2), harsh (x3), hostile Conservative (x5), blame-the-Victim (x2), argument by strawman (x10) , dumb (x5), macho, belligerent (x4), and derptastical rape apologist"

in addition to "homophobe (x3)" even before this thread began, I rather doubt it.
 
2014-02-14 02:57:21 AM

fusillade762: He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.


You don't understand there to be a rational reason.

Every reason I've seen is based on a rape argument. If that person believes a female's looks, dress, & behavior justify, even if in a small part, a rape, then that person (usually a straight man) believes homosexual males will rape him as well. He also thinks that homosexual females will also behave this way and rape straight females.

This same argument goes for people thinking homosexuals are pedophiles. Straight men look at young girls, and, using the same rape argument, think that the homosexuals will go after young boys in the same way.

And when you hear these points over and over again, it just reinforces your opinion.

But if you don't believe women ever "ask" for or "deserve" to be raped, all this thinking is irrational to you (and congratulations).
 
2014-02-14 03:01:14 AM

Sum Dum Gai: Aussie_As: Not sure how you define 'sex hormones' exactly but what evidence is there to support your statement about them?

Plenty of experimental evidence on animal models going back decades.  Sexual patterning in mammals (including nonhuman primates) is primarily determined by a brief but intense spike in testosterone levels in the fetal or neonatal animal (the exact timing varies by species).  Suppressing or inducing a testosterone spike during this critical window can reliably determine the gender behaviors of the animal, while giving a similar spike during a different period of time will not.

Human male fetuses also show the same testosterone pulse, the only time they will have substantial levels of testosterone before puberty, though of course for ethical reasons you can't do the same experimental interventions and conclusively prove this pulse is the main determiner of gender identity.

Still, it will be interesting to see what the function of these genes are.  For example, do they code for one or more of the receptors or signal transduction proteins that would be activated by testosterone, do they code for enzymes used in hormone synthesis, etc.


(Does some internet research using some of the above terminology)...Ah, Simon LeVay has written about this. I see now what you're referring to. I take back my criticism of your other comment. Thanks for clarifying that.

Good question you pose too. My guess is that a receptor somewhere is working ever so slightly differently in gay people than straight people but that's purely speculation. Gay people don't have generally different hormones or hormone levels to straight people.
 
2014-02-14 03:05:44 AM

Gyrfalcon: The idea that ANYTHING in the human experience can be whittled down to "nature OR nurture" (i.e. genetic OR choice) is just too ridiculous for words. To me, anyway. And yet, people keep trying, trying, to prove that it's a floor wax OR a dessert topping!


For real! I myself love both shiny floors AND butterscotch pudding!
 
2014-02-14 03:10:21 AM

Gawdzila: rocky_howard: I never understood the "It's biology!" argument...

Uh.. because there is evidence for it?


rocky_howard: We don't need to justify anything to religion.

Nobody is justifying anything to religion, they're understanding biology.


LOL, you're way too deluded if you think this "is homosexuality biological?" conundrum didn't start due to religious reasons.

Sin is a matter of choice, that's the entire point. If you're born that way you're somewhat absolved. I say somewhat because bigots will still hate and call it a divine curse or some crock of shiat.

There's absolutely nothing to gain from researching if homosexuality is genetic or not. What? Are you going to start preventing gay babies due to genetic manipulation? The only thing to be won if it ends up being true, it's the possibility of some religious bigots to stand down. Worth a shot if you ask me, but to say it's not a counter point to homophobia is being disingenuous or ignorantly tone-deaf.
 
2014-02-14 03:14:37 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Gyrfalcon: The idea that ANYTHING in the human experience can be whittled down to "nature OR nurture" (i.e. genetic OR choice) is just too ridiculous for words. To me, anyway. And yet, people keep trying, trying, to prove that it's a floor wax OR a dessert topping!

For real! I myself love both shiny floors AND butterscotch pudding!


Pudding?  Are you a gay cowboy?
 
2014-02-14 03:16:42 AM
So... I know we love turning this into an argument or whatever, but it doesn't, in philosophical or policy terms, make any difference whatsoever how much of a given behavior is nature vs nurture.  I mean, violent tendencies are partially genetic too and it's not a major point of political arguments as if that changes how we should treat murderers legally.  Homosexuality doesn't actually hurt society or the individuals at all, therefore society has no interest in suppressing it, end. Of. Story.  It doesn't matter whether people can meditate for five seconds and swap over or whether God himself descends from the heavens to lock each individual into their gender preference with an autographed membership card-- either farking way, science has farking analyzed the statistics, and there is  literally no reason for the law to interfere either way.  (Similarly, gay marriage is quantitatively good because it hurts no one and helps some people by simplifying their paperwork.  Whether all gay people worship satan or whatever  doesn't matter, because regulating that isn't the government's job.  And if it was it'd be up to the government to arrest them for the satan thing, not random correlated behaviors, so it still wouldn't matter.)

