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  
•       •       •

4585 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Feb 2014 at 12:46 AM (30 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 03:59:50 AM

timujin: The same way my brother and his wife, both with brown hair, had two red headed kids?


Well ... is the mailman Irish?
 
2014-02-14 04:01:52 AM

TOSViolation: 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.


Are you really comparing being gay with having cancer? Are you really that stupid? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt before I permanently mark you as a troll or just a big time moran. I see gays as a net positive since we are dealing with overpopulation and it helps to have less competition in the baby making game. BTW, sickle cell exists because it protects against malaria.
 
2014-02-14 04:02:24 AM

TheJoe03: 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.


TOSViolation doesn't know a lot about biochemistry and/or genetics. Sickle cell (if I remember university from 20 years ago, which is questionable) is a single-gene defect which is recessive. There is a benefit to being a carrier of the gene but not having two copies of it. I can't remember the details but I think if you have one sickle cell gene then you don't have sickle cell because it's recessive but you're more resistant to malaria. It's something like that.

TOS goes on to say it's nothing like that, it's like Pica, which does not have a known genetic contributor.

If homosexuality has a genetic basis then it's not like either sickle cell or Pica to the best of our current knowledge.

It is much closer to the freckles you describe than anything TOS has to suggest.
 
2014-02-14 04:03:12 AM
It's like saying you need to take drugs because you like brunettes or something.
 
2014-02-14 04:04:47 AM

TheJoe03: 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.


I compared it to Pica, though it could easily be compared to any other abnormal appetite.  There are morbidly obese people who are so uncontrollably attracted to food that they never feel full.  They don't WANT to be that way, but that's just how their bodies work.  Look at the market for diet pills.  If there was a surefire cure for obesity (in simple pill or injection form), people would line up at the door for it.

Ask any kid who starts having homosexual feelings.  I'm pretty sure they'll tell you they don't want them.  It's not society's job to make them feel like they don't have a problem.  You don't try to make a paraplegic think they have the same mobility as the quarterback, but you don't treat them like garbage either.

I'm not saying gay people should be vilified.  The problem with people thinking of it as an affliction goes back to the horrible "treatments" that were tried to "cure" them, much like any other horrible "treatments" that have been tried for mental disorders like schizophrenia.  The "treatments" from the past were akin to bloodletting.  If a REAL, scientifically provable cause is found, then a REAL treatment could be developed.
 
2014-02-14 04:06:55 AM

TOSViolation: TheJoe03: 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.

I compared it to Pica, though it could easily be compared to any other abnormal appetite.  There are morbidly obese people who are so uncontrollably attracted to food that they never feel full.  They don't WANT to be that way, but that's just how their bodies work.  Look at the market for diet pills.  If there was a surefire cure for obesity (in simple pill or injection form), people would line up at the door for it.

Ask any kid who starts having homosexual feelings.  I'm pretty sure they'll tell you they don't want them.  It's not society's job to make them feel like they don't have a problem.  You don't try to make a paraplegic think they have the same mobility as the quarterback, but you don't treat them like garbage either.

I'm not saying gay people should be vilified.  The problem with people thinking of it as an affliction goes back to the horrible "treatments" that were tried to "cure" them, much like any other horrible "treatments" that have been tried for mental disorders like schizophrenia.  The "treatments" from the past were akin to bloodletting.  If a REAL, scientifically provable cause is found, then a REAL treatment could be developed.


The reason they don't want those feelings is because society in general is antagonistic towards gay people. I bet that gay people feel much more comfortable in the US than they do in Russia or the Middle East. Also, unlike being morbidly obese is that being gay isn't morbid.
 
2014-02-14 04:08:16 AM

Aussie_As: TheJoe03: 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.

TOSViolation doesn't know a lot about biochemistry and/or genetics. Sickle cell (if I remember university from 20 years ago, which is questionable) is a single-gene defect which is recessive. There is a benefit to being a carrier of the gene but not having two copies of it. I can't remember the details but I think if you have one sickle cell gene then you don't have sickle cell because it's recessive but you're more resistant to malaria. It's something like that.

TOS goes on to say it's nothing like that, it's like Pica, which does not have a known genetic contributor.

If homosexuality has a genetic basis then it's not like either sickle cell or Pica to the best of our current knowledge.

It is much closer to the freckles you describe than anything TOS has to suggest.


I have a pretty weak science background but this guy is making me feel like a genius, which isn't a good thing.
 
2014-02-14 04:09:25 AM
Why are the only two possibilities "choice" and "biology"?  I hate calling something like this "choice."  You don't suddenly "choose" to be gay; a choice is a singular, possibly instantaneous event.  There's a little more to it.

What about it being a combination of choice, genetics, and environment?  I imagine all three factor in (well, "choice" is more a result/subset of the other two here).
 
2014-02-14 04:10:37 AM

TheJoe03: TOSViolation: 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.

Are you really comparing being gay with having cancer? Are you really that stupid? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt before I permanently mark you as a troll or just a big time moran. I see gays as a net positive since we are dealing with overpopulation and it helps to have less competition in the baby making game. BTW, sickle cell exists because it protects against malaria.


EXACTLY!  The Sickle cell gene does exist for a scientific reason, but the negative effects FAR outweigh the benefits.  Not having it is better than having it just the same as NOT being gay is better than being gay.  If you really believe homosexuality is natural population control, then you're the idiot.  Plenty of gay people still want to be parents, and rightly should just like plenty of HETEROSEXUAL people want nothing to do with kids at all.

Your ire is misplaced.  I'm not vilifying homosexuals.  I don't look down on people with Sickle cell, schizophrenia, or even eating disorders.  What I also don't do is just cast them aside to just deal with their affliction.  If there is a way to fix a person with muscular dystrophy, then we should do our best to find it.  Homosexuals should be treated with no less concern.
 
2014-02-14 04:11:14 AM

TOSViolation: 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.


Well scientific research (still getting to the bottom of the issue admittedly, and pardon the pun which shows my humour is only a small part of the problem here) disagrees.

Let's use your flawed but at-least-you-get-it sickle cell analogy. The genes which create the sickle cell problem do have a benefit in society. If you carry the gene but don't have two copies of it you are healthier as an individual than if you do not  carry the sickle cell gene, at least if you're in an environment where malaria is a problem. So there is the societal benefit there.

In the case of individuals who express the genes, they can't change who they are and doctors treating them manage pain and infection.

In the case of 'gay genes' (which may or may not exist, and if they do it's a bunch more complicated than the sickle cell defect) there is evidence that gay people more predominantly come from large families. It's possible that these genes may contribute to this, which would represent a genetic ADVANTAGE.

In the case of gay people, they should also manage any pain and infection risks relating to their gayness. They just don't exist in the same way as people with sickle cell.

Here's a good link:   http://www.simonlevay.com/the-science-of-sexual-orientation
 
2014-02-14 04:14:08 AM

TOSViolation: TheJoe03: TOSViolation: 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.

Are you really comparing being gay with having cancer? Are you really that stupid? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt before I permanently mark you as a troll or just a big time moran. I see gays as a net positive since we are dealing with overpopulation and it helps to have less competition in the baby making game. BTW, sickle cell exists because it protects against malaria.

EXACTLY!  The Sickle cell gene does exist for a scientific reason, but the negative effects FAR outweigh the benefits.  Not having it is better than having it just the same as NOT being gay is better than being gay.  If you really believe homosexuality is natural population control, then you're the idiot.  Plenty of gay people still want to be parents, and rightly should just like plenty of HETEROSEXUAL people want nothing to do with kids at all.

Your ire is misplaced.  I'm not vilifying homosexuals.  I don't look down on people with Sickle cell, schizophrenia, or even eating disorders.  What I also don't do is just cast them aside to just deal with their affliction.  If there is a way to fix a person with muscular dystrophy, then we should do our best to find it.  Homosexuals should be treated with no less concern.


Other than the negative bs gays have to deal with from society, I fail to see the negatives of being gay. If they want children they can still have children, being gay doesn't mean your sperm/ovaries don't work or you can't adopt.
 
2014-02-14 04:18:36 AM

TheJoe03: TOSViolation: TheJoe03: 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.

I compared it to Pica, though it could easily be compared to any other abnormal appetite.  There are morbidly obese people who are so uncontrollably attracted to food that they never feel full.  They don't WANT to be that way, but that's just how their bodies work.  Look at the market for diet pills.  If there was a surefire cure for obesity (in simple pill or injection form), people would line up at the door for it.

