Biology behind homosexuality in sheep, study confirms

[vniow]

OHSU researchers show brain anatomy, hormone production may be cause

Researchers in the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine have confirmed that a male sheep’s preference for same-sex partners has biological underpinnings.

A study published in the February issue of the journal Endocrinology demonstrates that not only are certain groups of cells different between genders in a part of the sheep brain controlling sexual behavior, but brain anatomy and hormone production may determine whether adult rams prefer other rams over ewes.

"This particular study, along with others, strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans," said the study’s lead author, Charles E. Roselli, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, OHSU School of Medicine. "The hope is that the study of these brain differences will provide clues to the processes involved in the development and regulation of heterosexual, as well as homosexual, behavior."

The results lend credence to previous studies in humans that described anatomical differences between the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual men, as well as sexually unique versions of the same cluster of brain cells in males and females.

"Same-sex attraction is widespread across many different species." said Roselli, whose laboratory collaborated with the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University and the USDA Agricultural Research Service’s U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho.

Kay Larkin, Ph.D., an OHSU electron microscopist who performed laboratory analysis for the study, said scientists now have a marker that points to whether a ram may prefer other rams over ewes.

"There’s a difference in the brain that is correlated with partner preference rather than gender of the animal you’re looking at," she said.

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-26668.html

http://www.yassassin.nl/icontjes/baaa.gif

[rainman::|:|]

interesting as this news is, i have to wonder if gay genetics (and biological underpinnings) are even worth investigating-- the Right will just switch from "you're evil by choice" to "you're evil because god predestined you to be evil". And it won't change the "marriage is man/woman because of sociological history" crap... which is just using historic prejudice to defend current.

Homosexual animals are a part of nature, recorded in a vast array of species. Rams seem to have a high instance, or at least a lot of observations have been done on the species... Birds in general seem to be the most likely to have homosexual animals.

paul

[michaelrjohnson]

interesting as this news is, i have to wonder if gay genetics (and biological underpinnings) are even worth investigating-- the Right will just switch from "you're evil by choice" to "you're evil because god predestined you to be evil". And it won't change the "marriage is man/woman because of sociological history" crap... which is just using historic prejudice to defend current.

You may be right, however, perhaps information like this with further research can help sway some of the general population (moderates). There will always be the extremes (both Right and Left), but perhaps studies like this can shift the bell-curve.

[AhmedFaisal]

You may be right, however, perhaps information like this with further research can help sway some of the general population (moderates). There will always be the extremes (both Right and Left), but perhaps studies like this can shift the bell-curve.

We'll more likely see some righties going "See, I told you they are retarded, lets drug'em straight!" and the whole herd of goats that is the retarded electorate going after them 'cuz they speak god and god is good...

Ahmed

[Stike]

This story is on a certain perspective a no-brainer.
If you follow a certain philosophy that there is nothing like a "soul" or anything non-material, it leads to the conclusion that everything we are, every thought we have, all memories we have in our head - and all decisions, like being homo-/heterosexual, have a physical and biological basis.
I think that you can (at least with animals, should be easier) "program" any lifeform to be or to act as biogically determined - be it from inside or outside. Luckily the normal lifeform is "self-programming" (i.e. learning) and not easily influenced.

This is going far now, but this may become critical once we build computers which communicate directly with the brain.

Hey cool I have a story idea haha... have to go write now, bye! ;)

[vniow]

interesting as this news is, i have to wonder if gay genetics (and biological underpinnings) are even worth investigating-- the Right will just switch from "you're evil by choice" to "you're evil because god predestined you to be evil". And it won't change the "marriage is man/woman because of sociological history" crap... which is just using historic prejudice to defend current.


Yeah, that's what I'm a bit afraid of as well, the problem with those people isn't lack of evidence, its bigotry. One thing that also disturbs me is this line from the article:


They would also like to know whether sexual preferences can be altered by manipulating the prenatal hormone environment, such as by using drugs to prevent the actions of androgen in the fetal sheep brain.

While it makes for a good research paper and more insight on to how the brain works, there's so much social baggage that comes along with being queer in humans that I'm afraid that if something similar were to be found in our brains and it could be reversed with drugs that more than a few parents would go for it with their child.

*shudder*

[fawlty]

My understanding is that the genetic component to sexuality in humans is small; the far more significant factor is what happened in your childhood, and especially your relationship with your parents.

Homosexuals have not usually chosen to be that way. But it is still a flaw, not just a preference thing.

I suspect generalising from animals is invalid anyway, precisely because domestic animals are raised in such an artifical environment.

[rainman::|:|]

My understanding is that the genetic component to sexuality in humans is small; the far more significant factor is what happened in your childhood, and especially your relationship with your parents.

Homosexuals have not usually chosen to be that way. But it is still a flaw, not just a preference thing.

I suspect generalising from animals is invalid anyway, precisely because domestic animals are raised in such an artifical environment.

'Flaw' is awfully broad. I mean, look at left-handed people. They're a small minority, but who's to say that that particular genetic diversity isn't integral to the human species? Without many of the 'flaws' in our species, we'd be a step closer to globally inbred.

