Justice or Travesty?

[Gidan]

I am so honored that you would dumb down enought to get to my level.

[Tikker]

It's not that "I don't like homosexuals" at all, not even close.

I am with the crew of people that say something went a little loopy and now they're homosexual.

Whether it be from environment, or otherwise...Something isn't right.

I wasn't the one comparing animals to humans. I believe Rust was the one inferring that ignorance.

homosexuality, for the most part, is accepted as just a mutation within a species

It is? Give me some proof, please.

When the genetically altered fruit fly was released into the observation chamber, it did what these breeders par excellence tend to do. It pursued a waiting virgin female. It gently tapped the girl with its leg, played her a song (using wings as instruments) and, only then, dared to lick her - all part of standard fruit fly seduction.

The observing scientist looked with disbelief at the show, for the suitor in this case was not a male, but a female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene.

That one gene, the researchers are announcing today in the journal Cell, is apparently by itself enough to create patterns of sexual behavior - a kind of master sexual gene that normally exists in two distinct male and female variants.

In a series of experiments, the researchers found that females given the male variant of the gene acted exactly like males in courtship, madly pursuing other females. Males that were artificially given the female version of the gene became more passive and turned their sexual attention to other males.

"We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior," said the paper's lead author, Dr. Barry Dickson, senior scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. "It's very surprising.

"What it tells us is that instinctive behaviors can be specified by genetic programs, just like the morphologic development of an organ or a nose."

Just googled some quickly

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm


Again, it's definately not something they can isolate in man yet, but they've been able to replicate it in flies, and have observed the same thing in multiple species

[Lyion]

Interesting. I'll have to read up further on this.

Although human genetic manipulation =! random mutation, this is an interesting read and I hadn't heard of it.

[Tikker]

they're purposely altering the fly gene in order to test if homosexual tendencies are genetic, or social

I think they actually set out to prove it wasn't genetic, and were surprised by the outcome


If you read the studies, they haven't been able to isolate the gene(s) in humans, but they believe that it's based on a genetic order on the X chromosome passed on by mothers

Like, if you have twin boys, it's very very rare for one to be gay, and one to be straight

99/100 if one is gay, both are gay (and the opposite, if one is straight, both are straight)



On a simplistic level, I would imagine it works like how eye colour is determined, or how anemia is passed on

[Rust]

You're so fucking amazingly dumb it is staggering that people think you're even a glimmer of intellectual worth.

Homosexual behavior is seen in a number of different species, not just primates. There are even sociobiological arguments that it improves species fitness, as non-breeding adults can devote effort to helping raise others offspring. So, no, 'common sense' doesn't say it's wrong, that's just your hick prejudices talking, boy.

I warned you previously.

There are even sociobiological arguments that it improves species fitness, as non-breeding adults can devote effort to helping raise others offspring.

That has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Non-breeding adults don't have to be homosexual. We see this in various different social animals that raise eachother's young. Last I checked... they weren't homosexuals either.

Homosexuality is a trait that renders the possessor non-breeding. You're really quite dense when it suits you, aren't you? Please explain the difference in fitness accruing if a male is heterosexual and non-breeding by choice or injury, or if he is homosexual and nonbreeding by desire (or injury).

That was a pathetic attempt at backing homosexuality in nature with a baseless claim.

Oh, I don't care much for most of sociobiology either, but it's a plausible claim for increased fitness resulting from a segment of the population being homosexual - otherwise the selection pressure would tend to eliminate the trait, since gays don't normally breed.

Oh and I'd like to point out this shining example of golden hypocrisy!

Parents aren't gods, they don't have unlimited rights over their offspring.

You truly are just a fucking moron with a vocabulary. Hide behind the mother's choice until it doesn't suit your needs or argument right? I would expect no less from you.

Maybe if you did some reading, you wouldn't be confused when I use relevant technical terms. Instead, your way of arguing seems to be shouting really loudly without providing any actual support for your (generally bigoted and frequently stupid) claims.

Hey it's HER body, let her do with it as she pleases! Oh wait, the child has the "homosexual gene" and you want to correct that?! FUCK NO YOU AREN'T GODS YOU CAN'T DO THAT

Oh you want to kill the baby? That's cool, step into my office.

I know you're grossly uneducated (by choice), but you don't need to compound it by being intentionally stupid, do you? The right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy obviously has limits, as I clearly stated. That you chose to ignore that is your problem. Fetuses acquire legal rights when they're 'born alive'. That's a legal statement. I know some locales have passed laws saying fetuses are legal persons, but that's rare, and I'm putting that aside for the purpose of the general argument.

Allowing experimentation on fetuses 'since the mother plans to abort it anyhow in a few days' runs the risk of having the woman change her mind (which some women do, you know), and the result being something even more mentally damaged than *you*, Finawin, which I don't think anyone should be in favor of. With apologies to Justice Holmes, one generation of Finawins is enough.

My position is consistent, and based on generally accepted legal and ethical norms. You on the other hand should be looking at suing your mother's OB for evidently squeezing too hard with the tongs, as it would relieve your family and the state of the burden of supporting your lazy, pimpled ass.

--R.

[Rust]

You know.... is anyone else annoyed by the fact that HE will be charged for killing the baby, but SHE won't? It is not as if she didn't take part in it, she admitted to punching herself in the stomach. If he is to be punished shouldn't she be as well?

She's equally guilty, except the law specifically exempts her.

So she can't be charged. Nobody said life is fair, sadly.

--R.

[Rust]

It's not that "I don't like homosexuals" at all, not even close.

I am with the crew of people that say something went a little loopy and now they're homosexual.

Whether it be from environment, or otherwise...Something isn't right.

I wasn't the one comparing animals to humans. I believe Rust was the one inferring that ignorance.

Yeah, he doesn't hate gays, they're just 'defective'.

Run the clock back a few decades, and picture him saying 'I don't hate niggers, they're just an inferior race.'

Ignorance or malice, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes, isn't it?

Oh, note that Finawin also claims humans are not animals. Makes sense since he's evidently got the brains God gave a plant. Or maybe a rock, I don't mean to insult plants.

--R.

[Harrison]

You've grown quite skillful at dodging and obfuscating the issue and then changing the subject to one everyone else will frothingly pounce upon.

Your argument, if you want to call bouncing in circles around an issue and skirting around it to get everyone to insult me an "argument"....

We all know everyone will pounce on me given the chance. You used that to your advantage so no one will notice your lack of retort.

[Diekan]

To think that these two peices of human trash are still breathing is more scary than what they did. They should be dead.

[Tikker]

We all know everyone will pounce on me given the chance. You used that to your advantage so no one will notice your lack of retort.

Maybe you need to check into why people are so willing to pounce on you?

Everyone who lurks these boards has said dumb shit from time to time, but it kind of seems like you've said enough to last you a couple more years

[Harrison]

Something that contradicts your way of thinking is dumb?

I see now how you people think you're so intelligent. Everything that contradicts your little world is labeled dumb, making you seem intelligent by contrast.

I'm awaiting Rust's next long-winded reply chock full of dodging and latin catch phrases and filler.

-H "sick of blowhard canadians"

Forgot the 'g' in long-winded.

[Tikker]

Something that contradicts your way of thinking is dumb?

Not at all

you just consistently say dumb things


the rest of us just occassionally say dumb things

[Zanchief]

Something that contradicts your way of thinking is dumb?

Not at all

you just consistently say dumb things


the rest of us just occassionally say dumb things

Not true, I'm consistently moronic.

[Narrock]

You heard it here first folks

/screenshot

[The Kizzy]

This is sad really, especially in a country where abortion is legal. Bad choice on the kids. I don't think he deserves life in prison. He will win on appeal.
+

[Tikker]

I definately think it's a crock of shit that he'd get life in prison for it
While I do believe that people should ahve the choice to choose, they definately went about it the wrong way, and should be punished someway

but not with life sentences

[Ironfang]

We are not lawyers to interpret the law. That is what judges are for.

