-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
scientists screw with genetics, make gays switch teams
- Thread starter Matlock
- Start date
- Status
Escape Goat
Member
Turning flies into lesbians, One day at a time.
Escape Goat
Member
science is the tool of the devil...it can do what? God has given gays the opportunity to repent!
krypt0nian
Banned
Next up: changing Black flies into White flies?
:|
My gay genes are just fine, thank you.
:|
My gay genes are just fine, thank you.
Late Stage Marxist
Member
And Ron Reagan has 2nd thoughts...Fuzzy said:
SatelliteOfLove
Member
Fuzzy said:
And the Rainbow Coalition pulls support for genetic research into the genetics behind homosexuality.
Can we get these funds into cancer and inherited syndrome research instead? Lone voice in the wilderness, ain't I?
videogamer
Banned
The Rainbow Coalition run by Jesse Jackson or a gay rights group?SatelliteOfLove said:
1. Well, yes (assuming that you are American). Since this research was done in Austria, it's probably funded by Austrian/European money.
2. Why cancer and "inherited syndrome research"? How would this be done? Research into analogous diseases in Drosophila? Funding into human cells? Why not regeneration? Also, a lot of insights into how the human body was built on research in simple organisms such as Drosophila or C. elegans.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
Hammy said:
*blink* *blink* What?
Why do your lines of questioning rarely go anywhere or have a point? Going on about EU funding, sling-shotting to other quality-of-life medical fronts, and ending up with freaking roundworms. Give your posts a read-thru once in a while; it does wonders.
videogamer
Banned
The point is to counter your statement.SatelliteOfLove said:
Why did I mention the "EU funding" (btw I didn't use the word "EU")? It was because you suggested that the funds be spent elsewhere. As an American citizen (assumption), you really don't have a vote in that.
Why did I mention "other quality-of-life medical" issues? Because you mentioned two areas of research. Why not other areas?
Why did I mention Drosophila and C. elegans? It was just in case you objected to research on fruit fly genetics.
I do. Apparently I need to make them more clear for you.
Shogmaster
Member
krypt0nian said:
Human sexuality is far more complex than a single gene. Besides, it's more to do with the mother's hormonal influence on the brain of the fetus while in the womb than genetics from what I've read.
People who think all non terminal illness research is useless are a pet peeve of mine. 
Also, while this does establish a clear genetic link in orientation in flies and lends credence to similar genetic wiring in humans, flie genes are not human genes. For us it could be a lot more complicated than a simple on/off switch.
Also, while this does establish a clear genetic link in orientation in flies and lends credence to similar genetic wiring in humans, flie genes are not human genes. For us it could be a lot more complicated than a simple on/off switch.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Hitokage said:
Is it a slider? Or a tri state switch, 1, 0, or Z?
In the end...
it has to be said... homosexuality is a natural, evolutionary and social abberration.
The reality is that a persons orientation has little effect on most of their abilities... nor does it imply much for their judgement in most matters, such that it would do us little harm to leave them alone...
but the reality is also that humans are biased cunts, they naturally see any difference, especially one as major and touchy feely as sexuality as an obstacle to acceptance.
Removing the gay gene is a positive thing in the sense that you don't get people and societies expending effort on trying to work their minds around another difference, and you don't get the homosexuals themselves suffering the discrimination that comes naturally to people, as a result of how they're wired.
it has to be said... homosexuality is a natural, evolutionary and social abberration.
The reality is that a persons orientation has little effect on most of their abilities... nor does it imply much for their judgement in most matters, such that it would do us little harm to leave them alone...
but the reality is also that humans are biased cunts, they naturally see any difference, especially one as major and touchy feely as sexuality as an obstacle to acceptance.
Removing the gay gene is a positive thing in the sense that you don't get people and societies expending effort on trying to work their minds around another difference, and you don't get the homosexuals themselves suffering the discrimination that comes naturally to people, as a result of how they're wired.
krypt0nian
Banned
Zaptruder said:
Yes difference is bad. We should start a white male clone army and set out to take over the galaxy. One purpose, united. No wasted effort, or discrimination.
I'm not sure if there's a 'discrimination' gene per se, so much as there is a survival mechanism and an efficient cognitive sorting process. We've developed these functions to become more efficient, and cope better with the world... but at the same time, they have negative side effects of discrimination.
We stereotype, because simply put, we can't take the time and effort to identify every characteristic of everything we see, do, learn, so it's easier and more efficient to learn group traits and apply group expectations to defining characteristics in individuals.
We show bias, because it has helped us in the past, accurately and efficiently identify friendly members against hostile/neutral members.
So yeah... if your counterpoint to my above post was going to be why don't they engineer out discrimination out of people, those would be your reasons.
We stereotype, because simply put, we can't take the time and effort to identify every characteristic of everything we see, do, learn, so it's easier and more efficient to learn group traits and apply group expectations to defining characteristics in individuals.
We show bias, because it has helped us in the past, accurately and efficiently identify friendly members against hostile/neutral members.
