Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality

KeliOnyx

sligtlyskeptical
This gene could be natures way of saying these people should not procreate. If indeed this is natural, then the LG community should heed natures call and skip the parenting.

So using this logic your solution is that a heterosexual couple biologically incapable of having children are unfit parents as well?

I would say that is natures intention. I never said that unfit for parenting part, just that if gayness was intended by nature than that would point to nature not wanting them to reproduce. I have no idea why. Maybe it is natures way to get population under control?

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

I never said that unfit for parenting part, just that if gayness was intended by nature than that would point to nature not wanting them to reproduce.

Nature does not intend anything. Or are you talking about something else when you say "nature"?

reply to post by Phage

There are no detrimental health effects associated directly with homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a disease.

It would help MORE with survival (population control and resources etc).

tothetenthpower
I suppose another nail in the coffin to the " it's a choice" argument?

No. That would be a "nail in the coffin" for "no such thing as predisposition". Pretty much all the stuff you can pull up for "homosexuality is not a choice" correlates to alcoholism.

If not a choice then it's a disease.

So in your mind there are two options:

People remold their ENTIRE physiological response to stimuli after choosing to be gay (though I have yet to see anything even resembling an argument as to WHY someone would do that).* I mean, they couldn't get it up for boys if they were straight, right?** Or does this camp really think that teenage boys are sitting in their rooms saying, "well, all of these boys are in no way attractive to me, but, just for a lark, let's see if I can finish looking at one?"

OR

People who have a different neural pattern than you and yours are diseased and should be... fixed... so that they resemble you and yours? Should we round up the introverts and loners, and fix them too? Both of those groups seem just as at odds with this extroverted culture as gays do with the christian culture, and if being culturally immiscible means you're broken and diseased we may as well tackle all of these cultural failures at once, no?

You say that it will make them happy to 'fix' them. Do you really not realize that they are only unhappy because they are ostracized by a society that demands homogeneity and sameness? A culture that taunts them for being for who they are, a culture that tells them that they aren't even people, a culture that is filled with people who will literally murder them for having a different physiological response to the world. You talk about gays being diseased, but the culture that will unceremoniously ruin and end their lives is fine? How about you do something to fix the obscene amount of hate in the world instead of going out of your way to remove some of the small amount love?



*Inb4 the devil

**Oddly enough, that's all any "it's a choice" advocates need to do. Temporarily choose to be gay, demonstrate the physiological change, and choose to be straight again while demonstrating the second physiological change. Wham, case closed. Or it might just prove they were in the closet to begin with... Man, if only there was a literal library full of anthropological evidence that proved our country's response to homosexuality is entirely cultural and arbitrary, and that, simultaneously, thousands of other cultures, across time and space, have seen no disease or immoral choices in homosexuals. But obviously modern America (well, America 40 years ago) is the pinnacle of human culture, no one else had reality tv, gnomesayin?

I have no respect for you nor your posts. Never have never will.

Look up the definition of disease. There is more than one meaning to the word. And no I do not want to see quotes that you have plucked from a google search.

reply to post by framedragged


I love it when people post extremely long things that lose my interest in the first sentence.

I didn't read it and have no need to.

Like I said before. If there was a "cure" maybe some homosexuals can feel like they are accepted. I bet you have never seen X-men I suppose. Maybe some gays do not want to be gay. Are you saying that we should keep them trapped, forcing them to like the wrong sex?

reply to post by TheLotLizard

If not a choice then it's a disease.

They need to isolate the gene and finally remove it.

Heterosexuality is not a choice.

Therefore it's a disease, and it needs to be removed.

You either need to concede to this or rethink your argument.

reply to post by TheLotLizard


Wait, what? i'm a disease? or i have a disease?

the amount of people who agree with you is mind numbing...

reply to post by TheLotLizard

Look up the definition of disease. There is more than one meaning to the word. And no I do not want to see quotes that you have plucked from a google search.

ACtually, there are four:

Source

A disease is an abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism. It is often construed as a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs.[1] It may be caused by factors originally from an external source, such as infectious disease, or it may be caused by internal dysfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases. In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories. Diseases usually affect people not only physically, but also emotionally, as contracting and living with many diseases can alter one's perspective on life, and one's personality.

Death due to disease is called death by natural causes. There are four main types of disease: pathogenic disease, deficiency disease, hereditary disease, and physiological disease. Diseases can also be classified as communicable and non-communicable. The deadliest disease in humans is ischemic heart disease (blood flow obstruction),[2] followed by cerebrovascular disease and lower respiratory infections respectively.[3]

None of which Homosexuality would fall into.

You have the right to your own opinions, but certainly not your own facts. If your rebutal is going to be regarding the source I used, please see the FOOTNOTES section of the article for direct links .

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

You completely ignored a demand not to do that.
Shame on you.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Like I said it causes "social problems" does it not?

But I'll let you skip that part.

reply to post by Phage


Right?

Apparently anything 'google' finds on the internet isn't good enough.

Maybe I should have pulled some deep web sources..

~Tenth

TheLotLizard
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Like I said it causes "social problems" does it not?

But I'll let you skip that part.

Social problems?

For who?

Those who are opposed to it?

It seems to be that the problems associated with homosexuality do not stem from those who are homosexual, but from those who have a problem WITH homosexuals.

So in that case, if you'd like to call it a disease, then it was one that was created, outside of the group you are ascribing it to, for the purposes of pushing an agenda of intolerance.

Again, there are no actual definitions of disease that would include homosexuality. Outside of a subjective view of the english language, which again, is your right, but certainly must be looked at for what it is.

An opinion.

~Tenth

reply to post by Bedlam

Well, fact would be that the purpose of mammals is to reproduce.

Interesting. I imagined the purpose of mammals was to not just create new life but to live the life they were given. To render life's purpose to eating, crapping, and screwing, is a disingenuous representation of our lives and the meaning we find.

reply to post by TheLotLizard


What do you mean about "social problem"? People with Down's syndrome is certainly causing problems to our society.

Oh before I forget.... Stephen Hawking is causing us problems.

reply to post by TheLotLizard

I love it when people post extremely long things that lose my interest in the first sentence.

Four paragraphs is extremely long?

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Well, fact would be that the purpose of mammals is to reproduce.

Interesting. I imagined the purpose of mammals was to not just create new life but to live the life they were given. To render life's purpose to eating, crapping, and screwing, is a disingenuous representation of our lives and the meaning we find.

Tell it to a shrew, rabbit or cow. I don't think they have a high sense of art or the meaning of their lives. Other than "look, grass!"

eta: the biological definition of life is basically "that which eats, craps and screws".

reply to post by Bedlam

But what are they for?
What is their purpose? And who decided what that purpose is?
Cows? I know what they're good for. But is that their purpose?

reply to post by TheLotLizard

I love it when people post extremely long things that lose my interest in the first sentence.

I didn't read it and have no need to.

So in other words, you don't care what anyone has to say if it's against your opinion?
Because that's all it is--your views, what you think should be done, not facts

Not one for a good debate/discussion, are you?

Only as long as comments agree with you, do you care

Good to know