Ask any kid who starts having homosexual feelings.  I'm pretty sure they'll tell you they don't want them.  It's not society's job to make them feel like they don't have a problem.  You don't try to make a paraplegic think they have the same mobility as the quarterback, but you don't treat them like garbage either.

I'm not saying gay people should be vilified.  The problem with people thinking of it as an affliction goes back to the horrible "treatments" that were tried to "cure" them, much like any other horrible "treatments" that have been tried for mental disorders like schizophrenia.  The "treatments" from the past were akin to bloodletting.  If a REAL, scientifically provable cause is found, then a REAL treatment could be developed.

The reason they don't want those feelings is because society in general is antagonistic towards gay people. I bet that gay people feel much more comfortable in the US than they do in Russia or the Middle East. Also, unlike being morbidly obese is that being gay isn't morbid.


I'm not going to get into a debate about whether or not homosexuality is a good thing.  If you want to argue that position, then go get a job at a weight loss clinic and tell all of the patients there is nothing wrong with them and that they should happily eat as much as they want.

The fact that you want homosexuals to be accepted and treated with dignity has no bearing on the fact that they should get the same consideration for help with their disease that any other genetic condition gets.  Plenty of people make fun of those with Down Syndrome.  That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find a cure for Down Syndrome.
 
2014-02-14 04:18:48 AM
You're vilifying them by comparing people who happen to be attracted to the same sex with people that are dying from diseases.
 
2014-02-14 04:22:19 AM

TOSViolation: TheJoe03: TOSViolation: TheJoe03: 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.

I compared it to Pica, though it could easily be compared to any other abnormal appetite.  There are morbidly obese people who are so uncontrollably attracted to food that they never feel full.  They don't WANT to be that way, but that's just how their bodies work.  Look at the market for diet pills.  If there was a surefire cure for obesity (in simple pill or injection form), people would line up at the door for it.

Ask any kid who starts having homosexual feelings.  I'm pretty sure they'll tell you they don't want them.  It's not society's job to make them feel like they don't have a problem.  You don't try to make a paraplegic think they have the same mobility as the quarterback, but you don't treat them like garbage either.

I'm not saying gay people should be vilified.  The problem with people thinking of it as an affliction goes back to the horrible "treatments" that were tried to "cure" them, much like any other horrible "treatments" that have been tried for mental disorders like schizophrenia.  The "treatments" from the past were akin to bloodletting.  If a REAL, scientifically provable cause is found, then a REAL treatment could be developed.

The reason they don't want those feelings is because society in general is antagonistic towards gay people. I bet that gay people feel much more comfortable in the US than they do in Russia or the Middle East. Also, unlike being morbidly obese is that being gay isn't morbid.

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether or not homosexuality is a good thing.  If you want to argue that position, then go get a job at a weight loss clinic and tell all of the patients there is nothing wrong with them and that they should happily eat as much as they want.

The fact that you want homosexuals to be accepted and treated with dignity has no bearing on the fact that they should get the same consideration for help with their disease that any other genetic condition gets.  Plenty of people make fun of those with Down Syndrome.  That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find a cure for Down Syndrome.


So being so fat you can die and being mentally challenged is the same as being attracted to the same sex? Exactly what evidence do you have for any of the insane shiat you are saying? You claim to be using science but I haven't seen any on your part. You can think what you want about gay people, my issue is with you comparing being gay with cancer, Down's syndrome, morbid obesity, and all the other diseases you are comparing homosexuality with. I like brunette chicks, I guess I'm the same as someone with breast cancer.
 
2014-02-14 04:27:43 AM

TheJoe03: Other than the negative bs gays have to deal with from society, I fail to see the negatives of being gay. If they want children they can still have children, being gay doesn't mean your sperm/ovaries don't work or you can't adopt.


This proves that you just DON'T GET IT!

Plenty of heterosexual couples HAVE TO ADOPT because they cannot get pregnant.  This is a MAJOR PROBLEM FOR THEM!  Having to adopt means not being able to create a child that is a "blood relation" to BOTH parents.

Gay people CANNOT create a child that is a blood relative to BOTH of them (directly, without using a sibling's or parent's genetic material).  That is a big enough problem by itself.  That is a GENETIC DEFECT, not much unlike Kleinfelter's (very unlikely to be able to father a child).