So yeah... if your counterpoint to my above post was going to be why don't they engineer out discrimination out of people, those would be your reasons.
krypt0nian
Banned
Zaptruder said:
When you say "we" you must mean evoultionary ladder. "We" as in thinking humans cannot excuse the idiocy of dicrimination and stereotyping as a positive social tool.
krypt0nian said:
On a biological, social, evolutionary point of view...
do you think this is a needed difference?
You know, I actually have this theory that, most people are a homogenous sexuality. That is they take cues from the society about what's right and wrong and correspond accordingly. That is to say, if a random person was born a different gender, with all their mind intact, then even ignoring the changes in chemicals between the two bodies, they'd simply pick up cues from the society and perform accordingly. But that's neither here nor there.
krypt0nian
Banned
Zaptruder said:
Those that can identify that "differences" are not "threats" are far better off in the evolutionary race.
ok, here is what I don't understand, and it goes beyond this, so I won't use the term gay or homosexual.
if you as a human were genetically or mentally inclined to be one way, whether you liked the taste of meatloaf, liked the color blue, or found chick flicks stupid, and there was a pill that would and could reverse any of those dispositions without side effect and without "physical memory", that is you would never miss liking the color blue because you just won't like it any more, you like red now instead and that is just the way you feel, what would the impact be?
To speak directly to this topic, the question remains the same. if a gay person were to "take a pill" and truly not be gay afterwards; no homosexual feelings, no emotional or sexual attraction to members of the same sex, would there at all be any regret for no longer being gay if that just isn't how they feel anymore? and by way of transitive theory, the same could be asked of straight people. if they were to take a pill to be gay, and just held no interest afterwards of being straight (without any of the emotional issues with typical bigotry that can happen towards a gay person), what would the impact be?
it also goes a small ways towards answering the question on if it is a choice or not, because in this case someone would have the choice, literally, and the complete control over making it.
if you as a human were genetically or mentally inclined to be one way, whether you liked the taste of meatloaf, liked the color blue, or found chick flicks stupid, and there was a pill that would and could reverse any of those dispositions without side effect and without "physical memory", that is you would never miss liking the color blue because you just won't like it any more, you like red now instead and that is just the way you feel, what would the impact be?
To speak directly to this topic, the question remains the same. if a gay person were to "take a pill" and truly not be gay afterwards; no homosexual feelings, no emotional or sexual attraction to members of the same sex, would there at all be any regret for no longer being gay if that just isn't how they feel anymore? and by way of transitive theory, the same could be asked of straight people. if they were to take a pill to be gay, and just held no interest afterwards of being straight (without any of the emotional issues with typical bigotry that can happen towards a gay person), what would the impact be?
it also goes a small ways towards answering the question on if it is a choice or not, because in this case someone would have the choice, literally, and the complete control over making it.
krypt0nian
Banned
borghe said:
So you'd take the "gay" pill then? If not, then you're implying that being straight is a choice for you right?
Litigation Manuel
Member
This does bring some more evidence to biological factors on homosexuality, but not wholly. Previous experiments on the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals post-mortem show a larger size and different structure of the hypothalamus, the area of the brain which controls sex drive and function, in homosexuals than that of heterosexuals. However, it was not entirely consistent, some heterosexuals had similar structure and size to homosexuals. Also, studies on identical twins only show 52% are both homosexual, a larger percentage than that of fraternal twins and adopted brothers. While this does indicate that the more biologically similar brothers are that the likelihood of same-sex orientation increases, nearly half don't share the same gay orientation, and since identical twins share the exact same DNA, it is obvious orientation doesn't rely solely on genetics. The amounts of adrogen in the uterus can affect the brain reguarding orientation, and there has been some link between childhood trauma and the roles of parents on sexual preference as well. Like someone said before, it's likely that it's a combination of effects, both biological and psychological that determine orientation.
edited my post above before I saw you make this post. yes, the same question would hold for straights and a gay pill also.krypt0nian said:
though as to the actual discussion on whether being straight is a choice or not, there ARE definite and extensive studies on being "straight" with regards to natural selection, procreation, and survival of the species. when a straight couple mate, at a basic level it is about choosing a mate who will provide you with desirable offspring. at a base level it is about survival of the species. can the same be said about homosexuals?
of course let it be said that I have no problems with people who are homosexual, and I view the tendency of homosexuality as a sexual deviation, not a way of living. Being friends with someone doesn't mean liking every single last thing about them, as I'm sure most of my friends would love to tell you.
kyrpt0nian said:
You'd be right, but unfortunately, people aren't born with those fine distinctions. The discriminating functions aren't even quite as specific as a allude it to.
The actual neurological function would be something like an area of brain adept at distinguishing key characteristics, and it would be working with another area of brain making decisions on those characteristics, then storing those decisions. The making decision area of the brain would be a slow working area, whereas immediate decisions that need to be made now would simply access the area of the previously stored decisions... and even this isn't born right from the start; rather it would be developed during childhood, but that the genetics would dictate the level of growth; when combined with the mental use and nutritional functions would stimulate the area...
In the end it means that we don't automatically distinguish negatively against homosexuals... but rather that we distinguish positively against like people... and have a negative bias against everything else.