Personally speaking, I find that relationships with parents tend to be a symptom of homosexuality, rather than a cause. As a gay man, i believe fate was sealed before I was born. Just as I believe heterosexuals are the same way; hardwired. I had a bad relationship with my father, true; but I had identified as gay about age 5, whereas my relationship with my father deteriorated around 10-12. It didn't get better when I came out.

Nature continually breeds diversity into a genetic pool as a matter of survivability. If everyone is the same on every level, a single variable could wipe the species out. There are also a lot of theories that homosexuality is a form of natural population control... Hardly a flaw if nature's intention is to conserve natural resources for the good of the species.

And as I said, birds are the most likely to show homosexuality, and wild birds have very little domestication. It's all secondary to humans' impact on the environment, and I cannot believe humans could alter it in such a way as to introduce homosexuality into so many species of animals...

paul

[LeeTom]

Homosexuals have not usually chosen to be that way. But it is still a flaw, not just a preference thing.
I suspect generalising from animals is invalid anyway, precisely because domestic animals are raised in such an artifical environment.

Yeah, I don't know what they're teaching down there in New Zealand, but you gotta get with the times!

Lee Tom

[jsw]

My understanding is that the genetic component to sexuality in humans is small; the far more significant factor is what happened in your childhood, and especially your relationship with your parents.
I've never seen anything to back that up. The closest I've seen is that, in some adults, there's a slight tendency for those who have been abused often by the opposite sex to turn to members of their own sex, although this tendency is more out of preservation than sexual attraction.

I don't see how childhood factors could cause one to decide that men, instead of women (or vice versa, depending on one's sex) were more attractive.

Homosexuals have not usually chosen to be that way. But it is still a flaw, not just a preference thing.
paulwhannel was very calm in his reply to this. "Flaw" isn't appropriate.

I suspect generalising from animals is invalid anyway, precisely because domestic animals are raised in such an artifical environment.
How in God's name would that make a difference in sexual preference?

[voicegy]

Uh-oh. 'nother one of THESE threads, that will soon spin out of control with extreme viewpoints. :rolleyes:

Hi fawlty. Blaming the parents is old skool. So's enviornment. Out the door. Got along great with my dad. Mom and I are ok with each other as well. So are just about every one of my homosexual friends' situations. I see more "flawed" heterosexuals from poor parenting/enviornment than homosexual outcomes.

I, too, have brought up the horrific scenario as others have here about continued research into genetic predispositioning of homosexuality one day being thought of as an "option" for parents to be "excised" from the expected child, just as one day parents will be offered "choice" for their offspring, such as hair color and sex.

Because I've always believed in genetics playing the crucial role in sexual orientation (and it IS "orientation,: NOT "preference,") I just hope I don't live to see the day that it is finally isolated and accepted as a medical "fix."

I'm an Aries, therefore a Ram. :p

[Zaty]

I, too, belive that sexual orientation depends on your brain wiring. You're born as a heterosexual, homosexual or transsexual. Parents can't change their child's sexual orientation even if they wanted to. That's why I think the argument that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because they could change sexual orientation is invalid. If a lesbian couple adopted a girl, she wouldn't become a lesbian unless she was "destined" to become one anyway.

[fawlty]

Your patient and considered responses to my remarks are a credit to both the Mac community, and the gay community.

JSW - I meant that lambs are raised only by their mothers, with no exposure to male pheremones, for example.

[Chip NoVaMac]

On the surface one would hope that news like this would open minds. Yet I can see drugs, or worse yet pre-birth testing for "gayness", and that is ugly with that.

[hansen]

I'm a happy flaw and I don't want to be fixed! (in any interpretation!)

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'm a happy flaw and I don't want to be fixed! (in any interpretation!)

Should we say that some of us are absolutely flawless? :)

[Zaty]

Should we say that some of us are absolutely flawless? :)

Exactly, no human being is perfect. That's why we're humans and not gods :)

[gekko513]

Homosexuals have not usually chosen to be that way. But it is still a flaw, not just a preference thing.
It's not a flaw. If the only purpose of a human being is to bring his or her own individual genetic material on, then you can consider it a flaw, I suppose. Some less complicated forms of life may only have procreation as the only purpose of an individual, but humans are much more complicated.

Even if we limit the notion of purpose to an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality is still not a flaw since humans are social animals. Any individual who directly or indirectly helps the survival of his or her family or genetically related humans makes perfect evolutionary sense. If all humans were homosexual, our race would have a fundamental flaw. A small percentage of humans being homosexual, on the other hand, does not reduce the ability of the human race to survive. In fact, from an evolutionary perspective, a small percentage of homosexuals must be a good thing, since if it was a bad thing, then evolution would make the societies with more homosexuals diminish while societies with less and eventually no homosexuals would survive.

If we consider not just the mere survival of the human race but the state of the whole of nature and the universe as a means of making something have a purpose, then a human being's purpose would be defined by any way that human being affects the world around him. This definitely does not make homosexuality a flaw.

