"gay gene" found in lab mice

[JasunStrikesBack]

IMO, whatever reason a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy is her choice.

It certainly is. For now.

Soon the state will tell her she MUST either "cure" the gay baby in Utero or abort it.

Not like they'll have to.

95% of Down's Syndrome babies are aborted. I'd guess about the same number of gay ones will end up the same way.

 

[BostonPirate]

Jewish lineage is matrilineal.

I have a friend, Deb, of hispanic bacround, who converted to judaism because her intended husband was jewish.

he often joked about it. She is hispanic but her bloodline will be more important to their children as jews than his, and he is jewish.

long way off track..lol

I guess my point is where do we draw the line? is there a line to be drawn? when do we take a woman's right to choose away from her? Late term abortions are one place that most people generally agree.... will there be more exceptions as time goes on, and will the gay gene be one of them?

I am betting it will be for conservatives.

Sarah Palin may have had that downs syndrome baby, but I'll bet she wouldn't have had a gay one. Where does that put us in the conservative book?

 

[poolerboy]

There is no doubt in my mind that parents would try to use it to gay-proof their kids.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoUnRsxljM[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0Y5gY9oERc[/ame]

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Kind of Ironic that I did a video post about this on my blog today...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2jpmG8fgr4[/ame]

 

[MercuryJones]

I guess my point is where do we draw the line? is there a line to be drawn? when do we take a woman's right to choose away from her? Late term abortions are one place that most people generally agree.... will there be more exceptions as time goes on, and will the gay gene be one of them?

My line remains intact, with no need to be redrawn, even if an abortion is performed solely because the fetus may have an inherent predisposition to be gay.

 

[BostonPirate]

My line remains intact, with no need to be redrawn, even if an abortion is performed solely because the fetus may have an inherent predisposition to be gay.

Indeed. I do not have a uterus and I do not want to tell those that have them what to do with them.

I tend to think if we let women solely decide this issue, it would be over quickly. That's what pro choice is about.

 

[MercuryJones]

I tend to think if we let women solely decide this issue, it would be over quickly. That's what pro choice is about.

Respectfully, I somewhat disagree.

There are about as many anti-choice women as men.

I believe abortion rights are based in the personal autonomy and privacy of the individual. No one should be able to decide for someone else, no matter who has a uterus.

Late term abortion is more difficult, though of course I fully support the right to the procedure when the mother's life or health is in danger.

 

[BostonPirate]

late term abortion is unnaceptable to me for soooo many reasons. If you carry the child for six months and then decide its not a good idea, you have crosssed the line and the baby ought to be carried to term and put up for adoption. there are lots of gay married couples in Mass that are adopting.

the life of the mother is paramount. If it is a life or death issue, then the mother's life needs to be chosen over that of the baby's life.

hard and disturbing to have to choose, but that's a reality in our world. Women don't have to die due to pregnancy anymore. thank god.

 

[Kulindahr]

First, I want to point out that the thread title is misleading.

That said....

Hopefully this will lead to a cure for heterosexuality.

That would be nice. In areas where the population increase just won't slow down, we could put a make-them-gay enzyme in random food items.

This should be welcomed as a step toward solving the population problem!

conservatives would have to admit that abortion is the right of the mother to choose and they would be hard pressed to go there.

Liberals would want to protect minorities from being aborted just for the sake of their genetic makeup, and that sounds alot like the right to lifers arguement.

political role reversal.

Quite.

We need a law that limits such abortion choice to (1) only in the case of life-threatening or severely debilitating defects, and, as is presently the case, (2) the first trimester.

A woman's choice in what to do with her uterus is intrinsically linked with her choice of what to do with her vagina. If she can't make up her mind in three months, then she can't be allowed to murder what is a distinct human being. And if she's engaged in an activity which often leads to a distinct human being, she can't be allowed to snuff that out for any reason other than a severe disability of that potential human being to survive.

Otherwise, we'll have to admit that there was, ultimately, nothing wrong with the Holocaust, except the means chosen.

 

[MystikWizard]

Just to further the point about those on the Right and what their position will be if the combination of genes can be found, or what the genetic catalyst is that determines Orientation .... I shared this information with my father and forwarded a link to this article two days ago so he could read it for himself.