The actual take-home from this, the part that matters, is that now that we've targeted one of the primary genetic influences for homosexuality, once we get over ourselves enough to start up gene therapy in humans it won't take that much effort to  turn it on and off.

Tired of dating the gender you've been dating?  A month of non-invasive treatment will  change it for you, plus maybe some psychological conditioning to reverse the social components.

... and that is  farking awesome.  Getting to the point where if we're dissatisfied with elements of our own biology or status we can change it with little effort is basically what humanity's been working toward since the 1400s.
 
2014-02-14 03:19:05 AM

Aussie_As: Good question you pose too. My guess is that a receptor somewhere is working ever so slightly differently in gay people than straight people but that's purely speculation. Gay people don't have generally different hormones or hormone levels to straight people.


It could be many things.  I agree, there's little to no difference in adult hormone levels between homosexual and heterosexual individuals.  However, adult hormone levels are basically irrelevant to sexual preference (although they clearly have an impact on the intensity of sexual desire, they have little impact on the objects of desire).  Fetal/neonatal hormone levels during one particular critical window of neural formation are more important.

And yes, it can certainly be a receptor mutation, or any of the dozen odd proteins involved in the transduction of the hormonal signal, but it could also be a problem with the timing or strength of the testosterone spike.  That could happen for a number of genetic or environmental reasons - such as dietary deficiencies prior to or during that critical window, or a subtle change in the enzymes that synthesize testosterone.

More likely, there are a host of genes involved, and it's the combination of all of their effects, along with environmental effects, that produces the spectrum of sexuality.
 
2014-02-14 03:23:11 AM

fusillade762: He said: 'The thing that's consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.'

Let's go out on a very, very long limb here and assume that it IS a choice: I still don't understand why anyone would give a fark.


This.

Why the hell is it anyone's business whether soneone is gay or not?

Busybodies need to keep their religion, opinions, and judgements out of everyone else's bedroom.
 
2014-02-14 03:32:06 AM

rocky_howard: There's absolutely nothing to gain from researching if homosexuality is genetic or not.


Sure there is - understanding of biology.  That's what science does, attempts to understand.  I worked in a lab where the lead researcher had spent decades studying a single temperature-gated ion channel.  Somewhere out there, almost every aspect of human and animal biology is being studied, and sexuality is no exception.  That's how we advance knowledge.  Knowledge is its own gain.

Jim_Callahan: The actual take-home from this, the part that matters, is that now that we've targeted one of the primary genetic influences for homosexuality, once we get over ourselves enough to start up gene therapy in humans it won't take that much effort to  turn it on and off.


If current understanding from animal models holds in humans, no you couldn't change it by gene therapy, because essentially the brain is sexually patterned once, during fetal/neonatal development, and once that patterning is done, it's done; after the critical window is over, the brain's sexual pattern is what it is.  Any intervention would need to occur before birth (I want to say around the 7th month of pregnancy, but it's been a long, long time since I've studied this).  Now, if you could find a way for the adult brain to recover that level of neural plasticity, then maybe.  I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
 
2014-02-14 03:32:09 AM

strangeluck: Nothing wrong with teh gay.


it's not exactly good for the continuation of the species.

Which, admittedly, is really not a problem right now.
 
2014-02-14 03:33:56 AM
I think it's a mix of factors but have no idea what causes it.

There are identical twins where only one is gay.  If it were purely genetic, that would be impossible.

On the other hand I don't think it's a choice.  Straight people can't choose to be gay, and gay people can't choose to be straight.

Your sexuality chooses YOU.

(and if you really could choose to be gay, there would be a lot more of us)
 
2014-02-14 03:37:15 AM

ciberido: EdgeRunner: Since a lot of us are waggling "X-Men cure" references about all willy-nilly, here's a little question for the group:

Say a genetic cause is solidly identified for homosexuality, followed by the discovery of a simple, painless, side effect-free treatment that guarantees all your children will be straight as a ruler. Would you want it?

On the contrary, if I had the power to do so, I would make all my daughters be lesbians until age 22 at least.  Then they get their switches flipped and start dating boys if they want.


I'd snark back in kind, but the idea of messing around with people's heads like that just strikes me as both scary and all too likely in the long run. I don't think I'd enjoy living in a world where all your likes and dislikes can be dictated to you in advance. Or at least I wouldn't until the upgrade. After that everything would be awesome!
 
2014-02-14 03:37:25 AM
They also discovered the Sickle cell gene too, but that doesn't mean we celebrate the fact that people are afflicted with it and refuse to treat them for the condition.
 
2014-02-14 03:42:47 AM

TOSViolation: They also discovered the Sickle cell gene too, but that doesn't mean we celebrate the fact that people are afflicted with it and refuse to treat them for the condition.


There's a fairly clear genetic basis to race as well. Which ones are you thinking of "treating"?
 
2014-02-14 03:43:24 AM
I'm sure a lot of homosexuals just are that way from birth, but I'd wager that a lot more just sorta end up gay because of other circumstances - especially the 'I want to be different' crowd that's just looking for an excuse as to why they haven't felt normal their whole life.

I don't care if you're gay, but if you feel it's necessary to flaunt that information to me for no good reason or you're behaving in a stupid stereotypical way, I will put chilipowder in your jar of vaseline.
 
2014-02-14 03:46:48 AM
How is it passed down? Somehow, it just snowballs.
 
2014-02-14 03:48:11 AM
If "being visible" is flaunting, then I have some bad news for you pal.
 
2014-02-14 03:48:18 AM
I forgot the whole story but I remember reading that homosexuals were important in helping out the tribe back in the day and there is a reason that genetic trait is still so prevelant. Reduces competition while still adding positive help for  the group in general. Anyways, it should be obvious to anyone with a working brain that people don't choose to be homosexual or for that matter heterosexual.
 
2014-02-14 03:48:31 AM

Aussie_As: TOSViolation: They also discovered the Sickle cell gene too, but that doesn't mean we celebrate the fact that people are afflicted with it and refuse to treat them for the condition.

There's a fairly clear genetic basis to race as well. Which ones are you thinking of "treating"?


Race is not an affliction.  Homosexuality is an affliction much the same as Pica.
 
2014-02-14 03:51:04 AM

TOSViolation: Aussie_As: TOSViolation: They also discovered the Sickle cell gene too, but that doesn't mean we celebrate the fact that people are afflicted with it and refuse to treat them for the condition.

There's a fairly clear genetic basis to race as well. Which ones are you thinking of "treating"?

Race is not an affliction.  Homosexuality is an affliction much the same as Pica.


You're hilarious.
 
2014-02-14 03:53:30 AM
Why compare homosexuality with sickle cell instead of with something like freckles or something?  I doubt just being gay means you have poor health. I'd assume gays are probably healthier based on stereotypes.
 
2014-02-14 03:57:08 AM

Aussie_As: TOSViolation: Aussie_As: TOSViolation: They also discovered the Sickle cell gene too, but that doesn't mean we celebrate the fact that people are afflicted with it and refuse to treat them for the condition.

There's a fairly clear genetic basis to race as well. Which ones are you thinking of "treating"?

Race is not an affliction.  Homosexuality is an affliction much the same as Pica.

You're hilarious.


Your humor-detection is faulty.  This is not a joke.  No one should ever WANT to be gay.  It's an affliction.  No one should want to be agoraphobic or have OCD either.  There are plenty of afflictions for which we have no good treatment or cure.  Look how many people have cancer.  Look how many people are morbidly obese.  Very few people WANT to be morbidly obese, but still continue to overeat.

If there was a simple pill that would permanently cure breast cancer, Sickle cell, type 1 diabetes, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, or yes...HOMOSEXUALITY before (or after) symptoms show up, then the patient would be a fool not to take it (assuming no negative side effects).

There is no benefit to being gay.  There are plenty of gay people who make perfectly good contributions to the world which would not suffer one bit if they weren't gay.  It's not an asset.
 
2014-02-14 03:58:42 AM

gozar_the_destroyer: OK geneticists, explain bisexuality then.


1) Men find women kissing hot. And if Japan is any indication, vice versa. Bi people get more opposite-sex mates. Also, if you actually manage to pull off a triad relationship, such as 2 bi females and 1 straight male? Your kids get to have THREE parents, which is clearly an evolutionary advantage.

2) Bisexual gene and gay gene probably the same genes in different alleles/combos. Bisexuals more likely to pass on gay gene, resulting in bisexuals AND gays sticking around.

Actually, though, besides the "gays have kids while in the closet" and "gays use gestational help/marry lesbians to have kids with" type reasoning for gay genes existing..... there's actually evidence that such genes might provide an evolutionary advantage for the *siblings* of gays, as their kids get aunts/uncles who have no children of their own to help care for them. And siblings share just as much of your DNA as children do (50%), meaning that from an evolutionary standpoint, that's totally fine. This requires a recessive gay gene, or multiple gay genes interacting, or gay genes plus in utero/environmental effects, so the siblings aren't ALL gay, of course, but it does keep it in the population.

This is also very consistent with the whole "later boys are more likely to be gay" thing; especially since older children were more likely to inherit until very recently; later sons could actually get BETTER evolutionary results by supporting their brothers than by attempting to take care of children on inferior resources.... and since the evolutionary results for the mother rely on good evolutionary results for her children, that improves the results up the line. (And since women used to die a lot in childbirth, or could be one of multiple wives, the same advantage would not exist for later-in-line women being lesbians.) So having SOME gay kids, especially if they're the ones further down the inheritance line each generation, would actually be an evolutionary advantage.
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report