From a religious perspective I admit that homosexuality can be considered a flaw, just because the only thing that defines the religion is the religion itself.

[kettle]

having grown up on a sheep farm in the deepest darkest west of Wales, I can add observation/anecdotal evidence to say that "Gay" sheep had little to do with the price of wool or lamb, in fact, not just rams but ewes that preferred (or at least had no preference) other ewes had no impact on flock development, the risk of transferring the "Gay Biology" to spawn a "I'll only shag the same sex" sheep was very low, so low that after many a wasted hour of sheep worrying, scientists decided that it was much more likely that a ram covering a ewe would lead to the insemination of eggs and the usual odds of sexually indifferent/ignorant offspring. The basis being that a ewe is more likely to be impregnated by a ram with a preference, than a ram doing it by random or not at all.

Needless to say Gay sheep are as warm and tasty as other sheep, thus eliminating the need for specific persecution.

:rolleyes:

Also, most of the time a pedigree flock will have one chosen (preferably champion) ram of a separate gene pool to cover a flock of related ewes.

In the wild/common land flocks will be less easy to regulate but you still have low odds of 1) a gay ram and 2) another ram, gay or not willing to take it from behind.

Most other rams are rubber ringed as soon as their balls drop and the sent off to market as soon as they're worth selling.

"gay sheep rights and peace!"

[Raid]

having grown up on a sheep farm in the deepest darkest west of Wales, I can add observation/anecdotal evidence ...

I've also heard that sheep are incredibly stupid, sometimes lacking in the most basic of survival skills (as a result of trying to breed docile ones). So then I have to ask... Is it possible they didn't realize what they were trying to breed with? I mean if it's possible for a sheep to starve to death because you moved the feeding trough 5 meters away (a friend from the Ministry of Agriculture told me that one), then isn't it also possible that the sheep lacked the intelect to choose a sexual preference?

[Chip NoVaMac]

It boils down to the issue of biology and genes. Do I or anyone else want to choose a lifestyle that subjects us to scorn and less rights? There was just one woman that I loved, but that was a "soul mate" situation, and together we were asexual. In the end it was probably better that we never married.

You raise an issue with the sheep study. But there are plenty of others that show that homosexuality exists naturally within nature (even in the wild).

We are not talking of situations where homosexuality develops out of need (prisons and the such). In those cases those that "became" homosexual, went back to heterosexual behavior; when the choice of mates improved.

One facet of homosexuality that has not been explored from what I have seen, is one where homosexuality may be natures way of controlling population.

[Edge100]

I post this only to stir up discussion of a somewhat more scientific nature...

Let us assume that there is a genetic predisposition for sexual orientation. That is, there is a gene, which, when present in one of its forms (alleles), predisposes to heterosexuality, while another allele predisposes to homosexuality.

Now, lets say that this gene has been present in humans (and our ancestors) for thousands of years. Those who receive the 'hetero' allele (for want of a better term) will be heterosexual more often than would be expected, while those with the 'homo' allele (again, dont shoot me for nomeclature) would be homosexual more often than would be expected. What this implies is that throughout these thousands of years, since homosexuals would be expected to reproduce less than heterosexuals, the 'homo' allele would be gradually phased out of the genome. That is, a higher proportion of the next generation would carry the 'hetero' allele rather than the 'homo' allele, and thus over time, the 'homo' allele would be reduced in prevalence in the overall population. As such, the genetic predisposition for people to be homosexual would, gradually, subside.

Why then, you ask, do other genetic traits that lower the likelihood of passing genes (i.e. genetic diseases like Cystic Fibrosis) not disappear over time? Well, like these other traits, it is possible that the sexual orientation gene is constantly being mutated and the 'homo' allele is constantly being replenished in the population.

All in all, I have no answer to these questions. I personally feel that there is a part of the phenomenon of sexual orientation that is in-born. I dont recall ever saying, "I think I'm going to be heterosexual". I just was.

However, it would be interesting to understand the genetics of the whole thing, I think!

[Chip NoVaMac]

I post this only to stir up discussion of a somewhat more scientific nature...

Let us assume that there is a genetic predisposition for sexual orientation. That is, there is a gene, which, when present in one of its forms (alleles), predisposes to heterosexuality, while another allele predisposes to homosexuality.

Now, lets say that this gene has been present in humans (and our ancestors) for thousands of years. Those who receive the 'hetero' allele (for want of a better term) will be heterosexual more often than would be expected, while those with the 'homo' allele (again, dont shoot me for nomeclature) would be homosexual more often than would be expected. What this implies is that throughout these thousands of years, since homosexuals would be expected to reproduce less than heterosexuals, the 'homo' allele would be gradually phased out of the genome. That is, a higher proportion of the next generation would carry the 'hetero' allele rather than the 'homo' allele, and thus over time, the 'homo' allele would be reduced in prevalence in the overall population. As such, the genetic predisposition for people to be homosexual would, gradually, subside.

Why then, you ask, do other genetic traits that lower the likelihood of passing genes (i.e. genetic diseases like Cystic Fibrosis) not disappear over time? Well, like these other traits, it is possible that the sexual orientation gene is constantly being mutated and the 'homo' allele is constantly being replenished in the population.

