namelesstavern.net

Why not? The mother already has 100% control over the life or death of that child before it even exits her snatch. (without the consent of ANYONE but her, which is fucking ridiculous)

Why wouldn't they be able to fix a problem at an early age before it manifests? (without the consent of ANYONE)

Ohhhhhhhh, I see, hippy bullshit only works in one direction. It's like sharkskin bullshit.

Because it's not a "problem".

Such homophobia in this thread, it's unreal.

Being gay genetically is no more a "defect" than being left-handed is. You know the term "sinister" derives from the latin term for left-handed people? People who were left-handed were looked at as if there was something wrong with them for millenia. Since people were viewed more negatively, it made it less likely they would pass their genes along. So by Harrison's logic, it was something to be "cured", yes? Bullshit. Being predisposed to being gay is no more "wrong" than being predisposed to being left-handed is. Anyone who says otherwise is just a bigoted asshole.

Hell, there may be genetic advantages to it we're not aware of. There are many "defects" that look bad in one light but actually provide a survival advantage in certain circumstances. Think Sickle-Cell anemia. If both regressive strains show up, that person doesn't live very long since their blood cells crumple into new moon shapes and can't fit into their capillaries. If someone only has 1 of 2 chromosomes with the regressive trait, however, it provides an immunity to Malaria, which is huge for people living in a subtropical environment. Perhaps homosexuality helped out early societies by cutting down on intra-tribal strife among early man. After all, if Caveman Og REALLY liked Caveman Ugh, and visa versa, there's less chance that they'd brain each other over who got to sleep with Oglette this week.

MANY species we see today have rates of homosexuality similar to mankind's. Species that have been around as long or longer than we have. If it was some horrible anti-survival trait, it would have disappeared millions of years ago. It hasn't, obviously. QED.

Oh, and Harrison, there is a HUGE HUGE difference between aborting a fetus and practicing pre-natal eugenics and genetic modification. Vast, monstrous, incredible distance. That you apparently can't see that is intensely disturbing.

-Arlos

One other thing that doesn't jive with me.

If homosexuality is such a terrible condition for propelling the species, how did the genes survive all these years?

Zanchief wrote:One other thing that doesn't jive with me.

If homosexuality is such a terrible condition for propelling the species, how did the genes survive all these years?

Read about the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model.

It almost applies, but it doesn't because the very nature of the gene in question dictates that non-random mating will occur where those with the double recessive genotype do not reproduce.

Arlos, do how do you feel about Down's Syndrome? Is aborting a fetus with that trisomy acceptable or not?

If it's in the first or early 2nd trimester, sure, same as any other fetus. And I could certainly understand a parents' desire not to have to deal with the vast amount of extra work, hardship, pain and expense of raising a child with Down's. That said, I don't see Downs and homosexuality to be even remotely in the same ballpark. One completely stunts the normal development, both mental and physical of a potential person, and screws them over in just about every single facet of life. The other, they happen to feel attracted to the same sex. Big deal. Without our current society's prejudice against such things, they'd have no harder a life than anyone else. That's the difference: someone who's homosexual only faces difficulties due to societal pressures, the same as a left-handed person did in the middle ages. Society changes, no more problems. (Don't see people burning people at the stake for being left-handed any more, do you?) Down's, on the other hand, is major physical impact, and leaves them mentally and physically crippled for life, irrespective of society.

-Arlos

Being gay genetically is no more a "defect" than being left-handed is

That's what I was trying to say before ><

I think with what Zan is saying that isn't being caught is this - many years ago, there was no research that said that homosexuality had anything to do with genetics - it was assumed that it was all behavioral, and people chose to be that way - many christians still believe this, and always will

So with his oral sex example, if in 20 years it's discovered that the desire for it is also a genetic 'defect,' should we "cure" everyone who enjoys it? It doesn't make for reproduction afterall, and hetero couples could thrive on that for all of their needs and wants and never take part in intercourse, and how is that any different than taking part in homosexual intercourse on the norm?

