For Perg, the "Gay" gene.

[Ishmael]

I noticed that Perg. posted and ancient report ('95) about science zero'ing in on the "Gay" gene in one of BB's threads. First of all I'd like to admonish Perg for being so lazy, there is a much more recent report (May 2010) concerning the "Gay" gene and the more recent report concerns mammals as opposed to fruit flies. (Although I do have to admit the conjunction of Fruit Flies and "Gay" is hard to beat.)

Anyway, this debate whether homosexuality being genetic or learned has been raging for decades now. Science is finding tantalyzing evidence of the former, but there still is no conclusive evidence.

But let's say that science unequivocally proves that "Gay" is genetic. That being the case a fetus could be tested for the presence, or absence, of the "Gay" gene while still in the womb.

And that begs the $64,000 question. "Will abortion rates increase?"

Ishmael

 

[Peregrinator]

I noticed that Perg. posted and ancient report ('95) about science zero'ing in on the "Gay" gene in one of BB's threads. First of all I'd like to admonish Perg for being so lazy, there is a much more recent report (May 2010) concerning the "Gay" gene and the more recent report concerns mammals as opposed to fruit flies. (Although I do have to admit the conjunction of Fruit Flies and "Gay" is hard to beat.)

Anyway, this debate whether homosexuality being genetic or learned has been raging for decades now. Science is finding tantalyzing evidence of the former, but there still is no conclusive evidence.

But let's say that science unequivocally proves that "Gay" is genetic. That being the case a fetus could be tested for the presence, or absence, of the "Gay" gene while still in the womb.

And that begs the $64,000 question. "Will abortion rates increase?"

Ishmael

*shrug* It was just a BB thread. He doesn't deserve a lot of effort.

In answer to your question, who knows? I imagine they'll increase among the Phelps types. I doubt much among any other dynamic. I'll be interested to see what the Vatican has to say.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

The point of it all is to increase the protected minority rate.

Will the left then demand that the abortion of "Gay" babies be outlawed?

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Perg, aren't you worried about the civil rights violations as gay couples decide to abort their straight babies?







All I know is, when chicks decided Lesbian was cool, we had a lot more Lesbians...

Not saying that that's a bad thing, but some people do choose based upon peer and other social pressures (and the possibility that they are so flawed that it's about the only way they're getting laid).

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Will the left then demand that the abortion of "Gay" babies be outlawed?

Ishmael

Maybe we should examine Iranian genes since they don't have any gays...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Peregrinator]

Perg, aren't you worried about the civil rights violations as gay couples decide to abort their straight babies?







All I know is, when chicks decided Lesbian was cool, we had a lot more Lesbians...

Not saying that that's a bad thing, but some people do choose based upon peer and other social pressures (and the possibility that they are so flawed that it's about the only way they're getting laid).

Not really, no.

I agree that for some it's a choice. I know some folks like that. Again, *shrug.*

I see no argument that if it does turn out to be primarily genetic, then any discrimination against homosexuals is tantamount to racism. No?

 

[Spider Rand]

Will the left then demand that the abortion of "Gay" babies be outlawed?

Ishmael

Of course not, that would interfere with a woman's right to kill...I mean abort...her child. They will simply make any test to determine sexual orientation illegal, as there is no legitimate reason for the test except to discriminate against the gay unborn.

All babies will be killed equally and fairly.

 

[firespin]

http://ltuasoo.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/japanese-scientists-isolate-wingnut-gene/

"TOKYO, JAPAN – Professor Ohpen Kimono of the University of Tokyo announced that he and his team of geneticists have succeeded in isolating the wingnut gene. Professor Kimono made the announcement when he presented a scientific paper, “Decoding DNA’s most elusive secrets” at the International Geniality Congress. His presentation was honored by a standing ovation from most of the attendees, although a few American scientists remained seated, and later expressed scepticism.

Professor Kimono explained that he and his team had been inspired by the previous world-famous breakthrough by gay Australian scientists in discovering the Christian gene. “Without their guiding accomplishments we would never have achieved our remarkable results,” conceded Dr. Ohpen Kimono, with typical Japanese modesty. “The wingnut gene, like the Christian gene, was a very elusive little critter, but we finally managed to track it down! It was a fantastic moment!”

Asked what, if any, practical significance this research had for the average family, Professor Kimono pointed out that the discovery could reduce the stigma often associated with wingnuttery. “In most countries it is a major source of sorrow and consternation when a family member turns out to be a wingnut. Now that we have confirmed that wingnuttery is a genetic predisposition the parents can stop berating themselves and try to accept the situation as best possible, although it can be a devastating revelation for any family.”"

 

[unregistered]

 

[John Doe]

It can't be any one gene. Human sexuality is far too complex to be determined by a single gene. To think so (or to think that any scientist worth their salt is seriously suggesting it) shows a woeful ignorance of human sexuality, human genetics or both.