All in all, I have no answer to these questions. I personally feel that there is a part of the phenomenon of sexual orientation that is in-born. I dont recall ever saying, "I think I'm going to be heterosexual". I just was.

However, it would be interesting to understand the genetics of the whole thing, I think!

To be honest, the reason why may be in that homosexuals do sometimes deny their "natural" tendencies and reproduce. There by passing on the "homo" gene.

[rainman::|:|]

edge100, you answered your own question the way i was going to-- While true, homosexuals have (more often than not) historically taken heterosexual roles and reproduced, that cannot account for the perpetuation of the gay gene, so if such a gene does exist, it would be a common mutation rather than a line. Your example of genetic disease is sound-- Often genetic disease renders a person unable to reproduce, yet the disease has not been isolated out of the gene pool yet. I'm no geneticist but it seems like some variations are naturally reoccurring without needing to be passed on. The other possibility is that a recessive gay gene is present in a large sector of the population, and so heterosexuals can be carriers until it becomes dominant because of both parents. This might explain why some families seem to have much higher incidences of gays.

Interesting sidenote, when one identical twin is gay, the other has a 50% chance of being gay as well. Or is it 50% better? stats confuse me. But that seems to occur whether the twins were raised in the same environment or not. Google it, it's one stat that's been fairly well studied.

Personally I do believe that it's a form of natural population control, it's not so hard to believe that as medicine improves, nature must find a way to keep us from breeding ourselves out of food and water. Unfortunately, the most overcrowded places on the planet tend to be overcrowded because of religious opposition to birth control, which tends to go hand-in-hand with religious opposition to homosexuality. I still don't understand why China hasn't done a better job of embracing homosexuality, it seems like a very natural step for them to take-- making sure that people don't feel forced into breeding if they're not a breeder.

paul

[Edge100]

To be honest, the reason why may be in that homosexuals do sometimes deny their "natural" tendencies and reproduce. There by passing on the "homo" gene.

Still, you'd imagine that statistically, homosexuals would be less likely to reproduce. You might delay the progress of removing the gay allele from the population, but you'll still see that allele be removed eventually.

[Edge100]

edge100, you answered your own question the way i was going to-- While true, homosexuals have (more often than not) historically taken heterosexual roles and reproduced, that cannot account for the perpetuation of the gay gene, so if such a gene does exist, it would be a common mutation rather than a line. Your example of genetic disease is sound-- Often genetic disease renders a person unable to reproduce, yet the disease has not been isolated out of the gene pool yet. I'm no geneticist but it seems like some variations are naturally reoccurring without needing to be passed on.
The other possibility is that a recessive gay gene is present in a large sector of the population, and so heterosexuals can be carriers until it becomes dominant because of both parents. This might explain why some families seem to have much higher incidences of gays.

Most genetic diseases work in one of these two ways. Either they operate on an affected/carrier system, like cystic fibrosis (probably the best example of a purely genetic disease), or they have frequently occurring mutations that maintain the mutant allele in the population. This is more common with dominant alleles, such as the one that causes Duchenne's MD. No one with MD lives to pass on their genes, yet it keeps happening.

Interesting sidenote, when one identical twin is gay, the other has a 50% chance of being gay as well. Or is it 50% better? stats confuse me. But that seems to occur whether the twins were raised in the same environment or not. Google it, it's one stat that's been fairly well studied.

Twin studies are the best tool for studying genetic linkage. If identical twins share the trait 100% of the time, the trait is 100% genetic. As the percentage drops off, so too does the genetic contribution. Type 2 diabetes or schizophrenia are two good examples; there is a strong occurance in the identical twin, but it is much less than 100%, suggesting a strong environmental component as well.

Personally I do believe that it's a form of natural population control, it's not so hard to believe that as medicine improves, nature must find a way to keep us from breeding ourselves out of food and water. Unfortunately, the most overcrowded places on the planet tend to be overcrowded because of religious opposition to birth control, which tends to go hand-in-hand with religious opposition to homosexuality. I still don't understand why China hasn't done a better job of embracing homosexuality, it seems like a very natural step for them to take-- making sure that people don't feel forced into breeding if they're not a breeder.

paul

I've never looked at it like that. I suppose it is a great population control measure.

The fact is, we may never know what makes some of us heterosexual and some homosexual. Frankly, does it really even matter? I'm only interested to quench the scientist in me. That's what Ph.D. training does to you! :)

[hansen]

In fact, from an evolutionary perspective, a small percentage of homosexuals must be a good thing, since if it was a bad thing, then evolution would make the societies with more homosexuals diminish while societies with less and eventually no homosexuals would survive.

1. Most of these arguments seems to asume that homosexuality equals no offsprings. Just because one is attracted to same sex members doesn't mean that one does not have the urge to reproduce.

2. It seems asumed that sexuality is a binary thing: hetero or homosexual. It might be a continuum. That it doesn't seem to be might be imposed by society - that it takes some guts to come out so you would have a strong leaning before taking such a step.