TheJoe03: You're vilifying them by comparing people who happen to be attracted to the same sex with people that are dying from diseases.


Also NO.  You're just too overly-sensitive to think about this logically.  Take your emotional overreactions out of this.  Down Syndrome is NOT a fatal disease.  It's pretty darn close to homosexuality in the way people affected by it react.  Look at Down Syndrome websites.  Plenty of people get pissed at you for even calling it a disease, but we ALL know that it's a disorder.

I'm saying that people should be treated with dignity and respect, but that also includes looking for a way to remove whatever afflictions we can in a way that the cure is not harmful.
 
2014-02-14 04:29:38 AM
So you have no science to back up your asinine comments? Good night dumb dumb.
 
2014-02-14 04:30:39 AM

TheJoe03: So being so fat you can die and being mentally challenged is the same as being attracted to the same sex? Exactly what evidence do you have for any of the insane shiat you are saying? You claim to be using science but I haven't seen any on your part. You can think what you want about gay people, my issue is with you comparing being gay with cancer, Down's syndrome, morbid obesity, and all the other diseases you are comparing homosexuality with. I like brunette chicks, I guess I'm the same as someone with breast cancer.


So having Down Syndrome means you can lead a pretty normal life, get a job, have a family, etc.  So, I guess fark them!  We shouldn't try to find a cure for Down Syndrome because that might make them feel sad.

Well, fark you for trying to ignore the problem.  The real problem is that people are assholes to people with Down Syndrome or who are homosexual.  Caring enough to try to cure their affliction is NOT being an asshole.
 
2014-02-14 04:31:30 AM

TheJoe03: So you have no science to back up your asinine comments? Good night dumb dumb.


You sound like a truther.
 
2014-02-14 04:33:52 AM

TOSViolation: TheJoe03: So you have no science to back up your asinine comments? Good night dumb dumb.

You sound like a truther.


Now I know you're a troll. Better than being an absolute moran I guess.
 
2014-02-14 04:34:56 AM
Bullshiat. I'm willing to bet that this study is debunked.
 
2014-02-14 04:36:10 AM
@TOSViolation, just a few other points correcting some of yours.

* On a global scale, the sickle cell gene has far more benefit than cost. Just not for carriers who aren't exposed to malaria. So your protestation otherwise is crap, and demonstrably so.

* "Affliction" does not mean just whatever you want it to. Comparing being gay with having Pica, a psychological condition, or Downs Syndrome, a chromosomal condition, is flawed not least because both Pica and Downs create side-effects which require treatment and/or support to manage 'normally' in society. Same is true for morbid obesity, another example you tried. Gay people are and always have been all around us managing quite well without such support. You'd be surprised at who is/was gay and is just very, very quiet about it. Just because they are not out does not mean they are not gay. Being gay used to be defined as an affliction, then modern science started happening and we got over it (except for yourself obviously).

* "Ask any kid who starts having homosexual feelings.  I'm pretty sure they'll tell you they don't want them." is less and less true as less and less people hate gay people or write the things you do about them.

* Conclusion of the above: you're a bigot. Why not just come out and admit it? Not fashionable sure but at least you're not a lying sack of horseshiat, which you're doing a great impression of currently.
 
2014-02-14 04:38:18 AM
One final note:

By "caring enough to try to cure their affliction," I do NOT mean psychological torture, electroshock "therapy" or any other asinine thing people have tried in the past.  If scientists can find a retro-virus-genetic-fixing-serum they can inject into a baby with Down Syndrome (or dwarfism, Progeria, or whatever) that would cause them to develop normally (or even possibly some amazing new thing that would reverse the issues in an adult), then that would be a great thing.  There are people researching the limb regeneration features of some animals to see if they can come up with a way for humans to regrow missing limbs or other organs.  Imagine the medical beds from Elysium where you just lay down, and whatever is broken gets fixed.  It would not be inhumane to be able to correct homosexuality that way.

In truth, I think it would be great if such a device could help those with gender identity disorder.  Rather than mutilating their bodies to cosmetically appear to be the gender they feel they should be, they could ACTUALLY be converted to a real XX or XY that they feel they should be.

Acting like this isn't a real affliction doesn't help anyone.
 
2014-02-14 04:39:41 AM

TOSViolation: TheJoe03: So being so fat you can die and being mentally challenged is the same as being attracted to the same sex? Exactly what evidence do you have for any of the insane shiat you are saying? You claim to be using science but I haven't seen any on your part. You can think what you want about gay people, my issue is with you comparing being gay with cancer, Down's syndrome, morbid obesity, and all the other diseases you are comparing homosexuality with. I like brunette chicks, I guess I'm the same as someone with breast cancer.

So having Down Syndrome means you can lead a pretty normal life, get a job, have a family, etc.  So, I guess fark them!  We shouldn't try to find a cure for Down Syndrome because that might make them feel sad.

Well, fark you for trying to ignore the problem.  The real problem is that people are assholes to people with Down Syndrome or who are homosexual.  Caring enough to try to cure their affliction is NOT being an asshole.


Consider the amount of bloodshed, slavery, imperialism and war they've wrought upon the world, wouldn't you also say that we should be working on a cure for being white?
After all, if we could cure whiteness, wouldn't we be just as amoral for not doing so as we would be if we failed to cure Down syndrome?
When you look at the belligerence, territoriality, bigotry, and tiny, barely usable penises - what's to like? It seems like eliminating  honkeyism would take priority over eliminating a minor defect like homosexuality.
If you disagree, you are a hypocrite.
 
2014-02-14 04:42:18 AM

TOSViolation: One final note:

By "caring enough to try to cure their affliction," I do NOT mean psychological torture, electroshock "therapy" or any other asinine thing people have tried in the past.  If scientists can find a retro-virus-genetic-fixing-serum they can inject into a baby with Down Syndrome (or dwarfism, Progeria, or whatever) that would cause them to develop normally (or even possibly some amazing new thing that would reverse the issues in an adult), then that would be a great thing.  There are people researching the limb regeneration features of some animals to see if they can come up with a way for humans to regrow missing limbs or other organs.  Imagine the medical beds from Elysium where you just lay down, and whatever is broken gets fixed.  It would not be inhumane to be able to correct homosexuality that way.

In truth, I think it would be great if such a device could help those with gender identity disorder.  Rather than mutilating their bodies to cosmetically appear to be the gender they feel they should be, they could ACTUALLY be converted to a real XX or XY that they feel they should be.

Acting like this isn't a real affliction doesn't help anyone.


Hey - I'm all in favor of "curing" everything that's wrong with everybody -- but let's start with you first.
 
2014-02-14 04:44:23 AM
"Still can't explain how that gene gets passed down"

Republicans?
 
2014-02-14 04:46:02 AM

jso2897: TOSViolation: One final note:

By "caring enough to try to cure their affliction," I do NOT mean psychological torture, electroshock "therapy" or any other asinine thing people have tried in the past.  If scientists can find a retro-virus-genetic-fixing-serum they can inject into a baby with Down Syndrome (or dwarfism, Progeria, or whatever) that would cause them to develop normally (or even possibly some amazing new thing that would reverse the issues in an adult), then that would be a great thing.  There are people researching the limb regeneration features of some animals to see if they can come up with a way for humans to regrow missing limbs or other organs.  Imagine the medical beds from Elysium where you just lay down, and whatever is broken gets fixed.  It would not be inhumane to be able to correct homosexuality that way.

In truth, I think it would be great if such a device could help those with gender identity disorder.  Rather than mutilating their bodies to cosmetically appear to be the gender they feel they should be, they could ACTUALLY be converted to a real XX or XY that they feel they should be.

Acting like this isn't a real affliction doesn't help anyone.

Hey - I'm all in favor of "curing" everything that's wrong with everybody -- but let's start with you first.


I'll be the first in line when they come up with a pill for all the shiat that's wrong with me, but my thoughts in this thread aren't one of them.  The fact that any of us spend our time posting here rather than being out in the world is probably evidence of something severely wrong with us.  Maybe they'll come up with a cure for Facebook too.
 
2014-02-14 04:48:23 AM

Public Savant: 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.


Kinda like how you joined "The Tards". What's the sex like there? Not what you are interested in, or expect I'd wager.
 