The jury part, sadly shown to be wrong far too damned often, just tends to try and make a court case more "fair" by having someone non-involved making the judgement (/boggle, what the hell is the judge really for then?).

This, under the laws of the state, is murder. The guy got the murder 1 charge for knowing what he was doing. The woman got off because she is 17 and they refused to try her as an adult, even if she knew what she was doing.

The supreme court, on appeal, can only overturn a case if their was an error in the trial, like missing facts, or if the interpretation of the law was incorrect. In this case he killed the "kids" and it will be very hard for him to win on any appeal.

And if the woman involved in this brilliant work of proving why she should never be a mother was 18 or older she would be in for life, just like he is. She likely only got off due to the stupid laws ruling of an adult being 18.

Note the best part of 18, you can vote, go to jail, fight a war, but not legally drink. The last ruling brought to you by the "moral majority" or whatever stupid name the US right wants to call themselves.

The only thing that is the difference between the "liberals" and the right wingers is that the right wingers attack any time they are questioned about anything. After all, if you are defending yourself from some groundless attack you cannot be pointing out that the right wingers have never responded to the original issue.

[Ironfang]

And as to Homosexuality being normal, of course it is "not" normal. Anything that affects only 1-3% of a population is not a normal thing. Nor is sexual attraction to members of your own sex that cannot lead to reproduction.

Being homosexual is not wrong, it is. Society's norms, and accepted standards are what determines how much, or how little tolerance people have for things that are different. As being homosexual involves sex, and sex is taboo to talk about for a large percentage of people, it just brings out the idiots in too many people.

It is their life to live. If it gets them off, good for them. How else can anyone live with the strange sexual practices/perversions that "normal" people have?

[Agrajag]

I got to thinking about an earlier post of mine on the subject of Homosexuality. I posted that there is no purpose for it. I started thinking about it and did come up with a natural reason for homosexuality and why it only affects 1-3% of the populace.

Population control.

That's it in a nutshell. The fags aren't hurting you, they're helping you by not procreating

[Wrath Child]

Yeah, he doesn't hate gays, they're just 'defective'.

Run the clock back a few decades, and picture him saying 'I don't hate niggers, they're just an inferior race.'
Ignorance or malice, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes, isn't it?

From an evolutionary point of view, what exactly is wrong with that statement? Is it not true? Or are you going to add a dash of MLK and declare that all men are created equal?

If you believe in evolution, there is no rational or logical way you can say that all races of humans are equal.

[xaoshaen]

Yeah, he doesn't hate gays, they're just 'defective'.

Run the clock back a few decades, and picture him saying 'I don't hate niggers, they're just an inferior race.'
Ignorance or malice, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes, isn't it?

From an evolutionary point of view, what exactly is wrong with that statement? Is it not true? Or are you going to add a dash of MLK and declare that all men are created equal?

If you believe in evolution, there is no rational or logical way you can say that all races of humans are equal.

This should be fun... can we spin this off into its own thread?

[Agrajag]

I hate to say it, but no "race" of people are equal. Blacks are more susceptible to some diseases. Women too. Every race has it's drawbacks and it's perks. The sooner people realize this and develop a thing called tolerance towards other races, the sooner this planet will be a better place.

That goes for religious tolerance, also!

[Arlos]

Good gods, I think we have a new Grand High Lord King of stupid statements. Congratulations, Wrath Child, you have managed to eclipse even Mindia, Ixnay, and the previous title holder, Hammerkeg! Wear your new crown of Supreme Ultimate Moron with pride!

Just because you deserve SOME level of comment: We're all homo sapiens, you fucking brainless retard. Well, OK, maybe YOU aren't. I wasn't aware that genetic atavism back to the level of australopithicus was possible, but you are evidently LIVING PROOF. You should turn yourself in to the nearest academy of science for dissection and further study immediately.