3. In the timescale of natural selection current norms and even christianity seems to be fairly new things and might not have effected evolution that much?

From a religious perspective I admit that homosexuality can be considered a flaw, just because the only thing that defines the religion is the religion itself.


One chooses to believe and what to believe. Other [making no asumtion on what your religion is] religions makes the most absurd things a flaw...

And finally: You are not really a man before you've been with one :p

[Edge100]

1. Most of these arguments seems to asume that homosexuality equals no offsprings. Just because one is attracted to same sex members doesn't mean that one does not have the urge to reproduce.

Absolutely untrue. I'm sure that many, if not most homosexuals feel the humanly urge to reproduce. I believe this is completely independent of sexual orientation. What I meant was that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

2. It seems asumed that sexuality is a binary thing: hetero or homosexual. It might be a continuum. That it doesn't seem to be might be imposed by society - that it takes some guts to come out so you would have a strong leaning before taking such a step.

100% agree.

3. In the timescale of natural selection current norms and even christianity seems to be fairly new things and might not have effected evolution that much?

You are correct. Evolution requires much longer periods of time. However, the point was that if genes control sexual orientation, then there would be a selection pressure against homosexuality, given that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. The only way to explain it if you think there is a gene is to say either that the homosexual allele is recessive, or that the mutation giving rise to the homosexual allele is constantly recurring and making new mutations in germ cells (i.e. sperm and oocyte).

[hansen]

What I meant was that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.


ok, that's probably true. Could it be a factor that having just one partner for life seems to be a fairly recent cultural influenced behavior?

[AhmedFaisal]

ok, that's probably true. Could it be a factor that having just one partner for life seems to be a fairly recent cultural influenced behavior?

It is indeed true that in most primates, especially higher apes monogamy is the exception, not the rule. Chimps, Gorillas and Orangs are organized in tribes in which in most cases only the Alpha-Male breeds. One could assume that this is the case also for humans, especially if one adds the fact that strong, in some cases interpreted as homosexual male male, and female female relationships are an important element of their social structure. So one could interpret homosexuality an inheritance of our evolutionary heritage (which is maybe one of the reasons why the church hates evolution so much).

The only exception to that rule are the gibbons which practice monogamy however they are the most distantly related show no strong physical differences between male and female unlike humans and other higher apes.
Regards,

Ahmed

[Chip NoVaMac]

ok, that's probably true. Could it be a factor that having just one partner for life seems to be a fairly recent cultural influenced behavior?

I remember seeing something that "humans" are the only mammal to have a "belief" in monogamous relationships.

We are treading into the "free will" area here now.

[rueyeet]

I would bet that the number of homosexuals who never married or reproduced even for appearances' sake has only recently begun to rise; due in earlier times to the need for an heir, and in more recent history to thoroughly ingrained social attitudes. Easier to get away with being queer if you could parade spouse and kids in front of the public, and until the last couple decades, few people were openly homosexual. Therefore the evolutionary or genetic impact of homosexuality is probably too recent to be quantified.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if any genetic predisposition to homosexuality is a constantly-occuring mutation. I do remember from school that some genes get shuffled around more than others during mitosis, so perhaps the determinants of sexual orientation are some of those.

If you go by what they tell you in womens' studies classes, monogamy is a thoroughly unnatural social construct with the primary purpose of regulating reproduction in order to distribute power and property. In other words, it's supposed to make sure you know who the daddy is, so that daddy can make sure his own sons are the ones getting the inheritance. Given that the Christian view of marriage stems from Judaic patriarchical theocracy, where all the laws were designed to keep the people subservient to God and thus to the ruling all-male priesthood, the view of monogamy as unnatural doesn't seem much of a stretch.

As I recall, the latest anthropological evidence says that the ones who took up stable residence in caves were the child-rearing women, and the men roamed about hunting, stopping in every so often. Seems like a bad environment for monogamy.

My sociology teacher also taught us about the studies that propose that the proverbial "seven-year itch" had an evolutionary purpose of mixing up mating pairs on a regular basis, the seven-year period co-inciding with the children being grown enough not to need the constant attention two parents. It also must be remembered that it used to be common to live in large familiy groups and tight-knit villages, so that there was never a shortage of proper male and female role models, or of caretakers for the young ones.

[kettle]

I've also heard that sheep are incredibly stupid, sometimes lacking in the most basic of survival skills (as a result of trying to breed docile ones). So then I have to ask... Is it possible they didn't realize what they were trying to breed with? I mean if it's possible for a sheep to starve to death because you moved the feeding trough 5 meters away (a friend from the Ministry of Agriculture told me that one), then isn't it also possible that the sheep lacked the intelect to choose a sexual preference?

I think that a sheep just has a couple of well remembered talents. The pedigree flocks tend to just lineup in the same direction as it's nearest neighbour and then walk, tending to get confused if it's 50/50.

The free sheep like welsh mountain cross bred stuff do a rat in a maze type thing and are notorious for finding gaps in perimeter fencing, even if escaping is not to their benefit. They tend to be better vehicle dodgers due to natural selection.

Pet lambs/sheep, the ones who are rejected or loose parents tend to learn a form of domestic violence, thinking that anything that sounds like hard feed rattling in a container gives them the right to assault any humanoid in the general direction of that rattly dinner time sound.

The head butt is favoured by Border Leicesters (http://www.borderleicester.com/) we used to keep 300 odd of these not so little b'stards.

So yes, I'm quite sure that given the right stimuli, a sheep would appear to hump every other sheep in between itself and a rattling trough. :)

... bonus link Sheep Game (http://www.borderleicesters.co.uk/game.html) enjoy :p

[Chip NoVaMac]

I think that a sheep just has a couple of well remembered talents. The pedigree flocks tend to just lineup in the same direction as it's nearest neighbour and then walk, tending to get confused if it's 50/50.

The free sheep like welsh mountain cross bred stuff do a rat in a maze type thing and are notorious for finding gaps in perimeter fencing, even if escaping is not to their benefit. They tend to be better vehicle dodgers due to natural selection.

Pet lambs/sheep, the ones who are rejected or loose parents tend to learn a form of domestic violence, thinking that anything that sounds like hard feed rattling in a container gives them the right to assault any humanoid in the general direction of that rattly dinner time sound.

The head butt is favoured by Border Leicesters (http://www.borderleicester.com/) we used to keep 300 odd of these not so little b'stards.

So yes, I'm quite sure that given the right stimuli, a sheep would appear to hump every other sheep in between itself and a rattling trough. :)

... bonus link Sheep Game (http://www.borderleicesters.co.uk/game.html) enjoy :p

Gee, it sounds like those that follow the Democratic/Republican parties blindly. Rather than those that try to use their minds.

[bryanc]

I'm going to mix what I know of this (rather fractious) literature with some speculation to try to address this semi-scientifically

...
Now, lets say that this gene has been present in humans (and our ancestors) for thousands of years. Those who receive the 'hetero' allele (for want of a better term) will be heterosexual more often than would be expected, while those with the 'homo' allele (again, dont shoot me for nomeclature) would be homosexual more often than would be expected.


Complex behavioural traits are most likely to involve multiple loci, so the above scenario is not likely. However, given that humans come in two flavours (one smells much better than the other), and, as far as I know, the biological basis of heterosexuality has only been compellingly demonstrated for males, the existence of a sex-linked trigger for finding females attractive seems likely.

What I expect is going on here is that there is a complex (but ancient) system that is activated in (wildtype) males during puberty that activates the 'Become-sexually-aroused-by-attractive-females' system in the brain. (Think of 'male-radar' that allows men to spot the sexy girl on the other side of the park when their attention is supposed to be on the road in front of them). Such complex behavioural systems would be expected to have both genetically and environmentally constrained components.

In females and homosexual males, this system is never activated, and they consequently find people attractive/unattractive solely on the basis of other criteria (much of which will have been socially programmed). If this system were activated in the brain of a female, it would likely strongly bias her to homosexuality. If this system does not get activated in males, it removes the strong bias for heterosexuality. Either way, the biology won't necessarily determine an individual's sexuality, but it will likely have a strong influence.

... What this implies is that throughout these thousands of years, since homosexuals would be expected to reproduce less than heterosexuals, the 'homo' allele would be gradually phased out of the genome.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Firstly, as has already been pointed out, being gay doesn't mean not reproducing, and not reproducing doesn't mean being eliminated from the gene-pool (kin-selecetion being one obvious mechanism). But more importantly, if something like the above mechanism is operating, then the trait will continue to emerge, as a result of variation (both social and genetic) that results males that haven't activated the system, or females that have.

All in all, I have no answer to these questions. I personally feel that there is a part of the phenomenon of sexual orientation that is in-born. I dont recall ever saying, "I think I'm going to be heterosexual". I just was.

However, it would be interesting to understand the genetics of the whole thing, I think!

I have to agree with you. But I do think it's naive to expect such a complex behaviour to be purely genetic, let alone dependent on a single locus. On the other hand, maternal behaviour has been shown to be activated by a single locus in the mouse (lots of other loci are involved, but there's a 'single-point-of-failure' in the system...if that's mutated, the mothers completely neglect their pups and let them die) so I could be wrong.

What I'd really like to understand is why people find homosexuals so threatening. When I was a sexually insecure kid, I found being hit on by gay men quite upsetting, but even then, I knew I should've been flattered. And even back then, I had no problem with homosexuals as people, and therefore as citizens with equal rights. This whole issue confuses me, not because I don't understand why people are homosexual, but because I don't understand why it's an issue.

[AhmedFaisal]

What I'd really like to understand is why people find homosexuals so threatening. When I was a sexually insecure kid, I found being hit on by gay men quite upsetting, but even then, I knew I should've been flattered. And even back then, I had no problem with homosexuals as people, and therefore as citizens with equal rights. This whole issue confuses me, not because I don't understand why people are homosexual, but because I don't understand why it's an issue.

