Study links genes, male homosexuality
- Thread starter MrBishop
- Start date
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Starya said:
And now humans, as a species, dies out. Good answer.
I have another idea...better than that...keep your mouth shut about your sexuality...doesn't matter if you're heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. That's a private matter that should only be shared with your partner. Also don't parade your sexuality through the streets. Once again, it's a private matter. Unfortunately, that's not what this thread is about...it's about a claim that homosexuality is genetic (I firmly feel that it's a choice, but...). I also don't give a damn if somebody is homosexual, or not, unless they make it my business. I have to respect their lifestyle choice, but nowhere does it say I have to like their lifestyle choice.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Starya said:Wanna do a head count of people in the world? If 50% of them stopped reproducing, the world would be better off. Oh, and gay couples can have kids. There are options, ya know. Oh, and yeah. I have no problem with gays raising kids either.
Gay couples cannot have kids. If they have kids, then they aren't really gay, are they? Adoption is not having kids...in vitro is not having kids...kidnapping is not having kids. Having kids is a man and a woman having sex/making love. One way, or another, it's got to happen that way. Anything else is either cold/calculating, or just plain consumerism. Call it what you will, but they didn't have their kids. They bought their kids...
[Used car salesman]"Can't have kids? Just come on down to the local adoption agency, and we'll hook you riiight up. Check out the blonde-haired, blue-eyed beauty we have here just rarin to go..."[/Used car salesman]
IDLEchild
Well-Known Member
Leslie said:
Do monkeys also get gay jungle fever? Dolphins?
This occured to me. If gay people have a slightly different genetic composition then can they be classified as a different "race"? I suppose not because it is looked upon as a genetic disorder even though technically it isn't a disorder if it causes no harm other than bruising of conservative egos.
So lets say homosexuality is genetic and it is an involuntary choice to like the same gender.....why would it be considered a "curable" or possibly "curable" genetic disorder? What is there to cure really?
BeardofPants
New Member
Some apes as well. Bonobos, IIRC. And they're not fussy over which sex they get it on with.Kawaii said:
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo said:
The same trait which may cause homosexuality in men also increases the chances of their female siblings to be fertile and bear children.
Beyond all that... you're assuming that homosexuality can be treated in the individual 'suffering' from this condition. Gene thearpy doesn't work that way... hell, it barely works at all, with the research and application of gene therapy being in its infancy now. In addition, the gene seems to passed down through the women and not the men. If you treat all male homosexuals of a generation, the next generation will still have the same chances of producing homosexuals as if you had not treated a single man.
Gene therapy is not a magical blue pill which a gay man would take twice a day with meals and expect to suddenly become heterosexual after a 3 month treatment.
The treatment would have to begin early in the foetal development, and THAT may not even be early enough. Successfull application of gene therapy to remove homosexuality would have to begin with pre-pubescent females by treating their ova. This is where the gene lays and how it causes homosexuality...through fertilization. You'd have to treat all women (only those with the gene providing that you can test for it and that all women are tested before they begin procreating).
We don't even know if its possible to treat this gene without harmfully reducing the fecundity of the women treated and their female children for generations to come. Imagine removing the homosexual gene, but suddenly... fertility in females drops to below 30%... that would be disasterous.
Beyond all that, you're only likely to see a change in the homosexual population after all existing homosexuals, including all those born before the treatment began, die off. This would only be in the more affluent of nations, because the large-scale treatment of all women in a population for several generations to come, is an expensive attempt to say the least.
It's not even a guaranteed treatment and couldn't be testeable for at least 15-20 years after the initial treatment, as you'd have to wait for the first post-treatment generation to reach an age where they're conscious of their sexual awareness before deciding if a treatment was successful.
So...the question should not be "what if homosexuals refuse the treatment?" but rather "What if women refuse to take a treatment which may or may not protect their children from homosexuality but, at the same time, may or may not make their daughters infertile?"
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
MrBishop said:
Once again, we went a little off-target...
1. This is a hypothetical situation, hence the word if in my responses, and the heavy use of quotes. I know what you're saying, but this is strictly hypothetical. Using current facts to debate future reactions is spin to the Nth degree.
2. I never said gene therapy was 100%. I mentioned it becauseit can be used.
3. This is about how you think, not a debate on fertility.
Besides...aren't we jumping the gun a bit on that?Because they don't consider it to be a flaw that needs to be corrected.Gato_Solo said:
(You say "make", but since one is born gay I would rather have used the phrase "stay".) Because they feel that this is who they are, and that they deserve to be themselves? Also, society is changing. Yay for that.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
I was following the original thread...the one about the potential link between homosexuality in men and their genetic makeup.Gato_Solo said:Once again, we went a little off-target...
1. This is a hypothetical situation, hence the word if in my responses, and the heavy use of quotes. I know what you're saying, but this is strictly hypothetical. Using current facts to debate future reactions is spin to the Nth degree.
2. I never said gene therapy was 100%. I mentioned it becauseit can be used.
3. This is about how you think, not a debate on fertility.
OK... hypothetically. If a pill/cure for homosexuality were to be created and available OTC (over the counter)... how would the people who refused said treatment be treated? Hmmm
OK...I'd assume that there'd be a backlash in the gay community first and foremost. That gays who went through the treatment would be accused of selling out to the straight majority. Peer pressure would force many homosexual men to not seek treatment for this reason. Pressure from life-partners and lovers would play out here as well. It'd be more than just a mere change in sexual orientation, but a change in lifestyle as well...in some cases, a change in address as well. Losing friends and 'family' isn't an easy decision.
The chance of those 'reformed homosexuals' being taken back into polite society with open arms seems slim to me. The taint of being a former-homosexual and all past actions associated with it would still keep cured homosexuals at arms length.
Family members who may have shunned the individual prior to his change might not change their mind and accept them back into their family.
The beginnings of dating in a new environment, with new rules and new potential partners is scary, as anyone re-entering the market after a long marriage and quick divorce will tell you.
With all this in mind...I would say that anyone refusing to take the treatment could only be accused of natural trepidation in the face of a life-altering event as opposed to being insane or loving being a pariah.
