If science isolated the "gay gene" would there be a major backlash from the gay community?

[Pics Traffic]

as long as you dont touch hot lesbians.

[Agent 488]

50 genetic materials shot up bums.

[PR_Glen]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

That's a hard one to answer. I don't think I could answer that until faced with the problem directly.

While I have ZERO problems with homosexuality, I do feel that it is important for the survival of the human race for males and females to mate and reproduce. To know my child will be gay... whew, not easy to answer.

You seriously think we have a population problem on this planet? If anything it is TOO MANY people procreating...


As for scientists, they WISH they could have that kind of control over human development, they are lucky they can guess the sex right more often than not... and as for if they should? Of course not, surely there are better things they can remove than that. I'd rather have a child that was gay then have a dominant cancer gene built in, or one who is prone to have MS or even worse be an arrogant scientist who thinks they are making a difference when all they are doing stirring up the public...

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Slow Roosevelt

as long as you dont touch hot lesbians.

I'm quite sure only the genetically predisposed bull dyke lesbians would be affected. :D

[epitome]

It is ignorant to believe that gay people do not have natural born children.

Gay men knock up lesbians all of the time. Sometimes the couple "take one for the team" and have sex and other times a turkey baster is involved.

There is also a gay gene or something that makes us gay. It is not a choice. The other day someone posted how homosexual brains resemble that of a heterosexual female, etc. If were a choice, a lot of us would be making the easier choice.

What the world doesn't acknowledge is that there are a lot more gay people than we know about. So many homosexual men and women marry the opposite sex due to pressures from society. Their marriages are usually a disaster and the smart one's wake up a dozen or two years later and finally decide to be true to themselves.

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

The "gay gene" may be naturally disfavored anyway.. since most gay people do not reproduce.

Some scientists say there's a genetic advantage to having the gay gene in a family line (not individual but family line). They are saying that if there's some survival advantage to the hetero (therefore reproducing) members of the family line, the gay gene would "piggyback" along the family line even if it produces nonreproducing members.

Also, the social stigma that accompanied homosexuality historically assured that the gay gene was passed on by otherwise gay people who were forced by society to act straight (aka get married and have kids)

[Holly Lez!]

Why do some straights think they have us all figured out.. I was born gay and I did not choose it I actually struggled with it for a very long time as did most of my gay friend..
I would not get rid of any gene even I had a straight son or daughter.. Let nature take it course and hope that your child is happy and healthy is all I would want

[IllTestYourGirls]

No gays would not die out, gays would start turning the gene on their child and have little gay babies.

[wig]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Which hypotheses?

Well, I don't think these follow, although its possible its only sarcasm:

Penis Face says "They are mother natures method of population control, since they wont have kids. Mother nature is crafty like that, you see."

And Warchild said: "I think people being sexually attracted to only the same sex is simply nature's way of ending a bloodline. Let's face it, evolution is a constant process and clearly not variants of the genepool produce positive results. What better way to weed out unwanted traits than to eliminate the ability to reproduce?"

In the first case, the amount of gays in a population has a negligible affect on population growth. Many gays also have kids because society has been slow to accept this orientation, so many have kids anyway, even if they later come out of the closet. It is not Mother Nature's method of population control. Mother Nature has better methods.

In the latter case, eliminating the unwanted trait (gayness) by eliminating the ability to reproduce would only follow if only gays were having gays. That's clearly not the case.

And when gay people have kids, the ratio of heterosexuality to homosexuality is roughly in the same proportion as conventional families. And, the siblings of gay people are just as likely to pass the bloodline (gene). I believe it reaches a point of equilibrium. I don't think it weeds out the trait.

[CDSmith]

Very good insights everyone, thanks for all the input.

I'm still wondering how some of you would feel if such a "service" would become available in the future. How would you feel if at some point doctors around the world started offering this to expecting parents? As in: "Your unborn son/daughter has an active gay gene and will in all likelyhood be gay. Would you like the gene neutralized?"

If you're gay, would the availability of such a service offend you and make you go ballistic with protesting?

If you're a parent or have ever been a parent, or you one day plan to BE a parent, what would you think/feel/do if presented with the above question regarding YOUR unborn child?

Will anyone step up and say "Yes, I would have it done. If given the choice I wouldn't want my child to be gay."?

Or would most people be against it? I realize we've covered the religious crowd, but what about average people in general?

[wig]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Very good insights everyone, thanks for all the input.

I'm still wondering how some of you would feel if such a "service" would become available in the future. How would you feel if at some point doctors around the world started offering this to expecting parents? As in: "Your unborn son/daughter has an active gay gene and will in all likelyhood be gay. Would you like the gene neutralized?"

If you're gay, would the availability of such a service offend you and make you go ballistic with protesting?