Hmm, could it be because in developed nations we are no longer in our natural environment? Lets look at indian tribes in the rain forest in Brazil. Many of these have similar social structures to monkey tribes, where male female relationships outside of mating are on a family basis (brothers are responsible for sisters, there is no husbands) and where mating is relatively random (the alpha-male still being the leader of the tribe but is no longer exclusively hetero-sexually active). Here homosexual relationships do not appear to be an issue at all, because they are the results of the social structure. Males interact mainly with males and females mainly with females, in fact I presume that there is relatively little exclusive hetero or homosexuality but different grades of bisexuality.
It is because our "developed" culture drives us into monogamy, exclusive heterosexuality etc. that a lot of social conflicts and issues arise that do not occur there?
Regards,

Ahmed

[andylane]

It's very easy to oversimplify this kind of thing. While it's true to say that evolution works by natural selection of favorable genes for reproduction, several things throw a spanner in the works.

The assertion that cystic fibrosis is perpetuated by a high frequency of mutation is, I believe, incorrect. It's thought that the gene has managed to remain relatively common in carriers because being a carrier confers some resistance to poliocholera (less efficient ion channels in lungs is thought to lead to poliocholera resistance). So, in the face of a poliocholera epidemic, carriers of cystic fibrosis become more common. This suggests that, since a polio vaccine has now been developed, cystic fibrosis may become less and less common.

I've got to admit that I'm not 100% sure that cystic fibrosis and polio are the diseases involved in the mechanism that I'm thinking of, but it illustrates a point. I couldn't find any references to it, so this is just from memory. Update, clarified below

There are also scenarios whereby being sexually active is not the best way to perpetuate your genome: birds (starlings, maybe?) will often help to raise their siblings instead of mating for themselves. Their siblings and their potential offspring both share 50% of the bird's genes, so, really, there's just the same benefit to helping your siblings to survive, and it might be a better place to put your effort if food is scarce.

It's interesting to apply these concepts to homosexuality. Maybe the "gay" allele (although I'm almost certain it can't be that simple) carriers are incredibly promiscuous heterosexuals, for some reason. But going by my parents... that sounds less likely :)

UPDATE:
Two more points: Firstly, this could all be explained by incomplete penetrance - the same genes don't always show up as the same physical manifestation. It happens in many disorders. It can depend on environmental factors or other genes which screw things up.

And secondly, I've found it's not polio. It's cholera and cystic fibrosis. Same diff.

(Can you tell I love this stuff?)

[Ajmbc]

edge100, you answered your own question the way i was going to-- While true, homosexuals have (more often than not) historically taken heterosexual roles and reproduced, that cannot account for the perpetuation of the gay gene, so if such a gene does exist, it would be a common mutation rather than a line. Your example of genetic disease is sound-- Often genetic disease renders a person unable to reproduce, yet the disease has not been isolated out of the gene pool yet. I'm no geneticist but it seems like some variations are naturally reoccurring without needing to be passed on. The other possibility is that a recessive gay gene is present in a large sector of the population, and so heterosexuals can be carriers until it becomes dominant because of both parents. This might explain why some families seem to have much higher incidences of gays.

Interesting sidenote, when one identical twin is gay, the other has a 50% chance of being gay as well. Or is it 50% better? stats confuse me. But that seems to occur whether the twins were raised in the same environment or not. Google it, it's one stat that's been fairly well studied.

Personally I do believe that it's a form of natural population control, it's not so hard to believe that as medicine improves, nature must find a way to keep us from breeding ourselves out of food and water. Unfortunately, the most overcrowded places on the planet tend to be overcrowded because of religious opposition to birth control, which tends to go hand-in-hand with religious opposition to homosexuality. I still don't understand why China hasn't done a better job of embracing homosexuality, it seems like a very natural step for them to take-- making sure that people don't feel forced into breeding if they're not a breeder.

paul

If indeed homosexuality is decided by a gene, then could it be said that when a homosexual reproduces, they pass it on to 2 of his/her children, who in turn pass it on to their children, etc? (which would mean that this gene would be recessive)

Or, that behavior genes are more of a tendency kind of thing- it takes society and the environment around someone with their genes to 'swing' someone one way or another-- that the gene just tend to lean someone one way or another, this could work with things such as certain behaviors, tempers, etc.

-aj

[dmartin]

If, as this thread seems to have suggested, homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon, then why is it not also a socially acceptable practice to eat one's young, which also occurs in some animal species in nature?

Just a question...to stir the pot, so to speak.

[andylane]

why is it not also a socially acceptable practice to eat one's young, which also occurs in some animal species in nature?


Homosexuality:
- strong desire to do this exists in, maybe, 5% of all humans
- harmless, doesn't hurt anyone
- non-acceptance harms others

Eating your children:
- strong desire to do this exists in, maybe, 0% of all humans, so issue is less relevant
- is murder
- non-acceptance prevents harm of others

So, in conclusion, I think that homosexuality falls under the category of "less bad than eating your children". Along with most other things.

[hansen]

If, as this thread seems to have suggested, homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon, then why is it not also a socially acceptable practice to eat one's young, which also occurs in some animal species in nature?

