Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4595 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Feb 2014 at 12:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-14 12:02:42 AM  
The same way my brother and his wife, both with brown hair, had two red headed kids?
 
2014-02-14 12:08:05 AM  
You don't think they try the straight life?

Especially the religious ones.

Here in Utah, gay dudes father a lot of children.
 
2014-02-14 12:09:33 AM  
It gets passed down through evangelical suppression.  If Baptists really wanted to eliminate homosexuality, they need to embrace Darwin.
 
2014-02-14 12:10:37 AM  
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.
 
2014-02-14 12:26:41 AM  

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


Are you implying that sexuality is determined by the mailman?
 
2014-02-14 12:27:53 AM  
memedepot.com
 
2014-02-14 12:37:11 AM  
A prenatal test for gayness would scramble the abortion debate nicely.
 
2014-02-14 12:37:23 AM  
What a gay jean might look like

mimosameltdown.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-14 12:40:42 AM  
I had to google image search,"George Michael faith ass jeans" ...might be time to clear my browser
 
2014-02-14 12:48:25 AM  

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


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-14 12:53:51 AM  
Coincidentally, I have a gay cousin named Gene and he's dominant.
 
2014-02-14 12:53:53 AM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-02-14 12:55:10 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.


If there is a gay gene, then the 'phobes should get 100% behind gay marriage if they want to lessen the incidence of homosexual behavior.
 
2014-02-14 01:00:38 AM  

Yamaneko2: 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.

If there is a gay gene, then the 'phobes should get 100% behind gay marriage if they want to lessen the incidence of homosexual behavior.


Yeah, but that's like saying "The Pro-Lifers should advocate for sex education and easy access to contraception to reduce the number of abortions."  Logical, and yet they never seem to get behind such efforts.
 
2014-02-14 01:02:06 AM  
Now lesbians will do selective abortions to make sure they have gay female babies.

wait that's not right..

Now straights will do selective abortions to make sure they have gay male babies.

wait....

Now gay men will do selective................  aw crap


never mind.
 
2014-02-14 01:03:13 AM  
I heard that Dr. Thaddeus Venture had been working hard, even missing rest and nourishment to isolate the gay gene. If it wasn't for all the protestors and hearings, he would have destroyed it.

/I have a sister named Dawn?!?
 
2014-02-14 01:04:07 AM  
They mean a kid getting molested by Uncle Gene, right?
 
2014-02-14 01:04:12 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.


Because jeezus.
 
2014-02-14 01:04:47 AM  
"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.

Examples of non-genetic (or at least non-inheritable genetic) congenital conditions include (but are not limited to):

• Harelip, Cleft Palate, etc.
• Spina Bifida and other neural tube defects (caused by insufficient folate in the pregnant mother's diet).
• Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS ― caused by alcohol imbibed by the pregnant mother)
• Thalidomide Babies (caused by the mother having used the otherwise mostly harmless pharmaceutical Thalidomide)
• Any of a number of birth defects caused by the mother having contracted Rubella aka "German measles during pregnancy.
• Any of a number of birth defects caused by Rh[esus] blood factor incompatibility between the mother and the fetus (the reason that blood tests are often required for a marriage license, to see if the husband is Rh+ and the wife is Rh− ― this one could be considered technically genetic and in a sense inherited, but is not caused by the direct expression of inherited genes).
• Retrolental Fibroplasia (not strictly congenital, but happens very shortly after birth in premies only, and well before normal full-term birth would've happened ― the eyes and lungs are among the last things to develop prior to birth as neither will be needed until after birth, so premies often need oxygen under pressure, but this accelerates the growth of the still-growing retina, causing a column of retinal tissue to grow from the macula area often all the way to the back of the lens, resulting in lifelong blindness ― still a life-long condition that cannot easily be corrected that does not arise from genetics)
 
2014-02-14 01:05:22 AM  
They go to art school and lose their virginity infront of an audience?
 
2014-02-14 01:06:13 AM  

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


Recessive genes, how does they work?
 
2014-02-14 01:07:48 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.


In the case of male homosexuality, there's evidence of a fraternal birth order effect.  I'm not aware of any similar correlation with lesbians.
 
2014-02-14 01:07:50 AM  
Butt babies.
 
2014-02-14 01:08:27 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.



In a free country we shouldn't. The thing is that religious conservatives don't actually care for freedom. They love to bandy the word about, but in reality they oppose it when it comes time to put it in to action.


SkorzenyNinja: I heard that Dr. Thaddeus Venture had been working hard, even missing rest and nourishment to isolate the gay gene. If it wasn't for all the protestors and hearings, he would have destroyed it.

/I have a sister named Dawn?!?



Came for this, leaving satisfied...
 
2014-02-14 01:10:23 AM  
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!
 