My parents are religious. And we have had many arguments over religion, and they do not seem to want to budge. They basically chalk up the Old Testament as in a different time and created during a time when "God" was more vengeful. However, since God assumed human form in the form of "Christ", the New Testament applies today.

So, they basically want to disregard the Old Testament.

Although, they do not whatsoever approve of the Homosexual "lifestyle". They still feel God does not approve of Gay relationships despite Gays having no choice in their Orientation. I argued with them along the lines of "so God is fine with Heterosexuals having relationships, but not Gays even though He gave them no choice in the matter, and essentially wants them to leave a celibate life and be miserable."

They shook their heads and replied "I don't know".

They will not leave the religious mindset, no matter what because that is what they have been programmed not to do ..... every opportunity to question the so-called logic of the Bible is apparently to them "Satan tempting us to turn away from the Church".

It is a no more clear example of the power of brainwashing and indoctrination, and they don't even realize it.

However, getting back to topic. After reading the article, one of the first things my father said was "Well, if they find the cause in people, then that's good. That way, it can be hopefully be corrected before they are born so they can lead a normal life".

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Unborn gay babies will be like unborn babies with Down's Syndrome.

As in 98% will be aborted before makin it to the second trimester.

 

[Piquechampion]

Unborn gay babies will be like unborn babies with Down's Syndrome.

As in 98% will be aborted before makin it to the second trimester.

I say we will become extinct by 2,150

On the other side, all those businesses that cater to the gays (like porn) will be extinct also.

 

[Piquechampion]

Also, as funny and strange it may seem, if it comes to that, I do see the Catholic Church espousing our cause.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

I say we will become extinct by 2,150

On the other side, all those businesses that cater to the gays (like porn) will be extinct also.

Yeah. Because there's so such thing as straight porn.

 

[stillscion20]

Ethically, it is questionable, but logically, why shouldn't "the gay gene" be corrected if it is possible to do so? I am going to be hated on to the utmost for this post haha.

If, before I was born, I could choose whether I was straight or gay, I would definitely choose straight. The most important life process, the reason all living things in nature do anything, is to reproduce, and yet gays are not able to do this (comfortably at least). It's not a question of "being normal" or of "fitting in" with everyone else, it's a question of nature.

I do think it is interesting that whatever mutation is in the biological process that brings about homosexuality has not yet been wiped out through the process of evolution. This is what makes me think that it is not necessarily a gene but perhaps something that happens after conception while still in the mother's womb. I firmly do not believe it is created through the nurturing process however.

I have to reiterate for everyone that's going to pounce on me that I AM NOT self-hating or anything. I don't hate other gay people either. I make the best out of it. But given the choice I would choose heterosexuality. And I also agree that a baby should not be aborted just because we can tell it will be homosexual, but I do agree that if it can be "cured" somehow before birth than that is what should be done.

 

[MercuryJones]

Ethically, it is questionable, but logically, why shouldn't "the gay gene" be corrected if it is possible to do so? I am going to be hated on to the utmost for this post haha.

If, before I was born, I could choose whether I was straight or gay, I would definitely choose straight. The most important life process, the reason all living things in nature do anything, is to reproduce, and yet gays are not able to do this (comfortably at least). It's not a question of "being normal" or of "fitting in" with everyone else, it's a question of nature.

I do think it is interesting that whatever mutation is in the biological process that brings about homosexuality has not yet been wiped out through the process of evolution. This is what makes me think that it is not necessarily a gene but perhaps something that happens after conception while still in the mother's womb. I firmly do not believe it is created through the nurturing process however.

Stillscion, this is not a pounce, but a rebuttal.

Why not "cure" gays? Because there's nothing wrong with us, any more than being left handed is wrong. We're a natural variation. And its worth noting that not every member of the species needs to reproduce to advance their genes, and in many species very few members will reproduce.

Its arguable that we provide some evolutionary advantage. And its certainly arguable that we provide a cultural advantage. Evolution hasn't wiped us out for good reasons, one of which may be that our existence provided an evolutionary benefit. The "reason for living" is not to reproduce, even if you think along those lines - it is to advance your genes, and reproduction is just one way to do that.