What would that birth defect have to do with race?

It's not a birth defect.

 

[cjh]

What would that birth defect have to do with race?

Assuming it's genetic, it's an immutable trait.

Not racism. But tantamount to racism. Sort of like discrimination based on gender.

Interesting that you used the word defect. What makes it a defect as opposed to being simply a different gene?

 

[busybody..]

*shrug* It was just a BB thread. He doesn't deserve a lot of effort.

.

Of course BB aint worth it

Lets BRINWASH and THREATEN SOME

and PROTECT at all COSTS others

Right, "PERG"?

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

Assuming it's genetic, it's an immutable trait.

Not racism. But tantamount to racism. Sort of like discrimination based on gender.

Interesting that you used the word defect. What makes it a defect as opposed to being simply a different gene?

because HOMOZ are defective

are they NOT?

 

[firespin]

Just so you know. I don't believe there's such a gene. I think it's more to do with behavior and abuse.

Too much time around the altar?

Sexual attraction is a neurological and chemical process. Why would that have anything to do with biology or genetics?

I figure it's got to be day care workers who don't shave their legs.

 

[cjh]

I used that word because I knew it would bring you and others screaming out of the woodwork. It was mentioned that people might elect abortion if the gene was detected before birth, it occurred to me that people so disposed might consider that a defect. Kinda like the Chinese consider females less than perfect.

Just so you know. I don't believe there's such a gene. I think it's more to do with behavior and abuse.

Looks to me as if you used it without qualification.

This post reeks of back peddling.

 

[busybody..]

Looks to me as if you used it without qualification.

This post reeks of back peddling.

you dont think HOMOZ are defective?

 

[cjh]

because HOMOZ are defective

are they NOT?

Serious question. Howso?

 

[busybody..]

Serious question. Howso?

serious question

for one thing, they cant recreate

a person with one leg is defective

a person with Downs Syndrome is defective

etc etc

the FACT, we have reached a state where we call REALITY what REALITY is


is a comment on us

Its like saying KILLING BABIES is PRO CHOICE, its NOT! Its KILLING BABIES..........No one denies ANY WOMAN HER CHOICE............choice of NOT having sex, of having protected sex etc etc, once its past that, and a BABY forms, its NOT CHOICE, ITS KILLING BABIES

A few decades ago, HOBOZ were called derelict, (think about teh accuracy of teh word) now that are called HOMELESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Same thing, but DIFFERENT meanings

 

[overthebow]

I noticed that Perg. posted and ancient report ('95) about science zero'ing in on the "Gay" gene in one of BB's threads. First of all I'd like to admonish Perg for being so lazy, there is a much more recent report (May 2010) concerning the "Gay" gene and the more recent report concerns mammals as opposed to fruit flies. (Although I do have to admit the conjunction of Fruit Flies and "Gay" is hard to beat.)

Anyway, this debate whether homosexuality being genetic or learned has been raging for decades now. Science is finding tantalyzing evidence of the former, but there still is no conclusive evidence.

But let's say that science unequivocally proves that "Gay" is genetic. That being the case a fetus could be tested for the presence, or absence, of the "Gay" gene while still in the womb.

And that begs the $64,000 question. "Will abortion rates increase?"

Ishmael

What a fucking moron. This assumes that it is one gene that has influence. There is often a one to many relationship between genes and traits, and the extent of the trait depends on the amount of genetic expression.

 

[firespin]

"Normal" is subjective in ways that surprise me. Some deaf parents want their children to be deaf as well. Is that good or bad?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article3087367.ece

"DEAF parents should be allowed to screen their embryos so they can pick a deaf child over one that has all its senses intact, according to the chief executive of the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (RNID).

Jackie Ballard, a former Liberal Democrat MP, says that although the vast majority of deaf parents would want a child who has normal hearing, a small minority of couples would prefer to create a child who is effectively disabled, to fit in better with the family lifestyle.

Ballard’s stance is likely to be welcomed by other deaf organisations, including the British Deaf Association (BDA), which is campaigning to amend government legislation to allow the creation of babies with disabilities. "

To me, this seems absolutely insane.

Would gay parents want to select to have gay children?

 

[cjh]

serious question

for one thing, they cant recreate

a person with one leg is defective

a person with Downs Syndrome is defective

<snip>

I have blue eyes. A recessive trait. Am I defective?

I have an infertile friend. Is he defective?

I have a once-fertile friend who decided she never wanted kids so she had a hysterectomy to eliminate the risk. Defective?

 

[busybody..]

What a fucking moron. This assumes that it is one gene that has influence. There is often a one to many relationship between genes and traits, and the extent of the trait depends on the amount of genetic expression.

a MORON like YOU

Shouldnt call ANYONE a MORON

How is Howeird Dumb treating you these dayz?