2014-02-14 01:10:57 AM  
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.
 
2014-02-14 01:11:42 AM  

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


Speaking of art school...
 
2014-02-14 01:12:40 AM  
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.
 
2014-02-14 01:15:40 AM  

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


It was very charitable of your brother and sister-in-law to adopt two gingers.
 
2014-02-14 01:17:47 AM  

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.


GAYTACA?
 
2014-02-14 01:20:43 AM  
As to how it gets passed down: many genes have multiple effects, and even the gender patterning of the brain has many different results - not just sexual orientation, but also the tendencies towards aggression versus compassion, etc.  A very, very heterosexual male who ends up killing or abandoning his offspring is not genetically advantageous.

Plus, since the genes involved would be related to sex hormones, it's very likely they have different effects in men and women.  For example, a gene that increased the odds of male homosexuality but also increased female fertility might be overall very advantageous for the species.  There's certainly no single "gay gene", but, like height, it's a combination of many genes forming a spectrum.
 
2014-02-14 01:25:19 AM  

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.


So they're like gay X-Men? I'd love to see those costumes!
 
2014-02-14 01:28:54 AM  

Sum Dum Gai: As to how it gets passed down: many genes have multiple effects, and even the gender patterning of the brain has many different results - not just sexual orientation, but also the tendencies towards aggression versus compassion, etc.  A very, very heterosexual male who ends up killing or abandoning his offspring is not genetically advantageous.

Plus, since the genes involved would be related to sex hormones, it's very likely they have different effects in men and women.  For example, a gene that increased the odds of male homosexuality but also increased female fertility might be overall very advantageous for the species.  There's certainly no single "gay gene", but, like height, it's a combination of many genes forming a spectrum.


DON'T DENY DAILY FAIL SCIENCE!!!
 
2014-02-14 01:30:32 AM  
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.
25.media.tumblr.com

You're so derpy it's downright adorable :)
 
2014-02-14 01:30:48 AM  
I thought they could use a turkey baster.
 
2014-02-14 01:31:48 AM  
Most genes get passed straight down. This one reaches around.
 
2014-02-14 01:33:33 AM  
If there is a "gay gene", then how is it possible that sometimes identical twins can sometimes have one gay and one straight?
 
2014-02-14 01:33:53 AM  

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


When she says, "The mailman had a large package," she wasn't talking about a shipment from Amazon.
 
2014-02-14 01:34:10 AM  
I don't see how identifying a "gay gene" at this point in history is a big plus for the GLBT community. For them and the others who accept them, such a finding would make little difference. But for those who don't accept them, the rhetoric would shift from "it's a choice" to "it's a defect", and somebody would start researching ways to "fix" it - this time with real science instead of prayer camps.

There's good odds that social acceptance will progress faster than medicine on this issue, but let's hope whoever finally cracks the code isn't a current-day Russian or Iranian genetic engineer employed by the state. Hardly anybody liked X-Men III and its vaccine plot, and that was just a metaphor.
 
2014-02-14 01:37:24 AM  
It is passed down in the baby bottle viaBisphenol A
 
2014-02-14 01:37:30 AM  

Bane of Broone: 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.

So they're like gay X-Men? I'd love to see those costumes!


Well, the mens' are fabulous, but for some reason the women's costumes involve a lot of flannel.
 
2014-02-14 01:40:32 AM  

montex: If there is a "gay gene", then how is it possible that sometimes identical twins can sometimes have one gay and one straight?


Because the gay gene, if it even exists, is unlikely to be the only factor.
 
2014-02-14 01:41:47 AM  
Rinse. Repeat. Science says homosexuality is learned behaviour. 'Can't have that. Now they're going to start classes to un-learn homos'. Science says homosexuality is genetic. 'Can't have that. Now they're going to screen in the womb and abort homos'.

Bottom line: probably a bit of both and live and let live.
 
2014-02-14 01:46:30 AM  
I work in downtown Seattle, and a lot of the gay guys I know who are in their 40's have kids with an ex. It's a lot of societal pressure that allows the 'gay gene' to be passed, if there is one. As an aside, can I assume that anyone who says 'gay is a choice' has confronted that choice and decided NOT to be gay?
 
2014-02-14 01:46:54 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-14 01:48:38 AM  

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


I was gonna say, subby's not too bright.

Also, it doesn't have to be a singular trigger or anything.  Just a predisposition placing one at a different point on a spectrum.

/this would all be easier if people would realize that fact that gender isn't binary, but stupidity wins the day for now.
//there's another dumbass thread just above, about to go green, that illustrates said point re: stupidity.
 