To change those innate bias', society will have to work harder to suppress that kind of discrimination, and it's really only been in recent history have we made strides towards identifying that homosexuality is one of those automatic discriminations that we need to suppress better.
But when life is really so complicated, there's not much need for another unnecessary (if we can make it unnecessary) distinction. It's not like the actual act of homosexuality has any real positive effects on society or the people that are homosexual... but rather we've come to accept them despite their differences, because the differences aren't a threat, and moreover, they're still valuable as people.
Litigation Manuel said:
Not only do twins have the same genes, they often share an incredibly similar upbringing, futher narrowing the differences between them. So it comes down in the end to chance differences which in turn can affect the individual train of thought; (just imagine the way we think... alot of it is due to a knock on effect... you can probably draw causal chains between patterns of thought, if you were to write down all your thoughts and map them out)... does that relate to the idea of sexual homogeneity? Perhaps... it might mean that some genes/environmental differences might cause chemical differences relating to sexuality, while some others might increase the chance of influence from external factors. (It would seem that things out of the ordinary take up a greater proportional mindshare then those things in the ordinary... I guess due to the stereotyping effect).
normal is a state of mind. there is no question it is an aberration, one only has to look at statistics. I also think that because it is an abberation that has a higher occurance in humans than any other animal on the planet lends some possible credence to the whole choice thing.darscot said:
so who knows where things will be in 100 years. But to say it will be normal is certainly just as wild a guess as to say it will be outlawed, and to say it is natural is just ridiculous given the relative lack of scientific information on it. not to mention normal and natural are not mutually inclusive. there can be natural (siamese twins) that isn't normal.
Where is the evidence that occurs more in humans then other species? I remember reading that gay populations were of higher percentages in over populated areas. That tends to support the natural and normal argument though, Mother natures birth control and all that. What's next they find the gene for blue eyes and everyone with brown eyes now has abnormal mutated genes.
This pretty much confirms it's genetic IMO.
But I don't think people should be calling it unnatural. From nature's standpoint, if hetereosexual sex happens two or more times in a lifetime, then the reproductive system was successful (assuming we dont' have contraceptives).
But I don't think people should be calling it unnatural. From nature's standpoint, if hetereosexual sex happens two or more times in a lifetime, then the reproductive system was successful (assuming we dont' have contraceptives).
borghe said:
Actually it is as simple as blue eyes. Just because society or the members of it are to damn dumb to understand, does not make the argument any less valid. How many people understand the E=MC squared does that make it false? As homosexuality has been constant and occuring for the last 5000+ years that would make it completely expected and within the norm, would it not? If you put random sampling of X number of people in a room Y of them will be gay. That's not an aberration that's a constant. Its amazing the same equation would work for Blue versus Brown eyes would it not?
darscot said:
It may be an aberration because sexuality is linked to genetic survivability. Even if they do reproduce, logic would dictate they'd reproduce less than hetrosexual people.
But ignoring that, the big aberration is that, by logic, homosexuality would wipe itself out if it were purely down to genetics... but it seems that society as a function of supressing homosexual actions have ironically kept the homosexual gene around for longer than it should have in a monogamous environment.
Regardless, for all the reasons I've listed above, the conclusion can be made that it wouldn't be an entirely bad thing to eliminate the genetic predisposition for homosexuality if it were possible.
Zaptruder said:
That's a relatively shortsighted view based upon the opinion that every human should reproduce. Given current studies on overpopulation, I would actually argue the opposite (from a pure "best for the species" standpoint, it would actually be better for us to increase the number of homosexuals in the world).
Nerevar said:
That could be the other strategy; but it's an understandably polarizing characteristic. So far from desensitizing the discrimination of all parties, you might aberrate it.
In terms of overpopulation problems, you have the edge... but in terms of social harmony, there's definite truth to my statements.
In our current state... is it something that needs to be touched? maybe not... but in the long long term future, if we solve the problem of overpopulation, increasing homosexuals on a genetic basis is a pretty short sighted solution for population control! But by that time, if we can play around with genetics to such a level, we could just as easily control the characteristics of the population to suit the circumstances and needs!
That's a scary thought. Or is it just an 'impossibly alien' one?
what kind of percentage do blue eyes occur in cacucassion humans? and in non-caucassion humans, how are blue or green eyed people viewed?darscot said:
the fact of the matter is that homosexuality, whether a choice or a genetic disposition, is still a rare occurence in humans. As rare as ten toes on a single foot? no, but certainly rarer than blue eyes in a race that is genetically predisposed to blue eyes.
"But ignoring that, the big aberration is that, by logic, homosexuality would wipe itself out if it were purely down to genetics..."
Genetics are not as simple as you make out. Have you ever heard of recessive and dominant genes? The sort of genes that skip generations? The ones that propogate through women while only effecting men?
Our understanding of genetic combinations is not complete enough for the above statement to be complete and valid. Actually, even with our limited understanding the above is not necessarily correct.
Genetics are not as simple as you make out. Have you ever heard of recessive and dominant genes? The sort of genes that skip generations? The ones that propogate through women while only effecting men?
Our understanding of genetic combinations is not complete enough for the above statement to be complete and valid. Actually, even with our limited understanding the above is not necessarily correct.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked