Support NeoGAF

[calder]

Can we get these funds into cancer and inherited syndrome research instead? Lone voice in the wilderness, ain't I?

I hope you are, because that's voicing an opinion with no basis in reality or common sense. Do you have any idea how much more funding things like cancer research get than all such projects like the Austrian one mentioned here? Or how advances in any area of genetic research could benefit all other areas?

 

[borghe]

The funny thing is if you consider that blue eyes are very very rare in many races homosexuality might be about the same or possible even a higher percentage.

probably, but you specifically missed my point on how those people in other races are viewed. sure you always here the stereotypes of the hot green eyes asian girl, but what about the typical asian guy who happens to have blue eyes. he might as well have a tattoo smack dab on his face. it will certainly make most countrymen uncomfortable.

so again, your analogy sucks. sorry.

 

[darscot]

LOL, with my anaology I've tried to prove with some form of logic and mathmatics. Yet you respond with but people feel funny about it. I think it's time we just agree to dissagree. Good old Twain "Never engage in a battle of the wits with an unarmed man."

 

[akascream]

Actually it is as simple as blue eyes.

Except that people with blue eyes can reproduce, thus carrying on the genetic mutation until it is 'normal'. The first blue eyes were definately a mutation.

Which makes me wonder. How often do genetic mutations really happen? I mean, there must be lots of people carrying some kind of recessive gay gene for there to be as many gay people as there are in society. They certainly couldn't all be mutated this frequently.

 

[SuperPac]

there must be lots of people carrying some kind of recessive gay gene for there to be as many gay people as there are in society. They certainly couldn't all be mutated this frequently.

I'd read somewhere (the book "Is It A Choice?" -- great Q&A book) that it's been estimated at between 5-10%, if I'm remembering correctly. I'd be very surprised if it was more than 10% of the population (both men & women). And it may've been the same previously, but since sometimes people keep their sexuality hidden it'd be hard to gauge.

 

[akascream]

Would it be any more of a mutation than differing eye color, hair color, skin pigmentation, etc.? I'd read somewhere (the book "Is It A Choice?" -- great Q&A book) that it's been estimated at between 5-10%, if I'm remembering correctly. I'd be very surprised if it was more than 10% of the population (both men & women).

Heh, did you read my post? Are we talking about a new eye color like pink or something? Unless the gay gene is recessive, every gay gene would have to be a mutation no?

 

[Zaptruder]

"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.

I meant logic of the evolution theory.

But you're right, it is more complicated then that...

 

[Hitokage]

The article is about flies, but I suggest that Zaptruder learn about Ants and Bees and stop spouting nonsense about evolution when it's patently obvious that humans do not function as lone breeders.

 

[Nerevar]

Heh, did you read my post? Are we talking about a new eye color like pink or something? Unless the gay gene is recessive, every gay gene would have to be a mutation no?

not necessarily. Most primitive lifeforms lack gender, and quite a number contain both male and female reproductive organs. People who carry the "gay" gene, if it's that simple, might just be carrying an ancient gene that doesn't differentiate sexual attraction based on gender. It's impossible to say either way.

 

[Hitokage]

Genetics isn't always as simple as Mendelian tables. Not only are there coding genes, there are also regulatory genes... and we're only just beginning to understand those.

 

[Zaptruder]

The article is about flies, but I suggest that Zaptruder learn about Ants and Bees and stop spouting nonsense about evolution when it's patently obvious that humans do not function as lone breeders.

More information please. Too lazy to research myself. Specifically, what's a lone breeder? And what is it that we do?

 

[borghe]

LOL, with my anaology I've tried to prove with some form of logic and mathmatics. Yet you respond with but people feel funny about it. I think it's time we just agree to dissagree. Good old Twain "Never engage in a battle of the wits with an unarmed man."

wait a minute, you actually were trying to make a point by saying that more asians were born gay than with blue eyes? umm..... I thought you were joking. If you were serious, my point still stands that blue eyed asians are definitely an aberration. so by validating homosexuality as normal just because it is more common than a racial genetic aberration, you are then saying it in itself is not normal because it isn't anywhere near as common as a typical racial genetic disposition.

who is arguing with nonsense? and what exactly are you arguing about?

 

[darscot]

The quote in my last post is all I can add to this thread.

 

[borghe]

The quote in my last post is all I can add to this thread.

an attempt to make an inane point and then follow it up with a quote meant to call names is all you can add? this thread will not miss you.

 

[Diablos]

Haha, but this is messing with GOD'S INTENTIONS!

I would LOVE to see how the fundamentalists react should scientists ever come up with a way to make gay people straight.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Haha, but this is messing with GOD'S INTENTIONS!

I would LOVE to see how the fundamentalists react should scientists ever come up with a way to make gay people straight.

But in the meantime be prepared to hear a lot of "fruit flies aren't humans!!!!!!!!" over and over and over again.

You tell me for a fact an exorcism wouldn't turn those flies straight, YOU TELL ME THAT!

 

[Ghost]

Haha!, new solution to the terrorist threat, stick this information into some kind of mutating gas, G-bomb the middle-east. Then your only problem is stopping them from blowing up Texas, and lets face it, if they did that..who would notice?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Haha, but this is messing with GOD'S INTENTIONS!

I would LOVE to see how the fundamentalists react should scientists ever come up with a way to make gay people straight.

Or straight people gay.

 

[teh_pwn]

I'd read somewhere (the book "Is It A Choice?" -- great Q&A book) that it's been estimated at between 5-10%, if I'm remembering correctly. I'd be very surprised if it was more than 10% of the population (both men & women). And it may've been the same previously, but since sometimes people keep their sexuality hidden it'd be hard to gauge.

Sexuality isn't black and white. Go look up something called the Kinsey scale.