2014-02-14 01:50:04 AM  
www.theliberaloc.com
 
2014-02-14 01:53:03 AM  

Sum Dum Gai: As to how it gets passed down: many genes have multiple effects, and even the gender patterning of the brain has many different results - not just sexual orientation, but also the tendencies towards aggression versus compassion, etc.  A very, very heterosexual male who ends up killing or abandoning his offspring is not genetically advantageous.

Plus, since the genes involved would be related to sex hormones, it's very likely they have different effects in men and women.  For example, a gene that increased the odds of male homosexuality but also increased female fertility might be overall very advantageous for the species.  There's certainly no single "gay gene", but, like height, it's a combination of many genes forming a spectrum.


Not sure how you define 'sex hormones' exactly but what evidence is there to support your statement about them? Are you running the old crap about gay guys having more estrogen or something? Totally debunked.

Aside from some pretty poor science behind some of the statements you make, your overall conclusion seems likely. It is entirely likely   that a range of genes and environmental (nutrition/hormones/stress in the womb, metabolic and pschological incidents in development) would all be at play.

Bottom line is if your parents hate the fact you're gay, they can only blame themselves. They are responsible for all of the genetic and most of the environmental factors which would have played a role. Any dickhead who's all "How dare you be gay, get out of this house" to their gay kid is blaming entirely the wrong person.
 
2014-02-14 01:54:17 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!


You can say that again.
 
2014-02-14 01:54:46 AM  
Perhaps because it's a bisexual gene. The Romans and Greeks were a bunch of switch hitters. You wanted kids even if you preferred your own type.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2014-02-14 05:44:51 AM  

jso2897: TOSViolation: Aussie_As: @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.

No.  You just have your head so far up your ass that you can't see the truth.  Try to shove it a little farther, and you might be able to see the light coming down your throat.

I'm a bigot because I homosexuals are disadvantaged by being forced to go to extraordinary measures to have a child?  Well, fark you then.  Troll.

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 the truth doesn't change anything.


So an injection of sickle cells will give me a longer penis? Sign me up!
 
2014-02-14 05:48:35 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: There are plenty of 'part-time homosexuals' (sailors, inmates, bored husbands etc) to disprove the notion that it is purely a genetic thing.


Wouldn't that just be called bisexual? You do have a point, maybe sexuality is all just preference. Some people like blue some people like green some people like whatever.
 
2014-02-14 05:52:23 AM  
So in the future there will be a test for it?
i80.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-14 05:56:07 AM  

thrgd456: So an injection of sickle cells will give me a longer penis? Sign me up!


It's all improvisational modern dance to me, man.
 
2014-02-14 05:59:25 AM  

thrgd456: So an injection of sickle cells will give me a longer penis? Sign me up!


So close and yet....

Being of African descent gives you a massively increased chance of having .... the sickle cell gene. (Cos those without these genes were more likely to succumb to malaria, not coz of anything racist, it's just another example of natural selection. If both your parents carry the gene there's a one-in-four chance you'll get sickle cell.)

I'll leave it to the reader to fill in the blanks about penis size.
 
2014-02-14 06:03:46 AM  
My favorite story about recessive genes is when my son was born.  The nurse blood typed him in front of me and said he was O+.  In my smarmy way I wondered out loud how an A+ father and an A- mother could have an O+ baby.  Poor nurse just mumbled something and left.  If she had stayed I would have confessed that both my wife and I have close relatives with the O blood type.
 
2014-02-14 06:05:22 AM  

Aussie_As: thrgd456: So an injection of sickle cells will give me a longer penis? Sign me up!

So close and yet....

Being of African descent gives you a massively increased chance of having .... the sickle cell gene. (Cos those without these genes were more likely to succumb to malaria, not coz of anything racist, it's just another example of natural selection. If both your parents carry the gene there's a one-in-four chance you'll get sickle cell.)



And having sickle-cell give you a tiny chance you'll be seriously afflicted by malaria - a pretty good trade off for a person living in equatorial Africa who is unlikely to live longer than 60 years or so anyway.
 
2014-02-14 06:10:39 AM  

TheJoe03: Coming on a Bicycle: There are plenty of 'part-time homosexuals' (sailors, inmates, bored husbands etc) to disprove the notion that it is purely a genetic thing.

Wouldn't that just be called bisexual? You do have a point, maybe sexuality is all just preference. Some people like blue some people like green some people like whatever.


I am a straight guy who's not into guys, but gets gay people because my taste in women is not that common either (big is good).

I couldn't choose to be gay. I'd very happily go celibate ahead of gay.

It sorta seems (totally uninformed and not researched point here, apologies if either wrong or offensive) that gay people have historically made a better fist (no pun intended) of pretending to be straight than I would of being gay. Or perhaps this explains historically celibate types.

/Used to work with an old bloke who was absolutely flaming and who enjoyed playfully flirting with male colleagues in a funny camped-up Mr Humphries way (that and the IT guys had to keep cleaning gay male porn off his laptop) but who was married with kids as was not uncommon for gays of his age. He got on well with his wife but they carried on more like a couple of sisters than as spouses. Everyone could see what was going on but I heard from someone who'd known them for ages that his wife was apparently devastated when a friend asked her what it was like to be married to a gay guy - it had never occurred to her.
 
2014-02-14 06:27:17 AM  

ciberido: 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.


Seeing as how you obsessively label other people based on their fark posts, and tend to knee-jerk reaction post, I find it highly likely you suffer from a teensy bit of confirmation bias.

This is example is pretty clearly satire. Even amongst the devoutly religious anti-gay creationist types, no one posts like that.

If you're wrong here, how often have you been wrong in the past?  How deeply tinted are your rose  outrage colored glasses?

Do you not see the irony in claiming other people are prejudiced bigots, and attempting to back up the claim with perceptions you obsessively record based in faith in your skills at knowing who people are based on what could very well be flippant internet posts.

Occam's Razor states that it's much more likely that you have a problem recognizing satire and maybe a problem with reading comprehension period.  It's fark after all, even if you're above average here you could still be pants on head retarded.

I'm curious if I'm marked at all.  I could certainly use a good laugh.
 
2014-02-14 07:08:35 AM  

TOSViolation: I don't want to get married (EVER).


Well, that's certainly saved you a lot of unhappiness then.
 
2014-02-14 07:12:45 AM  

TheJoe03: It's like saying you need to take drugs because you like brunettes or something.


Hey, I take drugs because I like brunettes. The drugs really help me put up with their sh*t.
 
2014-02-14 07:30:29 AM  
Because evolution doesn't give a shiat about individuals.

Maybe it's population control, maybe there's social benefits for non-reproducing members, maybe the genes would produce a very fertile person of the opposite sex, maybe it's just a quirk.  Life doesn't need a 100% survival and reproduction rate.  Modern medicine has inflated the low percentage of humans that have been able to reproduce historically and other animals like fish and insects lay hundreds if not thousands of eggs knowing the vast majority are going to die before reproducing.
 
2014-02-14 07:41:22 AM  

jso2897: indignant, like an old whore whose virtue has been impugned,


I am contractually obliged to inform you, sir, that I will be blatantly stealing the sh*t out of that line.
 
2014-02-14 07:44:38 AM  

TopoGigo: jso2897: indignant, like an old whore whose virtue has been impugned,

I am contractually obliged to inform you, sir, that I will be blatantly stealing the sh*t out of that line.


You are in good company Sir, since I stole it myself, from no lesser a light that the estimable William S. Burroughs.
 
2014-02-14 07:45:37 AM  
I have predicted for years that they would find a gay gene.
As a christian the bible allows for this and in some cases suggests it.
The only Religious people who deny things like this are the ones who dont understand their bible.
 
2014-02-14 07:59:52 AM  

tiggis: I have predicted for years that they would find a gay gene.
As a christian the bible allows for this and in some cases suggests it.
The only Religious people who deny things like this are the ones who dont understand their bible.


I'm all trolled out but you get an 8. I couldn't write that stuff if I was trying.
 
2014-02-14 08:18:04 AM  
For starter's it is likely not a single gene, but an aggregation of genes that contribute to an overall inclination towards homosexuality or heterosexuality, ranging from 0% to 100%.  Sure some genes likely will contribute a greater weight to this overall inclination, but I doubt that its a simple ON/OFF gene.  If it were a simple ON/OFF sort of gene, then yes, it would be rather hard to explain how it gets passed down, aside from those items pointed out all ready (people who are actually gay who are pressured into straight relationships, etc.)

 I would also contend that from an evolutionary standpoint, some degree of homosexuality is beneficial.  If you have some concept of what the opposite sex finds attractive, you have a better chance of making yourself more attractive to them and reproducing.
 
2014-02-14 08:18:13 AM  

12349876: Because evolution doesn't give a shiat about individuals.

Maybe it's population control, maybe there's social benefits for non-reproducing members, maybe the genes would produce a very fertile person of the opposite sex, maybe it's just a quirk.  Life doesn't need a 100% survival and reproduction rate.  Modern medicine has inflated the low percentage of humans that have been able to reproduce historically and other animals like fish and insects lay hundreds if not thousands of eggs knowing the vast majority are going to die before reproducing.


We are all at the mercy of our DNA molecules in many ways. They are not only the reason for our life and biological function, they have become (in a less tangible way admittedly) the basis for our society, our psychology and our extraordinary success as a species. History confirms they will be the reason for our downfall and replacement with something else too. Something DNA based you can be sure.