2014-02-14 04:51:07 AM

jso2897: But what about you? Melanin deficient, unathletic, overweight, tiny penised - I think working on your caucasian affliction is more important that curing somebody's homosexuality. You can be in denial all you want, but your refusal to face t ...


What about me?  I don't want kids.  I don't want to get married (EVER).  I'll stand in the back of the line while people with real problems get taken care of first.  If there is a choice between breast cancer and prostate cancer being cured first, I vote for breast cancer.  My problems do not currently have enough of a negative impact on my ability to enjoy my life to be worthy of priority response.

No matter how much you want to believe it, nor how much anecdotal statistical "evidence" you want to provide to the contrary, the most fulfilling type of family relationship is one where the couple is lovingly committed and able to create their own offspring to live on after they are gone.  Homosexuals cannot do that.  Many (maybe most) heterosexuals can't either, but they at least start out with a CHANCE.
 
2014-02-14 04:54:01 AM

TOSViolation: jso2897:.....

What about me?  I don't want kids.  I don't want to get married (EVER).


Watch out guys, looks like he's got an affliction!
 
2014-02-14 04:57:17 AM

ornithopter: 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 actual ...


A theory, but well argued one and you need genetic and sociological evidence to back up your claims.

\thanks for playing
 
2014-02-14 05:01:43 AM

Aussie_As: Right, now we're getting somewhere. You are now defining an affliction as being something that makes it hard to have children. I really wish you'd explained this earlier.

So gay people who have the same genes as other gay people but who repress their sexuality and have kids (as literally millions around the world do) are not afflicted? But they're passing on their genes. To a whole new generation of kids who, according to you, want nothing less than to be gay. But this is fine because to be gay they have to not have kids so they're not gay?

I told you you're hilarious but you wouldn't believe me.


I'm sorry.  If you had explained that you have the sense and logic of my wall, I'd have just turned around and had the debate directly.

AFFLICTION:

1:  the state of being afflicted
2:  the cause of persistent pain or distress

Related words:  discomfort; cross, crucible, trial; heartache, heartbreak, joylessness, sadness, sorrow, unhappiness; emergency, pinch; asperity, difficulty, hardship,...

In other words, "shiat that is wrong with you that farks up your life."

Was I clear enough there?

Being allergic to peanuts doesn't mean you should just give up on life, but it does really fark up your life in many ways.  Being gay does, regardless of how little you may want to believe it, have a negative impact on one's ability to have a normal life.  I've already defined "normal" as being able to procreate with your chosen spouse to directly pass on your own genes (before or after any corrective treatments have been applied) to your offspring who will carry on as your legacy when you die.

If you don't believe in that definition of "normal", then we have nothing further to talk about.  Go become a Scientologist, and tell the rest of the world we're all wrong about everything.
 
2014-02-14 05:04:10 AM

TOSViolation: Aussie_As: Right, now we're getting somewhere. You are now defining an affliction as being something that makes it hard to have children. I really wish you'd explained this earlier.

So gay people who have the same genes as other gay people but who repress their sexuality and have kids (as literally millions around the world do) are not afflicted? But they're passing on their genes. To a whole new generation of kids who, according to you, want nothing less than to be gay. But this is fine because to be gay they have to not have kids so they're not gay?

I told you you're hilarious but you wouldn't believe me.

I'm sorry.  If you had explained that you have the sense and logic of my wall, I'd have just turned around and had the debate directly.

AFFLICTION:

1:  the state of being afflicted
2:  the cause of persistent pain or distress

Related words:  discomfort; cross, crucible, trial; heartache, heartbreak, joylessness, sadness, sorrow, unhappiness; emergency, pinch; asperity, difficulty, hardship,...

In other words, "shiat that is wrong with you that farks up your life."

Was I clear enough there?

Being allergic to peanuts doesn't mean you should just give up on life, but it does really fark up your life in many ways.  Being gay does, regardless of how little you may want to believe it, have a negative impact on one's ability to have a normal life.  I've already defined "normal" as being able to procreate with your chosen spouse to directly pass on your own genes (before or after any corrective treatments have been applied) to your offspring who will carry on as your legacy when you die.

If you don't believe in that definition of "normal", then we have nothing further to talk about.  Go become a Scientologist, and tell the rest of the world we're all wrong about everything.


You don't actually respond to anything that is said to you, do you?
 
2014-02-14 05:09:55 AM
If any inherited characteristic that I find offensive in a fellow human being is an "affliction" - why not eliminate them all? Why stop with homosexuality? What about stupid people? What about ugly people? What about short people - they certainly have no legitimate reason to live. What about "inferior" races? If we are going to do this thing - lets not do it half assed.
 
2014-02-14 05:10:08 AM

Asa Phelps: You don't think they try the straight life?

Especially the religious ones.

Here in Utah, gay dudes father a lot of children.


...I know most people don't like to talk about it, but could some of these people be bi?  I mean, guys that prefer dick, but won't pass up a hot woman if she comes a callin'?
 
2014-02-14 05:12:12 AM
Is this the same state where all the non-penis-vagina sex acts are on the verge of being declared "illegal sodomy"?

So...

What are all these legally married gay couples gonna do to pass the time?

Same thing all the legally married heterosexual couples do I guess.  Zing!
 
2014-02-14 05:12:25 AM
Hi guys, what's going on in this thread?
 
2014-02-14 05:12:27 AM

Aussie_As: TOSViolation: jso2897:.....

What about me?  I don't want kids.  I don't want to get married (EVER).

Watch out guys, looks like he's got an affliction!


Probably.  Then again, my decision isn't for a lack of instinctive desire.  Mine is a logical decision based on a lack of faith in society.  My affliction is most of you.  There isn't a pill that can fix human nature.  To quote/paraphrase Stanley Goodspeed, "bringing a child into this world is an act of cruelty."

jso2897: That's all beside the point - you are still a weak, flabby, soft genetic defective - hell, you can't even tolerate direct sunlight without catching cancer. You provide no evidence that, according to your own philosophy, your weak, defective line shouldn't be eliminated. And your vague promises aren't enough - unless you are a total hypocrite, you will either have yourself sterilized or kill yourself.
And if you are really going to complain about being trolled - don't expect much sympathy. If it bothers you, go back under your bridge.


You are very skilled at typing with your ass.  I could make up random shiat if I wanted to, but I have chosen not to.  You have no evidence to back up any of the nonsense you type about me.  For all you know, I could be Michael Jordan.

I feel sorry for you.  I really do.  You're so stubbornly bigoted that you cannot even imagine someone could have a different point of view that is still valid.  I understand why you may be the way you are.  Much like dark skinned people are still often treated differently in many parts of the world, homosexuals, "ugly" people, those with acne, obese people, people with Down Syndrome, and others have also been forced to endure various forms of psychological torture at the hands of "normal" people.  I get why you wouldn't want homosexuality to have any valid perceived negative aspect to it.  You want to be vindicated in some way to celebrate homosexuality so you can flip off the world and say your "I told you so."  Well, that's a fantasy.  Let it go.
 
2014-02-14 05:13:49 AM

Moderator: Hi guys, what's going on in this thread?


an obvious troll has gotten hella bites.
 
2014-02-14 05:15:38 AM

jso2897: If any inherited characteristic that I find offensive in a fellow human being is an "affliction" - why not eliminate them all? Why stop with homosexuality? What about stupid people? What about ugly people? What about short people - they certainly have no legitimate reason to live. What about "inferior" races? If we are going to do this thing - lets not do it half assed.


At what point did I even give the most remote suggestion that I am IN ANY WAY "offended" by any of the types of people I have mentioned?  Try to pull your head out of your ass if you want to have a discussion.  Since you obviously will not accept any response other than an unequivocal, "Homosexuality is GREAT," I think we're done here.

Goodnight to you.  With any luck, you can sleep on this, get your emotional overreactions out of the way, then come back to read over this objectively.  I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

I'm just going to sit back, and hope they can find a cure for whatever genetic defects cause any of us strife.
 
2014-02-14 05:16:26 AM

TheJoe03: Moderator: Hi guys, what's going on in this thread?

an obvious troll has gotten hella bites.


Yes.  You have.
 
2014-02-14 05:17:18 AM

TOSViolation: TheJoe03: Moderator: Hi guys, what's going on in this thread?

an obvious troll has gotten hella bites.

Yes.  You have.


You're taking trolling to a new level, it's pretty amusing.
 
2014-02-14 05:18:26 AM
His tactic has been "I know you are but what am I", fascinating stuff.
 
2014-02-14 05:20:26 AM

TOSViolation: Aussie_As: Right, now we're getting somewhere. You are now defining an affliction as being something that makes it hard to have children. I really wish you'd explained this earlier.

So gay people who have the same genes as other gay people but who repress their sexuality and have kids (as literally millions around the world do) are not afflicted? But they're passing on their genes. To a whole new generation of kids who, according to you, want nothing less than to be gay. But this is fine because to be gay they have to not have kids so they're not gay?

I told you you're hilarious but you wouldn't believe me.

I'm sorry.  If you had explained that you have the sense and logic of my wall, I'd have just turned around and had the debate directly.

AFFLICTION:

1:  the state of being afflicted
2:  the cause of persistent pain or distress

Related words:  discomfort; cross, crucible, trial; heartache, heartbreak, joylessness, sadness, sorrow, unhappiness; emergency, pinch; asperity, difficulty, hardship,...

In other words, "shiat that is wrong with you that farks up your life."

Was I clear enough there?

Being allergic to peanuts doesn't mean you should just give up on life, but it does really fark up your life in many ways.  Being gay does, regardless of how little you may want to believe it, have a negative impact on one's ability to have a normal life.  I've already defined "normal" as being able to procreate with your chosen spouse to directly pass on your own genes (before or after any corrective treatments have been applied) to your offspring who will carry on as your legacy when you die.

If you don't believe in that definition of "normal", then we have nothing further to talk about.  Go become a Scientologist, and tell the rest of the world we're all wrong about everything.


You're just making it up now. Forget decades of good biology, any biological definition of 'normal' has to give way to your stupidity for no reason you've cited. Just one example off the top of my head where biology disagrees massively with your definition of normal is the reproduction of bees. Worker bees, according to you, are the perfect picture of grotesque abnormality. These same creatures are massively responsible for plant and particularly crop fertilisation and large chunks of our environment and just about our entire food chain would collapse without them.

You're either stupid or, as I have already suggested, not stupid but bigotted.
 
2014-02-14 05:21:53 AM

TOSViolation: jso2897: If any inherited characteristic that I find offensive in a fellow human being is an "affliction" - why not eliminate them all? Why stop with homosexuality? What about stupid people? What about ugly people? What about short people - they certainly have no legitimate reason to live. What about "inferior" races? If we are going to do this thing - lets not do it half assed.

At what point did I even give the most remote suggestion that I am IN ANY WAY "offended" by any of the types of people I have mentioned?  Try to pull your head out of your ass if you want to have a discussion.  Since you obviously will not accept any response other than an unequivocal, "Homosexuality is GREAT," I think we're done here.

Goodnight to you.  With any luck, you can sleep on this, get your emotional overreactions out of the way, then come back to read over this objectively.  I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

I'm just going to sit back, and hope they can find a cure for whatever genetic defects cause any of us strife.


Yeah, well, I'm pretty sure homosexuality isn't one of those. It's too bad you don't have the intellectual honesty or moral courage to answer the question that you yourself raised - but that is typical of trolls who say stupid thing to get attention, and then discover that have made themselves look stupid. The more you rant at me and call me names, the more you fail. Please proceed.
 
2014-02-14 05:24:16 AM

TheJoe03: His tactic has been "I know you are but what am I", fascinating stuff.


At this point, he is reduced to lying about his race to try to score troll points.
Christ, what an unconvincing conversationalist.
 
2014-02-14 05:26:50 AM
Sadly, I must go do other things - I suspect this thread will get better before it finally slams into the underpass at 80. I'll try to check it later. :D
 
2014-02-14 05:37:13 AM
This article had FAAAAbulously bad editing.
 
2014-02-14 05:39:03 AM
How about instead of calling them "gays" we just start calling them "people"
 
2014-02-14 05:42:02 AM
Cool!  Now all the elementary schools can have DNA tests on all the kids and the boys that have it will be assigned a big gay brother while the girls will be assigned a big lesbian sister.  These big brothers and sisters will help the kids with their homosexuality by pounding the gay lifestyle into them.
 
2014-02-14 05:43:07 AM
There are plenty of 'part-time homosexuals' (sailors, inmates, bored husbands etc) to disprove the notion that it is purely a genetic thing.
 
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