If you're a parent or have ever been a parent, or you one day plan to BE a parent, what would you think/feel/do if presented with the above question regarding YOUR unborn child?

Will anyone step up and say "Yes, I would have it done. If given the choice I wouldn't want my child to be gay."?

Or would most people be against it? I realize we've covered the religious crowd, but what about average people in general?

I'll put in my two cents on this...

First, I'll say that although I am not religious, it was this part of the dialogue that you had with Kane (and others maybe) that I found the most interesting.

To answer the question... I think I would choose to eliminate that trait. The reason is not that I am anti gay, because I am not. I believe it is 99.99% a genetic cause and I think that all people should be judged on their merits and not on their sexual orientation, gender, color, ethnicity, etc.

The sad part of it is that society has not "matured" enough and I would not want my child to be subject to the cruelness and stupidity of those that make up this segment of society.

Therefore, in the hypothetical scenario you are presenting, I would also want to eliminate additional traits that attract similar consequences, such as obesity, speech impediments, learning disorders, etc.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by wig

I'll put in my two cents on this...

First, I'll say that although I am not religious, it was this part of the dialogue that you had with Kane (and others maybe) that I found the most interesting.

To answer the question... I think I would choose to eliminate that trait. The reason is not that I am anti gay, because I am not. I believe it is 99.99% a genetic cause and I think that all people should be judged on their merits and not on their sexual orientation, gender, color, ethnicity, etc.

The sad part of it is that society has not "matured" enough and I would not want my child to be subject to the cruelness and stupidity of those that make up this segment of society.

Therefore, in the hypothetical scenario you are presenting, I would also want to eliminate additional traits that attract similar consequences, such as obesity, speech impediments, learning disorders, etc.

Excellent, thank you.

Although with regard to obesity I think it's often the result of one's circumstances later on in life or from poor choices, not from any genetic defect. Not always, but often.

[Dead]

CD, read the book and see the way that man chose to pass on, unbelievable considering the time he lived, he was a true seeker!

I believe the minute any manipulation is introduced into making "The Perfect human" there will be huge ramifications for trying to play god. The reasons we have disease is for cleaning the heard, but I am getting off tract......Gay......if it was a gene, and if it could be isolated and removed? I think somewhere down the genetic line a different trait would replace what was once there with something that was removed, maybe something way worse then what they thought they were curing. I vote for not fucking with Mother nature, she knows what she is doing.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Dead

CD, read the book and see the way that man chose to pass on, unbelievable considering the time he lived, he was a true seeker!

No worries, it's already added to my list of books to find, and just by what I know of it since you suggested it I already know I'm going to enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Dead

I believe the minute any manipulation is introduced into making "The Perfect human" there will be huge ramifications for trying to play god. The reasons we have disease is for cleaning the heard, but I am getting off tract......Gay......if it was a gene, and if it could be isolated and removed? I think somewhere down the genetic line a different trait would replace what was once there with something that was removed, maybe something way worse then what they thought they were curing. I vote for not fucking with Mother nature, she knows what she is doing.

Interesting theory. I wonder what that "way worse replacement trait" might be?

This thread could turn into more horror than sci-fi. :D

[Dead]

When it comes to medical, physical condition, I am a firm believer. I had a child that was diagnosed with a condition called CCAM, in a nut shell he had a mass on his lung that was putting pressure on his heart to the point of likely killing him if they did not intervene. He was still in his mother when they found this and we had no options except to abort his life from the mouths of her doctor at her womens center. We found a doctor, DR. Adzick, unbelievable human being. The only one at the time that was able to operate on children in utero, literally before these babies ever take their first breath....To this day our son is larger than life thanks to him, I owe him my world.
So I guess I am a bit of a hypocrite, when it comes to fixing a medical condition, I am all for modern medicine, but when the doctor is trying to make a predisposed condition being, blond hair and blue eyes, something that can be ordered? Na, I would never change the way any of mine are or will be.

[wig]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Excellent, thank you.

Although with regard to obesity I think it's often the result of one's circumstances later on in life or from poor choices, not from any genetic defect. Not always, but often.

Agreed. I am only speaking to the hypothetical situation involving genetics.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Dead

CD, read the book and see the way that man chose to pass on, unbelievable considering the time he lived, he was a true seeker!

I believe the minute any manipulation is introduced into making "The Perfect human" there will be huge ramifications for trying to play god. The reasons we have disease is for cleaning the heard, but I am getting off tract......Gay......if it was a gene, and if it could be isolated and removed? I think somewhere down the genetic line a different trait would replace what was once there with something that was removed, maybe something way worse then what they thought they were curing. I vote for not fucking with Mother nature, she knows what she is doing.

Your point is well taken. However, you can say the same thing regarding many diseases such as polio and small pox, and many parasites. We have cures for these. Is this playing god? Should we stop? Should we prevent couples with reproductive disabilities from having healthy children who fulfill their lives? Isn't this also playing god?

Craig Venter just created life in the lab and this has all the making of the slippery slope you are describing. Nevertheless, we must march on.... responsibly as possible, but we must continue to build upon the knowledge we accumulate because as terrifying as that may be it is still the best course of action.

[Dead]

Originally Posted by wig

Your point is well taken. However, you can say the same thing regarding many diseases such as polio and small pox, and many parasites. We have cures for these. Is this playing god? Should we stop? Should we prevent couples with reproductive disabilities from having healthy children who fulfill their lives? Isn't this also playing god?

Craig Venter just created life in the lab and this has all the making of the slippery slope you are describing. Nevertheless, we must march on.... responsibly as possible, but we must continue to build upon the knowledge we accumulate because as terrifying as that may be it is still the best course of action.

In my next post, you will see I am a firm believer of medicine helping out disease and potential risk that maybe encountered in ones well being.
I believe the trouble will be in genetic manipulation, and this is what I would not promote. Whether "gay gene" or any other genetic trait.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Dead

In my next post, you will see I am a firm believer of medicine helping out disease and potential risk that maybe encountered in ones well being.
I believe the trouble will be in genetic manipulation, and this is what I would not promote. Whether "gay gene" or any other genetic trait.

Yes, I see that. I'm just not clear on the difference you see. Is it just an intuition you have or is there something more specific?

I have not read the book you posted, but as CDSmith said it was prior to genetics as we know it. Are you basing your apprehension on information contained in this book or elsewhere?

Test tube babies (in vitro fertilization) were once considered "where the trouble would be", a "violation of Mother Nature" and "playing god". Today, the majority of people who held these fears have released them.

[CDSmith]

You guys are touching on something I said in my opening post, that some people would view this as gayness being treated like a disease. While most people have no problem with science finding ways to eliminate disease, many do have a problem with something that would eliminate a human genetic trait, like gayness.

Except the other problem being that a lot of OTHER people would embrace it and no doubt say "yes" when the doctor asks if they want this gene neutralized in their unborn children.

There's already a lot of conflicting opinions in this thread and the "service" doesn't even exist yet. Imagine if it became available next year or the year after though. I would be very surprised if there wasn't a massive uproar of protest over it.

I applaud the few of you who have come forward and stated openly and honestly as to what you'd do if you were an expecting parent and presented with with such a choice. I'd love it if more would answer the question.

[ProG]

It's real...

Has The "Gay Gene" Been Found in Female Mice?

[Dead]

My thought is as such, medicine as WE accept it, for the better of all human race, is trying to improve the life that that soul woke up into, nothing more. I am confident that these doctors will not be given anything more than they can offer, the immediate. My line would be crossed as soon as the ability will be available to pick a predisposed destination, simply based on what society deems right at that given time.

We are all for making simple malformations go away, be it disease, cleft lip, or spina bifida ...little things that can improve that person a chance to live a "normal" life.

But, the original question at hand here is....If I could choose to change the life of a son or daughter, to make them more sociably accepted, my answer would be, Hell No! Because no one on this big, blue spinning ball could say for any certainty, that they know what is right nor what is wrong, let fate decide the rest.

This is going to be common place in our lifetimes, I am certain. But when given the choice to decide anothers future based on social belief and social conditioning, we will certainly see a decline. Leave it to human beings to completely fuck up a perfectly good thing. Been doing it for years, and the rest is just history....

I guess it all comes down to quality of life. Is the said person happy, content, with themselves after the genius intervene with their outcome? Or would they never know what life had in store for them had they not been "treated"? This sword has two edges and both are just as sharp.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by ProG

It's real...

Has The "Gay Gene" Been Found in Female Mice?

Indeed the concept of it is. The research definitely is being conducted, so anyone saying "It's pure fantasy" or "It'll never happen" is probably being a bit premature, and maybe even a tad naive.

Park said he now wants to research whether this finding has any relevance for humans. The fact that he is in South Korea, where bioethics are notoriously bendable may prove important as he goes forward. Research that gets anywhere close to searching for a gay gene -- even with animals -- has been highly controversial in the U.S., where opposition cuts across the political spectrum.

Like I first thought, any definitive breakthrough in this area of genetic research is going to cause a veritable shitstorm of controversy and opposition. Like with so many other social issues you'd think people could just make their own personal decisions about it and be happy with that, and let others do the same. But of course as is all too often the case a lot of people will feel they have the right to decide for everyone else as to what they can and can't do.

This could be the new "abortion" issue, if it happens. And I think it will.