In feeding a troll earlier I got bogged down in a pointless discussion which centred about his concept of the word 'normal', as used to define each individual. What is in fact normal is that there will be a range of behaviours observed among the individuals in society and thus for the most part these are what is normal. Doesn't mean I look like you but that doesn't mean either of us must be abnormal. It is normal that some will be straight, some gay, some in between, some not that interested. Same for humans everywhere. Same for many animal species. In broader terms, same wherever DNA happens.
 
2014-02-14 08:19:23 AM  

chocolate covered poop: I would also contend that from an evolutionary standpoint, some degree of homosexuality is beneficial


Like an art degree?

Sorry. I serious'd out in the other thread. Now I'm just here for the drive-by snark.
 
2014-02-14 08:24:06 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: Science says homosexuality is learned behaviour.


I'm pretty sure you're confusing "science" with "letrole"...

TOSViolation: 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).


Link
 
2014-02-14 08:26:27 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.

Examples of non-genetic (or at least non-inheritable genetic) congenital conditions include (but are not limited to):

• Harelip, Cleft Palate, etc.
• Spina Bifida and other neural tube defects (caused by insufficient folate in the pregnant mother's diet).
• Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS ― caused by alcohol imbibed by the pregnant mother)
• Thalidomide Babies (caused by the mother having used the otherwise mostly harmless pharmaceutical Thalidomide)
• Any of a number of birth defects caused by the mother having contracted Rubella aka "German measles during pregnancy.
• Any of a number of birth defects caused by Rh[esus] blood factor incompatibility between the mother and the fetus (the reason that blood tests are often required for a marriage license, to see if the husband is Rh+ and the wife is Rh− ― this one could be considered technically genetic and in a sense inherited, but is not caused by the direct expression of inherited genes).
• Retrolental Fibroplasia (not strictly congenital, but happens very shortly after birth in premies only, and well before normal full-term birth would've happened ― the eyes and lungs are among the last things to develop prior to birth as neither will be needed until after birth, so premies often need oxygen under pressure, but this accelerates the growth of the still-growing retina, causing a column of retinal tissue to grow from the macula area often all the way to the back of the lens, resulting in lifelong blindness ― still a life-long condition that cannot easily be corrected that does not arise from genetics)


Heretic!
 
2014-02-14 08:29:13 AM  

RobSeace: Coming on a Bicycle: Science says homosexuality is learned behaviour.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing "science" with "letrole"...


And *I* am pretty sure that you are confusing 'reading (and selectively quoting) one sentence' with 'reading an entire post'.
 
2014-02-14 08:35:44 AM  

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


Mailmen cause homosexuality?
 
2014-02-14 08:37:15 AM  

ciberido: In the case of male homosexuality, there's evidence of a fraternal birth order effect. I'm not aware of any similar correlation with lesbians.


I saw a report where one group was studying hands in order to determine whether or not there was any validity in palm reading.  Of course they logged other demographics during the study, and one was sexual preference.

The study did not uncover anything related to palm reading, but it did uncover an overwhelming correlation between the length of the ring finger and lesbianism.

In their sample group, an unusually large number of women who specified they were lesbians had ring fingers that were longer than their index fingers.

The folks who analyzed these results concluded that there WAS some level of physiological difference between straight and gay.  Thus vindicating the term "we're born that way", and making the "choice" argument invalid.
 
2014-02-14 08:37:46 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: RobSeace: Coming on a Bicycle: Science says homosexuality is learned behaviour.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing "science" with "letrole"...

And *I* am pretty sure that you are confusing 'reading (and selectively quoting) one sentence' with 'reading an entire post'.


Come on, it was an obvious joke... You can't expect to use the phrase "learned behavior" around here without calling to mind The Troll...
 
2014-02-14 08:43:55 AM  
The gay genes have a zipper in the back.
 
2014-02-14 08:44:08 AM  

Triumph: A prenatal test for gayness would scramble the abortion debate nicely.


LOLOLOLOL

You're totally right, though.  That would have some very interesting implications.
 
2014-02-14 08:46:24 AM  

RobSeace: Coming on a Bicycle: RobSeace: Coming on a Bicycle: Science says homosexuality is learned behaviour.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing "science" with "letrole"...

And *I* am pretty sure that you are confusing 'reading (and selectively quoting) one sentence' with 'reading an entire post'.

Come on, it was an obvious joke... You can't expect to use the phrase "learned behavior" around here without calling to mind The Troll...


Behavior is my surname, you ass.

You know, his appearances are getting rarer and rarer. Before long, nobody will even get that joke.
 
2014-02-14 08:58:55 AM  

omeganuepsilon: I'm curious if I'm marked at all. I could certainly use a good laugh.


I just want to know how many times I'm marked as anti-feminist. I can think of at least 6. Anti-feminist isn't the same thing as anti-woman, so that's fine by me. I am opposed to self-serving academic circle-jerkery, yes.

What is the point tallying this stuff? So that you know exactly how much to hate or disregard people? Posts should stand alone and speak for themselves. I actually removed all my tags. While it's helpful for remembering people, I find it's a tool that ultimately limits meaningful discourse around here because people just get pigeonholed for saying something once (or twice or x4), and they become reduced to that one thing.
 
2014-02-14 09:05:42 AM  

Want's a Bone


disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com

 
2014-02-14 09:16:43 AM  
I don't believe this for a second.  I've been on fark long enough to know that owning a nice car or a gun causes penis shrinkage and the true cause of homosexuality is displaying disapproval in the homosexual lifestyle which leads to catching the dreaded homophobia which in truth causes homosexuality.  Stupid scientists should read fark.
 
2014-02-14 09:27:36 AM  
I think those scientists who looked through a bunch of gay guys' jeans should be questioning their own orientation.
 
2014-02-14 09:35:08 AM  
So it's a genetic defect.
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-14 09:42:47 AM  
It would be interesting to separate the naturally homosexual from those who perhaps just have a fetish for men and/or are emotionally damaged.
 
2014-02-14 10:12:50 AM  

Lee451: So it's a genetic defect.
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 188x233]


Ya left out one surprise....Gomer always did it in triplicate.
 
2014-02-14 10:20:01 AM  

CivicMindedFive: I don't believe this for a second.  I've been on fark long enough to know that owning a nice car or a gun causes penis shrinkage and the true cause of homosexuality is displaying disapproval in the homosexual lifestyle which leads to catching the dreaded homophobia which in truth causes homosexuality.  Stupid scientists should read fark.


They'd kill themselves once they realized how much money they wasted on all that education.
 
2014-02-14 11:16:30 AM  
Several theories exist on how something like homosexuality, which ostensibly reduces the chances of successive reproduction, can be passed on genetically.

1. Gay genes are believed by some to increase fertility in the female relatives of the gay men (and women). This means that the genes are not being passed on by gays and lesbians but by their sisters and their cousins and their aunts.

2. Gays tend to have sex earlier as they struggle with self-esteem and their sexuality. This means they start reproducing earlier. They may also, if closeted, have more children during the reproductive years. Keeps the wife busy and possibly happy. There's an old saying "Lucky the woman who has a homosexual husband". They are attentive, sympathetic, good with children and fooling around behind your back. You may be showered with guilt gifts and he'll never look at your women friends or do it with your mother or sister.

3. Don't forget bisexuals. Exclusive gays are even rarer than exclusive heterosexuals. Bisexual men may father more children.

4. Bisexual and gay women don't have any problem having children. They can always find a man who wants to do it with a lesbian or two lesbians. In many species of birds and animals, gay or lesbian couples are scandalously common. In fact, homosexuality is scandalously common in many thousands of species. Scientists suspect that it has utility and thus promotes the survival and propagation of the species. Numerous theories are current.

5. There is an apparent connection between birth order and the probability of being gay. With or without gay genes, being gay may be congenital. The immune system of women is poorly understood but it sometimes goes wonky. This is more likely to happen with a male fetus. The risk of problems increases with the number of sons a woman has had, so health problems in younger sons of large families is more likely. It is also more likely for them to be gay.

In short, large families with many boys are more likely to produce gay and bisexual sons. Psychiatrists explain this in terms of psychology, but geneticists and doctors lean towards physical explanations.

With women carrying a gay gene predisposed to producing more children by fecundity, with gay men taking more interest in child-welfare, with more gays being born in large families, you can begin to see why the fact that religious conservatives outbreed liberal unbelievers might not eliminate gays, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual minority groups  from the world.

It's a sort of cuckoo in the nest effect. The more conservatives breed, the more children they have rebelling against their damn fool belief systems and their inordinate disciplinary measures. Also, the more gays there are.

Mother Nature is sneaky and she pulls some real fast ones. Scientists aren't even sure that natural selection always works to eliminate anti-reproductive genes. As a rule, if a gene is not healthy, it is eliminated, but given the way natural selection works, some pretty stupid genes seem to survive because natural selection fail to work. For example, some of the steps necessary to eliminate a bad gene may actually make matters worse, so the mutations tend to be conserved. Think about politics: how many good ideas can't be put into practice because the steps necessary to realize reforms are contrary to vested interests who will kick up a royal stink if you try to implement changes one logical step at a time?

In short, homosexuality could be one of those things that you'd have to do serious damage to your chances of reproducing in order to eliminate.