If given the choice to have been born heterosexual or as I am, I'd certainly take as I am. I'm pleased with my life and who I am.

 

[Callum]

The moment they figure out what "causes" us to be gay... that's the moment the extermination begins.

This isn't good news.

An extermination would depend upon where you live though, in my opinion...many countries are now excessively liberal. Sexuality doesn't matter.

 

[stillscion20]

Stillscion, this is not a pounce, but a rebuttal.

Why not "cure" gays? Because there's nothing wrong with us, any more than being left handed is wrong. We're a natural variation. And its worth noting that not every member of the species needs to reproduce to advance their genes, and in many species very few members will reproduce.

Its arguable that we provide some evolutionary advantage. And its certainly arguable that we provide a cultural advantage. Evolution hasn't wiped us out for good reasons, one of which may be that our existence provided an evolutionary benefit. The "reason for living" is not to reproduce, even if you think along those lines - it is to advance your genes, and reproduction is just one way to do that.

If given the choice to have been born heterosexual or as I am, I'd certainly take as I am. I'm pleased with my life and who I am.

Well all right I think you make some good points. I won't argue that homosexuals add something to the culture. I also think it's probably true that there must be some hidden reason why evolution hasn't wiped us out (maybe something along the lines of a group spirituality as in Avatar or maybe something more complex, if you've ever read Slaughterhouse 5).

I disagree however, it is certainly impossible to physically pass on your genes in any other way than reproduction--unless I'm missing something. And I cannot see how the statement that every lifeform on earth (other than humans) exists solely for the purpose of mating is not true. It would seem to me that the goal of all insects, animals, plants, and microscopic lifeforms is to create more of themselves to the point that their entire lives revolves around reproduction.

But in the end my real point is that this gene manipulation could be beneficial and should not be barred solely for the sake of maintaining some minority. I do however think it would be quite bad if people were aborting their gay babies though just because they could tell ahead of time.

 

[BostonPirate]

stillscion... I understand what you are saying. If I could have been normal, perhaps there was a point in life when I would have gone for the change...

it would have been easier.

But I tend to believe that I am stonger for having faced the hardships being gay has caused me.

The question is... if I decided to have a baby with a lesbian, and we found out that it would be a gay child, I would never abort it for that reason.

If I could hope for my child to live an easier life than I did as a gay man, I know I am helping create a world that is easier to be gay in.

Would I try to make my child something he or she was genetically not meant to be? I would be tempted, but I don;t think I could do it.

I do understand your acnowledgement that gay life is hard. But being different in any way is the same kind of hard. How can I guarantee that once I tinker with the childs genetic identity that an entire new problem would occur.

so I agree with you to a point, I understand your feelings, but I think gay children for whatever reason are part of the process of nature.

 

[MercuryJones]

I disagree however, it is certainly impossible to physically pass on your genes in any other way than reproduction--unless I'm missing something.

You are missing something.

You're not the only entity with your genes. Your siblings and other relatives share many of your genes. The more successful they are, the more you are, in advancing your genes. Certainly direct reproduction is the most effective way to do it, but it's not the only way.

There are many species in which the majority do not reproduce, but advance their genes through their relatives. Bees are the most obvious example - in a colony, there's only one reproductive female. But all the other females support and nurture her offspring, and they are evolutionarily successful, because the queen's offspring share their genes. There are canine species with similar evolutionary "strategies".

This is known as "kin selection". I could extrapolate out to humans.

And I cannot see how the statement that every lifeform on earth (other than humans) exists solely for the purpose of mating is not true. It would seem to me that the goal of all insects, animals, plants, and microscopic lifeforms is to create more of themselves to the point that their entire lives revolves around reproduction.

You have it almost right. It's more like it's the goal of every gene to make more copies of itself, and they use our bodies as vehicles to do that. Reproduction is a really good way to do it, but kin selection is another.

With regard to cultural advantage, I'll pass on any Avatar references. But I would instead say gays often have a culturally unique perspective that we contribute to the culture. Compounding that, gays are less likely to have children or the responsibilities that go with children, and are more free to contribute to the cultural life of society. If you accept the belief that Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual, you might ask: would have have done all he did if he'd been encumbered with a wife and another baby every year or two?