Gay DNA found

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
people go with their desires, desire is not a choice

choice is this: when i was in the McD's bathroom today, I saw this sexy visitor from Boston (his baggage tag gave it away), and his penis as he took a piss in the nearby stall. I wanted to suck him off, but I chose not to because I want to remain faithful to my boyfriend.

That is a choice, but my desire still remains for dick.

Well thanks for the visual there Jeezola.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I wonder what this will do with the Radical Religious Christain Right that is so Anti-Gay???

Doesn't this say that "God" has built in "Homosexuality" ???

They don't believe in Science and "Evolution" so this has to be Gods work. <shrugs>

Edit: Also this should give Gays the same "inalienable" rights as anyone else for marriage, health etc.
Wasn't the premise of the Christains that it was 110% Gay choice to be Gay and that was their reason for them being so against it???

I don't think it so much says that God built in homosexuality as it just goes to highlight that male and female genes aren't so different and that yes, sometimes they don't always assemble in the exact same order, leading some men to have the genes for being attracted to men and presumably the same goes true for women.

Where in the article was it mentioned gay men have "female genes" for sexual orientation? That's a half-assed assumption imo. The genes in question probably aren't directly coding for sexual orientation. They are simply associated with sexual orientation, and the association is possibly indirect.

I never claimed that they were stating a causal connection merely a connection (as the damn article states very clearly!) on a genetic level. Having done some study about genetics and having a close friend who IS a geneticist I'm merely infering based on what I've read and discussed with said friend in the past. You don't have to include FEMALES in the study to know that male and female genes are damn near identical (DUH!) or that but for a few small changes here and there a fertilized egg that would otherwise be female (XX chromosomes) becomes a male (XY Chromosomes).

No, no, no. The difference between male and female genetics is miniscule at best. We share a LOT of the same parts, obviously. That males have nipples shows this, as does the fact that a clit looks a whole lot like a tiny penis. Look at your nuts sometime and you'll see where, if the chemistry were just a bit different, your sack would have been labia. It's obvious enough that testicles would have been ovaries.

You made the comment that male and female genes aren't so different. How does this study shed light on the difference between male and female genes, in ANY WAY AT ALL? I don't see it, particularly as there were no female subjects in this study.

I take it this is the only report on a study of Genetics that you've ever read? Seems obvious enough though, you don't come across as the type to actually seek education about anything that doesn't affect you in day to day life. Do you really need for this specific study to tell you that males and females of the human species have similar genes? For simplicity's sake, go have a read: A question of Sex

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The article says that these genes appear to determine your sexual preference,
[/b]

No, the finding of the study is that certain genes are associated with sexual preference. It's a huge leap to jump from association to causation. Anything beyond association is speculation on the part of the researchers.

Of course it is, but their speculation is certainly more convincing than your bizarrely targeted animosity. Before you go trying to debunk the Geneticists in question please go get your own genetics degree and perform your own research. At a MINIMUM read a few books on the topic.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
and it's not a far stretch to see how they might be the same or close to the same between males and females, but with a slightly different bent. In this scenario, the male gets the "female" version of the genes and is thus attracted to MEN.
[/b]

As a matter of fact, it is a far stretch to assume that male homoseuxals have "female" versions of genes determining sexual orientation. And it's an assumption that is not supported IN ANY WAY by the findings of this study.

It's not a far stretch in the LEAST. Human genes are VERY similar within our species even across genders. In order to be compatible for reproduction they HAVE to be (DUH!). It is NOT a giant leap to think that males and females have slight variations of these particular genes anymore than it is a huge jump to realize that but for a small difference in chromosome (Y versus X) a MALE would in fact be a FEMALE.

I never said it claimed CAUSATION you dunce! READ the frickin' post! All you're trying to do is be COMBATIVE without having any reason to do so. Before you go assaulting anyone else's discussion, which is all this is, do a little READING and get a damn clue!

Jason

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

The genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers were analyzed.