Take Roman Catholics--they produce priests and nuns--celebate children. For centuries the number of religious orders and members has been pretty constant--as has the percentage of homosexuals. But if you wanted to increase population growth by removing celibacy from the vows of priests and nuns, you'd have to fight the church. And who would force the brothers and sisters of the priests and nuns to have too many children to compensate for the losses to the clergy? Roman Catholic countries are not only draining off a lot of "surplus population" to maintain a celibate clergy, but they are draining the smartest and the best. Many of whom are homosexuals, since the IQ of homosexuals seems to be a bit higher than the average of heterosexuals.

In theory, Roman Catholic countries ought to be getting stupider fast, but although their IQ seems a bit lower, the clergy do the work of the intellectuals in a Protestant or Muslim society, and they aren't that much less likely to father children than intellectuals are in any society.

Like homosexuals, celibates of other kinds may compensate in ways that keep the population up. Rich celibate aunts and uncles contribute largely to child care, education, medical bills, etc. They are available to baby-sit. They can give references to their cronies thanks to nepotism. And so forth.

In short, homosexuals have no problem reproducing. They just farm it out to the breeding stock.

From the point of view of a conservative, learning that their children are more likely to become atheist, gay, or liberal looks like bad news, but it maintains a social, political and genetic balance that is probably a good thing, all things considered. And what can they do? They can't morally abort fetuses because there's a good chance they won't be the spitting image of Momma and Poppa. They can't exercise birth control. They can't even use the RC approved rhythm method, because having fewer children runs contrary to all their beliefs and instincts.

From their point of view, gays, liberals and unbelievers are bad things. It's hard to see why a Loving Providence would allow them and the fact that Nature does just means shame, shame on Mother Nature. But you can see the fix they are in. They CAN'T eliminate the genetic, social or political causes of things they disapprove of because the system hits back. It's self-regulating and although it's not optimal from an ideological point of view, it is nearly impossible to shift without destroying the system altogether.

Most Americans consider themselves conservatives and by this they mean a dozen different things, but they can't eliminate the things they hate without falling into a tyranny they hate and fear more than sin and liberalism. You could, in principle, kill gays and lesbians, but you'd have to chuck democracy and human rights and religious charity to do so.

Every conservative has a reactionary to his right and a commie to his left. There's no room for movement on many issues. It's a losing battle, and if it were won it would be a Pyrrhic victory, worse than defeat.

Relax. "Sin" is as natural to man as water is to a fish. Stop trying to be a bird-man.

As the great mathematician and theologian said. "Man is neither an angel nor a beast. He who wishes to make man an angel, makes him a beast." "Qui veut faire l'ange, fait la bête." In French, it is a pun on beast and imbecile or fool.
 
2014-02-14 11:19:11 AM  

Lee451: So it's a genetic defect.
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 188x233]


It's not a bug. It's a feature. Fabulous!
 
2014-02-14 11:19:51 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!


Nature doesn't always trump nurture. And there are freak combinations of circumstances wherein PeeWee Herman might win a fight with Mike Tyson. But that's not the way you want to be betting, generally. Almost every case I know of where kids were adopted and I knew who the bio parents, or at least mom, were, the kid ended up not only physically- which is kinda obvious, but emotionally and in behaviour like his or her bio parents.
 
2014-02-14 11:25:36 AM  
Let me know when it looks like our species is in danger of dying out and then you can have my money to find a "cure" for being gay. Long as we're over the billion mark, I frankly could care less.
 
2014-02-14 11:26:55 AM  
And just where in Hades is LeTrole?
 
2014-02-14 11:31:59 AM  


media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

media.chick.com

 
2014-02-14 11:32:29 AM  

TopoGigo: RobSeace: Coming on a Bicycle: RobSeace: Coming on a Bicycle: Science says homosexuality is learned behaviour.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing "science" with "letrole"...

And *I* am pretty sure that you are confusing 'reading (and selectively quoting) one sentence' with 'reading an entire post'.

Come on, it was an obvious joke... You can't expect to use the phrase "learned behavior" around here without calling to mind The Troll...

Behavior is my surname, you ass.

You know, his appearances are getting rarer and rarer. Before long, nobody will even get that joke.


Somewhere in a dingy bachelor apartment, the sound of the continuously playing intro to a Star Trek: TOS DVD is only muted by the buzzing of flies as they swarm around a bloated, naked 300 lb. corpse seated in front of a computer...
 
2014-02-14 11:42:17 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!

You, Sir, are my hero of the day.
 
2014-02-14 11:48:39 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 ...


Ladies and gentlemen, we have either one of the stupidest posts of all time, right here, or a troll of magnificent proportions.

Either way, stand aside.
 