What *I* was trying to say was that in the event there were no other sciences to allow homosexual couples to have babies, they could just as easily partake in the common practice of heterosexual intercourse if they wanted to reproduce, just as a couple could choose never to have intercourse unless it was to make a baby.

It has nothing to do with hippy bullshit, it has to do with you being a homophobe and viewing people different than you as wrong. Being a redhead is just as much an alteration of genes as being gay, fyi - I've met one redhead out of several that I actually like; they seem to harbor similar personalities.. so can we cure you of that defect so that you may be more tolerable to people who find you odd?

Newsflash as well - virgins don't reproduce either. That's not to insult, but homosexuals are causing no more danger to the human race than a virgin or a celibate person is. I'm sure you'll say 'that's ridiculous, apples to oranges' but how is it, exactly? You choose not to have sex, but could you? Sure you could. Homosexuals choose not to have sex with the opposite sex, but can they? They sure can.

Adam - as to what you said to Arlos.. being gay does not hurt your quality of life as having downs does. Being gay is not debilitating, it doesn't stop you from learning or functioning as a normal adult. Having downs does. Abortion, however, is a whole new can of worms

Gypsiyee wrote:

Being gay genetically is no more a "defect" than being left-handed is

That's what I was trying to say before ><

I think with what Zan is saying that isn't being caught is this - many years ago, there was no research that said that homosexuality had anything to do with genetics - it was assumed that it was all behavioral, and people chose to be that way - many christians still believe this, and always will

So with his oral sex example, if in 20 years it's discovered that the desire for it is also a genetic 'defect,' should we "cure" everyone who enjoys it? It doesn't make for reproduction afterall, and hetero couples could thrive on that for all of their needs and wants and never take part in intercourse, and how is that any different than taking part in homosexual intercourse on the norm?

What *I* was trying to say was that in the event there were no other sciences to allow homosexual couples to have babies, they could just as easily partake in the common practice of heterosexual intercourse if they wanted to reproduce, just as a couple could choose never to have intercourse unless it was to make a baby.

It has nothing to do with hippy bullshit, it has to do with you being a homophobe and viewing people different than you as wrong. Being a redhead is just as much an alteration of genes as being gay, fyi - I've met one redhead out of several that I actually like; they seem to harbor similar personalities.. so can we cure you of that defect so that you may be more tolerable to people who find you odd?

Newsflash as well - virgins don't reproduce either. That's not to insult, but homosexuals are causing no more danger to the human race than a virgin or a celibate person is. I'm sure you'll say 'that's ridiculous, apples to oranges' but how is it, exactly? You choose not to have sex, but could you? Sure you could. Homosexuals choose not to have sex with the opposite sex, but can they? They sure can.

Adam - as to what you said to Arlos.. being gay does not hurt your quality of life as having downs does. Being gay is not debilitating, it doesn't stop you from learning or functioning as a normal adult. Having downs does. Abortion, however, is a whole new can of worms

w0rd

Zanchief wrote:One other thing that doesn't jive with me.

If homosexuality is such a terrible condition for propelling the species, how did the genes survive all these years?

exactly the same way as in Arlos's example

it could be a recessive trait (like blue eyes)

it evolved..read wikipedia about blonde hair..interesting stuff.

no

You guys are incorrectly stating that I am somehow a homophobe in any sense of the word. When I was younger it of course bothered the shit out of me. It made no sense to me and I was fully incapable of understanding it. Now that I am older and actually have had a few friends turn out to BE homosexuals (male and female) it's been demystified in a sense to me. That and I'm a lot more wise than I was previously.

I've had discussions about this with other gay friends and they can certainly understand where I'm coming from with this line of thinking.

And Arlos, I know there is a huge difference between the two you mentioned earlier. My point is if you can do one, what is stopping them from doing the other?

If they can abort the fetus with no one's consent, why would it somehow change if they wanted to genetically alter one without anyone's consent??

can you imagine how apeshit zanchief would go if you said the gay dude was black

As a matter of fact, it was a black chick. I never knew she was a lesbian until High School.

I still talk to her and see her at bars fairly often.

Tikker wrote:can you imagine how apeshit zanchief would go if you said the gay dude was black

What the christ are you going on about now?