It would be interesting to see a larger sampling, where it might be only 1 male in the family being gay, as well as other scenarios, the genetic traits they found might be more unique to their particular sampling.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma

The genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers were analyzed.

It would be interesting to see a larger sampling, where it might be only 1 male in the family being gay, as well as other scenarios, the genetic traits they found might be more unique to their particular sampling.

Indeed, I'd be curious to read about that. Genetics is fascinating science, really. Makes me wish I had gone to school for it instead of IT.

Jason

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Some will be, but others will be big tough bull d$kes cable of crushing your skull with their bare hands.

Not if I sedate them first with gifts: cartons of Camels, comfortable shoes and flannel shirts.

:laugh:

 

[Zebo]

While good news, I guess, I fail to see how this will help the fundies overcome thier issues? First, most don't believe in science in the first place so will probably dismiss it outright like global warming, evolution, or anything else they don't understand. For the one's that do believe it it put's them in the very uncomfortable position of maybe one day "playing god" with childens genes to "correct" the ailment. Goodness they are going to be cranky. Sometimes I wish gays would have just stayed in closet to save us from fundies constant droning on.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I don't think it so much says that God built in homosexuality as it just goes to highlight that male and female genes aren't so different and that yes, sometimes they don't always assemble in the exact same order, leading some men to have the genes for being attracted to men and presumably the same goes true for women.

Where in the article was it mentioned gay men have "female genes" for sexual orientation? That's a half-assed assumption imo. The genes in question probably aren't directly coding for sexual orientation. They are simply associated with sexual orientation, and the association is possibly indirect.

I never claimed that they were stating a causal connection merely a connection (as the damn article states very clearly!) on a genetic level.

Yes, you did claim a causal connection: "leading some men to have the genes for being attracted to men and presumably the same goes true for women".

I am pointing out that what is identified is an association. Association != causation. You need to be reminded of that, apparently.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Having done some study about genetics and having a close friend who IS a geneticist

Ah yes, throw in a good old 'appeal to authority' fallacy, why don't you. So much easier than carefully explaining why your half-assed, just plain inaccurate comments make any sense at all.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'm merely infering based on what I've read and discussed with said friend in the past. You don't have to include FEMALES in the study to know that male and female genes are damn near identical (DUH!) or that but for a few small changes here and there a fertilized egg that would otherwise be female (XX chromosomes) becomes a male (XY Chromosomes).

As far as I am aware, there is NO support for the notion that a specific region of chromosomes codes for sexual orientation in both males and females, with a simple variation in that region (in your words, male or female genes) determining whether an individual is attracted to the same or opposite sex. If you think there IS research supporting such an idea, then by all means link to it.

IN fact, there is data which suggest the putative genes responsible for homosexuality in males code for something entirely different (i.e., higher levels of fertility/ fecundity) in women.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
No, no, no. The difference between male and female genetics is miniscule at best. We share a LOT of the same parts, obviously. That males have nipples shows this, as does the fact that a clit looks a whole lot like a tiny penis. Look at your nuts sometime and you'll see where, if the chemistry were just a bit different, your sack would have been labia. It's obvious enough that testicles would have been ovaries.

You made the comment that male and female genes aren't so different. How does this study shed light on the difference between male and female genes, in ANY WAY AT ALL? I don't see it, particularly as there were no female subjects in this study.

I take it this is the only report on a study of Genetics that you've ever read? Seems obvious enough though, you don't come across as the type to actually seek education about anything that doesn't affect you in day to day life.

??

Why do you think you have insight into my interests and academic pursuits away from this forum, I wonder?

I have a bachelors degree in science with honors, an honours degree in psychology, and I've studied medicine for three years. I've spent several years working as a research assistant for professors in various disciplines within psychology and medicine. I have an interest in the biological basis of sexual orientation (among other things), and I've read a fair bit in this area. I've waded through plenty of texts, studies on the putative genetics of human sexual orientation.