2014-02-14 11:52:18 AM  

Stinkyy: [media.chick.com image 458x235]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 457x235]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 458x237]

[media.chick.com image 458x235]

[media.chick.com image 458x235]

[media.chick.com image 458x235]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 457x234]

[media.chick.com image 458x235]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 458x235]

[media.chick.com image 458x236]

[media.chick.com image 468x240]


Beautiful! Love reading Chick tracts.
 
2014-02-14 12:19:50 PM  

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.


What really gets me is the people who claim "sexual orientation is a choice and therefore it shouldn't be protected by law" will scream bloody murder if you try and discriminate against religion.  Religion is a choice and there really isn't any room for argument with that point.  Why is it ok to discriminate against a choice in sexuality but not discriminate against a choice like religion?
 
2014-02-14 12:39:03 PM  
SuccessfulTrollIsSuccessful.jpg

Hats off to TOS - now THAT is how you troll! Have your boyfriend use the special scented lube on tonight's handy; you deserve it!
 
2014-02-14 12:49:07 PM  

TOSViolation: 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.


Well then, this should be a fruitful and nuanced discussion...
akiwood.com
 
2014-02-14 01:06:38 PM  

Kahabut: strangeluck: Nothing wrong with teh gay.

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


Wrong.

I'm not even going to give you a link.  Go Google "homosexuality survival advantage" or "homosexuality in animals" or something.
 
2014-02-14 01:09:22 PM  

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?


Yes.  And yes.
 
2014-02-14 01:16:15 PM  
 TOSViolation: What about me?  I don't want kids.  I don't want to get married (EVER).

I've got good news for you ...
 
2014-02-14 01:34:00 PM  
TOSViolation:

www.reactiongifs.com
 
2014-02-14 05:22:24 PM  

Fafai: omeganuepsilon: I'm curious if I'm marked at all. I could certainly use a good laugh.

I just want to know how many times I'm marked as anti-feminist. I can think of at least 6. Anti-feminist isn't the same thing as anti-woman, so that's fine by me. I am opposed to self-serving academic circle-jerkery, yes.

What is the point tallying this stuff? So that you know exactly how much to hate or disregard people? Posts should stand alone and speak for themselves. I actually removed all my tags. While it's helpful for remembering people, I find it's a tool that ultimately limits meaningful discourse around here because people just get pigeonholed for saying something once (or twice or x4), and they become reduced to that one thing.


What I find to be the case a lot, here on fark at any rate...If you call out an individual on a point where they're wrong, misleading, trollish, or just for being an asshole, you're suddenly a bigot against whatever "group" they belong to or feel that they're speaking up for.  They feel they couldn't possibly be at fault, and that you must dislike them for other reasons.  Classic Appeal to Spite.

TheJoe03: I have you marked as racist if that makes you laugh.


It does, as it would various past roomies friends and co-workers of mine, from various races and nationalities.

Gleeman: TOSViolation:

[www.reactiongifs.com image 420x315]


I agree.  Not so much for content, but given the name....It's like people replying to, well, I can't call out farkers that aren't present.
/ "It's my surname!"
 
2014-02-14 09:48:58 PM  

ciberido: montex: If there is a "gay gene", then how is it possible that sometimes identical twins can sometimes have one gay and one straight?

Because the gay gene, if it even exists, is unlikely to be the only factor.


Odd, since so many people insist that it is genetic, and won't even consider any other possibilities.
 
2014-02-14 10:42:34 PM  

06Wahoo: ciberido: montex: If there is a "gay gene", then how is it possible that sometimes identical twins can sometimes have one gay and one straight?

Because the gay gene, if it even exists, is unlikely to be the only factor.

Odd, since so many people insist that it is genetic, and won't even consider any other possibilities.


Really?  I wasn't aware of that.  Care to list a few people who "won't consider any other possibilities"?
 
2014-02-14 11:54:58 PM  
Stinkyy:

img.fark.net

Your brain, dude.  srsly
 
2014-02-15 09:38:45 AM  

ciberido: 06Wahoo: ciberido: montex: If there is a "gay gene", then how is it possible that sometimes identical twins can sometimes have one gay and one straight?

Because the gay gene, if it even exists, is unlikely to be the only factor.

Odd, since so many people insist that it is genetic, and won't even consider any other possibilities.

Really?  I wasn't aware of that.  Care to list a few people who "won't consider any other possibilities"?


I suspect they exist only in his imagination... Or else he's confusing "genetic" as being the only way it's not a "choice"... Some people don't know about or consider things like epigenetics, hormones, in-utero environment changes, etc... I've always heard the latter causes touted by most people as the most likely explanations, much more often than I've heard people champion a "gay gene"...
 
2014-02-15 10:46:25 AM  

studebaker hoch: Stinkyy:

[img.fark.net image 482x315]

Your brain, dude.  srsly


Because sticking your dick in feces is haute couture. And AIDS.
 
Displayed 209 of 209 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report