-Arlos

[Wrath Child]

And as to homosexuals. again, since being gay isn't 'wrong' or 'not normal' I would leave it up to the individual. Now, if the treatment only worked in utero, then I'd say the state has a compelling reason to ban the treatment, since being gay is perfectly normal in some humans. Exposing a fetus to a completely useless medical treatment (which would presumably pose some risk to the fetus), just because the parents have some homophobia, is rather blatantly medically unethical. Primum no nocere. isn't that how it goes? And assuming the treatment was possible as an adult, let the individual decide. Parents aren't gods, they don't have unlimited rights over their offspring.

I don't have time this morning to go through and comment on your whole post but this part can't be ignored:

"Now, if the treatment only worked in utero, then I'd say the state has a compelling reason to ban the treatment, since being gay is perfectly normal in some humans. Exposing a fetus to a completely useless medical treatment (which would presumably pose some risk to the fetus), just because the parents have some homophobia, is rather blatantly medically unethical."

If memory serves me right, you are pro-choice, are you not? If that is the case, then who are you to decide what a woman does with her body in regards to her fetus? Should we ban all abortions that take place because the woman didn't like the gender of her baby(almost always females), which happens all too often? Exactly what limits on abortion are you in favor of?

Certainly you aren't going to try and argue that "exposing a fetus to a completely useless medical treatment (which would presumably pose some risk to the fetus)...is rather blatantly medically unethical" but outright killing that very same fetus is perfectly acceptable and medically ethical?

Curious...

Under the common law, a fetus en ventre sa mere has no real legal rights. What it has is sort of a claim on retroactive rights, once it is born. Some political jurisdictions have changed this, giving a fetus actual rights, of course. But in most Western states, once a baby is born, it can sue (via a guardian or parent presumably) for harms inflicted in the womb.

So if I want to hide behind a legalistic screen, I can point out that in the first case, of abortion, the fetus is not 'born alive' and so never becomes a legal person with rights. The baby who was treated in the womb on the other hand, acquires a retroactive right to sue for any harm caused by a proceedure. Now, if the treatment was medically necessary (say for 'blue baby' or some other problem that really needs to be treated in the womb), obviously the doctor has a good defense against any claim for harm, if he can show the proceedure was carried out properly with a given degree of skill and due care. If harm was inflicted due to a medically frivolous treatment (like, say, 'curing' homosexuality) then I suspect the doctor would not only face serious civil liability, but ethical charges from a professional body.

In terms of a moral basis, obviously the aim is to balance competing interests as well. Given that in my world, abortion is a woman's right, that doesn't mean there are no limits - I do not support elective abortions once the fetus is viable, and I would also not support medical experimentation on fetuses in the womb, even if they were going to be aborted, absent some pretty damn compelling rationale, which I leave to others to construct. As to gender selection and aborting female fetuses, I would support banning the practice medically - both sex determination and elective abortions based on the gender. The woman can abort or not, but there's no reason that a doctor has to tell her the gender. It's not medically relevant information. Or only allow it in the third trimester. Now, if there was a condition where all your male offspring would inherit a Y-linked genetic disorder, I could see some justification in aborting. But that's not your scenario.

Abortion is a medical proceedure. No more, no less.

--R.

Interesting. Your opinions are quite similiar to mine own yet you still refer to yourself as "pro-choice". Most real pro-choicers would no doubt think of you as the enemy. A bible-thumper wannabe!

But at least you see a few of the things I and others fear are lying in wait at the bottom of this newest slippery slope we're all sliding down together. Make no mistake, if there is a homo-gene, scientists will find it. And other scientists will find a way of detecting it early on and correcting it. It's all part of the "designer baby" future that's been coming into view over the past decade or so.

[Darcler]

I hate watching non-gays argue about homosexuality.