I have to wonder why you are choosing to respond to my post in such an insulting manner. I said your assumptions are half-assed, based on my knowledge from my studies, I made no personal comments about you personally. You're characterizing me as a selfish, air-head f@g who couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to contribute to this discussion, or have any interests that don't concern myself. You're taking on an attitude of arrogant superiority in this discussion, and yet most of what you have said is half-assed or just plain wrong. I find that to be pathetic, you are behaving like a fool.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Do you really need for this specific study to tell you that males and females of the human species have similar genes? For simplicity's sake, go have a read: A question of Sex

OF COURSE the genes of male and female humans are similar. The genes of chimpanzees and humans are similar, so fvcking what. Why are you trying to weasel your way out of your original claims? You made the claim that specific regions of chromosomes (i.e., genes) code for sexual orientation in both males and females, with a simple variation in that region (in your words, the presence of male or female genes) determining attractions to the same or opposite sex. As I have said already, if you think there IS research supporting such an idea, then by all means link to it.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The article says that these genes appear to determine your sexual preference,

No, the finding of the study is that certain genes are associated with sexual preference. It's a huge leap to jump from association to causation. Anything beyond association is speculation on the part of the researchers.

Of course it is, but their speculation is certainly more convincing than your bizarrely targeted animosity. Before you go trying to debunk the Geneticists in question please go get your own genetics degree and perform your own research. At a MINIMUM read a few books on the topic.

What is this "bizarre targeted animosity" you speak of?

Where did I seek to debunk the findings of this study in question? Please point out exactly where I did this. I think the findings of this study are interesting but I don't throw critical thinking out the window because I would like a certain outcome. An association is not causation. Until causation is proven (which may be very difficult or impossible to do) then caution in interpreting these results is warranted. How is this prudent cautiousness "trying to debunk the geneticists in question"? It isn't, it's just good thinking.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
and it's not a far stretch to see how they might be the same or close to the same between males and females, but with a slightly different bent. In this scenario, the male gets the "female" version of the genes and is thus attracted to MEN.
[/b]

As a matter of fact, it is a far stretch to assume that male homoseuxals have "female" versions of genes determining sexual orientation. And it's an assumption that is not supported IN ANY WAY by the findings of this study.

It's not a far stretch in the LEAST. Human genes are VERY similar within our species even across genders. In order to be compatible for reproduction they HAVE to be (DUH!). It is NOT a giant leap to think that males and females have slight variations of these particular genes anymore than it is a huge jump to realize that but for a small difference in chromosome (Y versus X) a MALE would in fact be a FEMALE.

Again, you're attempting to weasel your way out of your claim there is a shared region of genetic code responsible for sexual orientation in both males and females, and that variations in this region determine attraction to same or opposite sex. There is no evidence supporting this. In fact, some data raises the possiblity genes coding for or leading to homosexuality in males have a quite different function or effect in females (for example, coding for increased fertility in females). Your assumptions are lazy. You are the one who needs to do some reading in this area.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I never said it claimed CAUSATION you dunce! READ the frickin' post! All you're trying to do is be COMBATIVE without having any reason to do so. Before you go assaulting anyone else's discussion, which is all this is, do a little READING and get a damn clue!
Jason

YOU did claim causation. There is no denying that. Perhaps the problem is your lazy, imprecise use of language, and of course also your unwillingness to ask me for clarification and elaboration re: my comments before mounting your high-horse.

I have a blunt posting style - I said I think your assumptions are half-assed, lazy, which they are - however that comment does not indicate hostility from me. I am simply stating facts. It's funny that you are choosing to make this personal with childish name calling.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Torghn
There's a genetic disposition to violence, but you still have control of your actions.

What's the evidence there is a genetic predisposition to violence? I have not heard of such a thing.

A better analogy to my mind is handedness. Most of us have a predisposition to be left- or right-handed in tasks like writing or holding a spoon. It is possible to override this preference through force of will, however this serves no useful purpose and only leads to misery.

He could be refering to the double Y male (XYY) which was said to be criminal from over aggression. This has been disproven however.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
In a lot of places now they have non-communal showers. It's a good solution.

And the difference between the Cindy Crawford and gay situation is that Cindy Crawford doesn't have to put up with guys in her rooms whereas straight guys have to put up with gay guys in their rooms.

Whatever. If you are uncomfortable, then you're going to have to find some way of dealing with that yourself. Use a cubicle instead of the urinal. Go home from the gym without showering. (lol) I will continue to take pleasure in looking at the naked bodies of the sexy men in the gym change rooms, including checking out their ass, c0ck, pecs, face, and anything else takes my fancy. I will of course continue to ignore the ugly, the elderly, the obese, the otherwise unappealing naked men in the gym change rooms. Like it or not, Infohawk, if you enter my line of vision and I find you appealing, you are to some extent a sexual object for me. Tough sh1t for you, if you are going to worry about that. And no, I don't think it is immoral to "ogle" at someone, it is merely rude. I don't ogle, at any rate, I simply take an appreciative sidelong glance. Where's the harm? They (you) don't even know I am looking at them (you). If you feel discomfort at the thought of that, remind yourself that that discomfort is of your own creation. What is interesting to me is that some straight guys apparently don't have a problem with being looked at in the gym, they seem to enjoy it in fact, wandering about naked, their c0ck flapping in the breeze, taking endless showers as they display their sexy, well-toned bodies. These guys are to some extent mild exhibitionists, perhaps.

 

[Schrodinger]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Infohawk
In a lot of places now they have non-communal showers. It's a good solution.

And the difference between the Cindy Crawford and gay situation is that Cindy Crawford doesn't have to put up with guys in her rooms whereas straight guys have to put up with gay guys in their rooms.

Whatever. If you are uncomfortable, then you're going to have to find some way of dealing with that yourself. Use a cubicle instead of the urinal. Go home from the gym without showering. (lol) I will continue to take pleasure in looking at the naked bodies of the sexy men in the gym change rooms, including checking out their ass, c0ck, pecs, face, and anything else takes my fancy. I will of ocurse continue to ignore the ugly, the fat, the otherwise unappealing naked men in the gym change rooms. Like it or not, Infohawk, if you enter my line of vision and I find you appealing, you are to some extent a sexual object for me. Tough sh1t for you, if you are going to worry about that. And no, I don't think it is immoral to "ogle" at someone, it is merely rude. What is interesting to me is that some straight guys apparently don't have a problem with being looked at in the gym, they seem to enjoy it in fact, wandering about naked, their c0ck flapping in the breeze, taking endless showers as they display their sexy, well-toned bodies. These guys are to some extent mild exhibitionists, perhaps.

Don't know how they do things in your area but if you did that at the gyms here your liable to get your ass killed. Up at the mines they would put you behind a few rocks and no one would hear from you again for that kind of thing :Q

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Schrodinger

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Infohawk
In a lot of places now they have non-communal showers. It's a good solution.

And the difference between the Cindy Crawford and gay situation is that Cindy Crawford doesn't have to put up with guys in her rooms whereas straight guys have to put up with gay guys in their rooms.

Whatever. If you are uncomfortable, then you're going to have to find some way of dealing with that yourself. Use a cubicle instead of the urinal. Go home from the gym without showering. (lol) I will continue to take pleasure in looking at the naked bodies of the sexy men in the gym change rooms, including checking out their ass, c0ck, pecs, face, and anything else takes my fancy. I will of course continue to ignore the ugly, the fat, the otherwise unappealing naked men in the gym change rooms. Like it or not, Infohawk, if you enter my line of vision and I find you appealing, you are to some extent a sexual object for me. Tough sh1t for you, if you are going to worry about that. And no, I don't think it is immoral to "ogle" at someone, it is merely rude. What is interesting to me is that some straight guys apparently don't have a problem with being looked at in the gym, they seem to enjoy it in fact, wandering about naked, their c0ck flapping in the breeze, taking endless showers as they display their sexy, well-toned bodies. These guys are to some extent mild exhibitionists, perhaps.

Don't know how they do things in your area but if you did that at the gyms here your liable to get your ass killed. Up at the mines they would put you behind a few rocks and no one would hear from you again for that kind of thing :Q

I don't see why these people would even know I am checking them out. It's not like I'm standing there with a huge hard-on or jerking off. Where abouts are you, by the way? Sounds like it must be a very backward part of the world.

Wouldn't it be interesting if women responded with violence every time they got an unwanted glance from a male heterosexual.

PS: maintain the ban on Whiner-burke.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Sometimes I wish gays would have just stayed in closet to save us from fundies constant droning on.

They would only transfer their frustrations to another group. That is the way scapegoating works. You get to feel great about your friends, your family, your community, by transfering all your yucky emotions and anxieties onto the scapegoat. If it wasn't gays, it would be single mothers, drug users, or some other easy to marginalize group.

 

[petrek]

"...several areas that appear to influence...found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked"
In other words, this study is no different than the previous ones.

Dave

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: petrek
"...several areas that appear to influence...found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked"
In other words, this study is no different than the previous ones.

Dave

It is different from previous studies, in that areas of genetic code (which haven't been examined before in relation to sexual orientation) have been found to be associated with sexual orientation in males. An association doesn't necessarily indicate causation. The researchers don't claim to have proven these genes are responsbile for sexual orientation: "Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation." It's an exciting finding, tho. It remains to be seen if this study will replicate.

 

[0roo0roo]

whatever, nothing can reason with those with minds warped by faith like the taliban.

 

[petrek]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: petrek
"...several areas that appear to influence...found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked"
In other words, this study is no different than the previous ones.

Dave

It is different from previous studies, in that areas of genetic code (which haven't been examined before in relation to sexual orientation) have been found to be associated with sexual orientation in males. An association doesn't necessarily indicate causation. The researchers don't claim to have proven these genes are responsbile for sexual orientation: "Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation." It's an exciting finding, tho. It remains to be seen if this study will replicate.

Considering that the start of the article states "In the first-ever study combing...", I knew the specific study was different. I was pointing out that even though nothing has changed in regards to proof, as noted by the use of the words, appear, and appeared in the article, the headline/s read "Gay DNA found". A pattently false statement. I don't like being lied to, and stating "Gay DNA found" is a blatent lie.
Thus, this study is no different than the previous ones.

Dave

 

[PsharkJF]

Jeez, I go to UIC. LOLZ

Maybe they are doing something rather than moving one pile of dirt 5 feet.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: petrek

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: petrek
"...several areas that appear to influence...found stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked"
In other words, this study is no different than the previous ones.

Dave

It is different from previous studies, in that areas of genetic code (which haven't been examined before in relation to sexual orientation) have been found to be associated with sexual orientation in males. An association doesn't necessarily indicate causation. The researchers don't claim to have proven these genes are responsbile for sexual orientation: "Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation." It's an exciting finding, tho. It remains to be seen if this study will replicate.

Considering that the start of the article states "In the first-ever study combing...", I knew the specific study was different. I was pointing out that even though nothing has changed in regards to proof, as noted by the use of the words, appear, and appeared in the article, the headline/s read "Gay DNA found". A pattently false statement. I don't like being lied to, and stating "Gay DNA found" is a blatent lie.
Thus, this study is no different than the previous ones.

Dave

Get off your high horse. The title is accurate enough. A certain form of gene has been discovered to be linked with male homosexuality. Gays are more likely to have this gene, than expected by chance. That means it is legitimate at this point to call it a "gay gene" (or gay genes, or gay DNA). Whether these genes cause homosexuality, or are linked in some other way to sexual orientation, doesn't negate the fact that the genes are found in proportions higher than expected by chance in gay males (which is the justification for calling them gay DNA). Your charge the title is a blatant lie is inaccurate.

 

[aidanjm]

Poll for Infohawk!

This article was linked to in OT in the poll. I wanted to post it here:





"GAY-OK!"

John Hargrave

4/06/2004 3:46 pm

I've written before about my horrible experiences in the men's shower at the gym where I work out. Since it's one of those open, communal, prison-like shower cells, I hate showering with anyone else -- but somehow I always end up naked next to co-workers, my boss, Tom Brokaw, etc. It's very uncomfortable.

Last night, I went into the shower to find an entire college rugby team. I cannot believe my terrible luck. There were at least a dozen muscular young lads, whooping it up, throwing soap at each other, and so forth. It was like the opening scene for a gay porno, it really was. And then I found myself actually regretting that I was not gay, because how great would that be? This would have been some serious eye candy here, and possibly an opportunity for a date.

As I lathered up as discreetly as possible, surrounded by naked and sculpted boys, I found myself getting angry at the gays. How lucky are they? I mean, total access to sexy situations. I can't just walk into a women's locker room and start soaping up, at least not without the aid of expensive prosthetics. That's not fair. The gays have all the fun, which is why they're called "gay."

Listen, gayfolk: we may not let you marry each other, but you get to ogle all the hot guys/gals you want, at any time. Don't get married ... just join a gym! Just not my gym, because I've got enough problems in the shower already.

So my shower was growing increasingly uncomfortable, and not just because the 12 or 13 hardbodies were using all the hot water. Then this Norse god walked in -- he must have been the captain of the rugby team, or possibly the inventor of rugby -- with an exquisitely crafted body, and a face that made Orlando Bloom look like he fell asleep on a stove. As all guys do, I shot a glance downward when I thought he wasn't looking.

For a second, I thought he had a midget walking in front of him. I mean, the thing was like an elephant's trunk. I expected it to reach out, grab hold of some leaves and branches, and stuff them in his mouth. I quickly turned away, the image burned in my brain. I feared that at any moment, the thing would curl around my neck like one of Doc Ock's arms.

So there I was, surrounded by more penis than I will hopefully ever see again in my life, and I thought to myself: so unfair. Why am I not gay? Why do I not like the ass sex? This could have been one of the happiest moments of my life, and instead I wanted to escape from The Rugby Team and the Jump Rope Dong, which incidentally was one of my favorite children's books.

Look: I'm not choosy. Bisexual would work, too. But nooooo. Mr. Happily-Married Heterosexual can't allow himself to be attracted to the menfolk. Clearly, I've got issues.


John Hargrave, the King of Dot-Comedy, is an author and performer who still can't bring himself to appreciate Michelangelo's "David."

 

[EXman]

Yea it was the rainbow colors that gave them away

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
the point is, i (like other gay men) am unconsciously turned on by men - while i love my boyfriend and choose to be with him. but there's no getting around the fact that i'm turned on whenever i see a guy.

so classy: you may choose to sleep with that prostitute, or not; but does it matter at all to you if that prostitute is male or female?

yeah, there seems to be some trouble recognizing that sexual attraction is not simply an issue of behavior. the article does allow for room in exploring the environmental influences that are placed on these gene patterns (and i will be interested to see how homosexually-hostile families/communities vs. homosexual-accepting ones add to development) but i think those suggesting any sexual attraction is a behavior issue are either purposefully ignoring their own experiences or asexual.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well that's good news. Now a cure can be found.

I agree, we do need to fix heterosexual men, & now we will finally be able to do something about their aggression, macho posturing, tendency to start wars, and of course their poor dress sense.

How do you explain Ann Coulter?

You mean so that they can learn to dress in a motorcycle jacket with the sleeves cut off, a pigtail, tatoos, and that dumb looking captains hat while they smoke a brown cig? That good dress sense? Like in the gay parades?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well that's good news. Now a cure can be found.

God I do hope my sarc-O-meter is on the fritz today.

Why? Don't you think that there will be some gays who want to be "cured"? Would you deny their rights?

Don't you think there will be parents, who given the choice for some genetic switch-flipping before birth, would not want their children to be gay? Would you deny their rights?

Personally I am not a proponent of genetically engineering birth traits, like ones sex or their sexuality. I kind of leave it up to God the roll the dice and let a human develop as God obviously intended for them to develop. Whether it be gay or straight.

That is the whole part of the Fundie argument with homosexuality that I never could quite understand. It is all God's will as far as I am concerned. God made us all, don't you think it is possible he makes no mistakes and has a grand design for everyone? I think the Fundies who will have a lot of explaining to do and spend a great deal of time in purgatory when they meet their maker one day.

Oh, and here is a for the "denying of rights" tripe.

It isn't tripe, its a perfectly valid statement. If a "cure" was created, some people would desire it pure and simple.. Your shows your hypocrisy that is typical of many liberals.

Let's expose it some more. So answer this question, you are against genetically engineering birth traits, are you pro-abortion rights?

I answered your question. No. I am not for genetic engineering AS IS APPLIES to ones gender or ones sexuality. Genetic engineering to fix inborn errors of metabolism for example, I would consider as it would save lives and improve on the quality of life of those babies born. As for the other, I am pro-keeping the government and fundies out of peoples lives and/or legislating morality, abortion is no exeption.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well that's good news. Now a cure can be found.

God I do hope my sarc-O-meter is on the fritz today.

Why? Don't you think that there will be some gays who want to be "cured"? Would you deny their rights?

Don't you think there will be parents, who given the choice for some genetic switch-flipping before birth, would not want their children to be gay? Would you deny their rights?

Personally I am not a proponent of genetically engineering birth traits, like ones sex or their sexuality. I kind of leave it up to God the roll the dice and let a human develop as God obviously intended for them to develop. Whether it be gay or straight.

That is the whole part of the Fundie argument with homosexuality that I never could quite understand. It is all God's will as far as I am concerned. God made us all, don't you think it is possible he makes no mistakes and has a grand design for everyone? I think the Fundies who will have a lot of explaining to do and spend a great deal of time in purgatory when they meet their maker one day.

Oh, and here is a for the "denying of rights" tripe.

It isn't tripe, its a perfectly valid statement. If a "cure" was created, some people would desire it pure and simple.. Your shows your hypocrisy that is typical of many liberals.

Let's expose it some more. So answer this question, you are against genetically engineering birth traits, are you pro-abortion rights?

I answered your question. No. I am not for genetic engineering AS IS APPLIES to ones gender or ones sexuality. Genetic engineering to fix inborn errors of metabolism for example, I would consider as it would save lives and improve on the quality of life of those babies born. As for the other, I am pro-keeping the government and fundies out of peoples lives and/or legislating morality, abortion is no exeption.

Thank you. You have no problems giving parents the right to terminate a fetus, or tweak around genetics that are politically approved by you, but you just don't want anyone messing around with it's genetics that would upset your apple cart of your liberal base.

That's the funny thing about exposing hypocrisy - the hypocrite never sees it. And the beauty of the rabid left - with an absence of morals, you can literally justify anything.

Here, we can create a checklist of what we can discover about genetics, and your options:

Unwanted perfectly healthy heterosexual fetus: Terminate at will. After all, we've spent the last 60 years saying this is a mother's right!

Oh sh!t...now we figured out some more options. Here, we'll change the position:
Crossgendered fetus: Nope, illegal to change genetically, and against the law to terminate based on discriminatory practices
Down's Syndrome: Terminate at will, or correct. Parent's option (suggested method is to terminate however, too easy to convince to vote republican)
Gay fetus: Nope, illegal to change genetically, and against the law to terminate based on discriminatory practices


I think that summarizes your position.

 

[Gaard]

You and he would probably be a little closer on this, alchy, if you would use a word other than 'cure'.