Just a question...to stir the pot, so to speak.

And why is not socially acceptable to eat flies - something that also occurs in nature...

[FredAkbar]

Eating flies should be socially acceptable too (it doesn't hurt anything besides flies, but eating any animal generally involves its death). The only reason it's not is because people assume that flies taste bad (and some people find bugs disgusting, etc.) and have that so firmly set in their minds that even if someone comes along that eats flies and knows that they secretly taste really good, hardly anyone will bother to believe them.

Now there could be practical reasons for not eating flies that I'm not aware of (maybe they carry diseases, or are just plain bad for you, or whatever) but even if that's true, that certainly isn't why most people are against such a thing. They're against it because it's just not common. Some would say it's not "natural," even though it basically is. Same goes for homosexuality.

And no, I've never eaten a fly ;)

[jayscheuerle]

A genetic marker in humans for gay men was found years ago (there is no similar one for women that has been found yet), so the biological vs. rearing argument has been sewn up for sometime. People cling to what they believe in, so this will have a fight very similar to the battle that evolution has faced.

I have a personal theory that homosexuality may be a biological response to overpopulation, that population density may trigger hormonal responses that lead to the development of homosexuals in the womb. In this light, homosexuality could be seen as a "cure" instead of disease. Nothing to back this up. Just a thought...

[iindigo]

Well, I'm not so sure about the whole genetics thing...

But as for myself falling into the homo-type people's "extremist" list (look for my post on another older gay thread), I don't want to make anyone else mad at me - I simply feel it's wrong since I have been brought up as a Christian. I don't accept it because I feel it's wrong and I fear violating God's rules.


Point of the post is - homos, please think twice before putting people in the "extremists" category.


P.S. I'm very much hetero... Otherwise I wouldn't think bikini models were hot ;) :evil: Wouldn't have it any other way.

[agreenster]

There are also a lot of theories that homosexuality is a form of natural population control... Hardly a flaw if nature's intention is to conserve natural resources for the good of the species.

Assuming that's true, I wonder how our biology knows that we are starting to "peak out" population-wise? That would suggest that there's more connection to our brains/think patterns and biology than we once thought. The subconscious thought that humans are starting to over populate could affect the way we pass our DNA...

But then again, that isnt shown in most species. Most species populate and populate and populate until they overrun their environment. But then again, humans are the most advanced species on earth. Well, at least thats our opinion.

I just wish everyone would **** about this whole gay marriage/acceptance thing. Who cares? Does it REALLY effect anyone other than those getting married, or those deciding to live together? Hell, I say give em the tax break and put it to Uncle Sam. We've got more important things to worry about than whether or not joe and sam decide to get married.

[jayscheuerle]

I simply feel it's wrong since I have been brought up as a Christian. I don't accept it because I feel it's wrong and I fear violating God's rules.

How can something that's not a choice be "wrong"?

[jayscheuerle]

Assuming that's true, I wonder how our biology knows that we are starting to "peak out" population-wise? That would suggest that there's more connection to our brains/think patterns and biology than we once thought.

Not necessarily. It could actually be triggered by pheromones, related to density of concentration...

[dsyntax]

Ok I don't want to be misunderstood here so I'll start with my positions: I do not have a problem with homosexuals or homosexual marriage. I feel that it is basically all genetic and think Christian arguments against it are hilariously ignorant (though I am a Christian).
Having said that, here is my question: How do we explain the fairly recent findings about brain differences and even genetic markings for people such as serial killers, pedophiles, etc? I am in NO WAY implying that there are genetic similarities or similarities in general between homosexuals and these groups, its just that the "Its not their choice so accept them" argument doesn't really work for the other types I have mentioned. Yes, those hurt people and homosexuals don't hurt others, but if one is geneticlly predetermined to be a serial killer, how does humanity go about dealing with him? It isn't his choice / fault. Just thinking out loud I guess about the who issue. Sorry if this seems really random / offensive.

-Doops

[rainman::|:|]

Well, I'm not so sure about the whole genetics thing...

But as for myself falling into the homo-type people's "extremist" list (look for my post on another older gay thread), I don't want to make anyone else mad at me - I simply feel it's wrong since I have been brought up as a Christian. I don't accept it because I feel it's wrong and I fear violating God's rules.

Point of the post is - homos, please think twice before putting people in the "extremists" category.

P.S. I'm very much hetero... Otherwise I wouldn't think bikini models were hot ;) :evil: Wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm certainly not going to tell people what they can and can't believe-- If you want to believe the sky is red, go for it, no skin off my back. But, I will gladly label as "extremists" anyone who wants to enforce their religious views onto a populus via written law, which is what's happening today-- So anyone that votes for a marriage amendment, I would certainly consider them an extremist. So, if you're saying that you disapprove personally but would give homosexuals all the rights we're asking for (equal marriage, basically), I don't care enough to label you. But if you're saying that you would vote to keep gays from getting marriage, then yes, I'd call you an extremist (among other things).

agreenster, you have a very good question, that is: how would we biologically know of overpopulation? There are many ways that we're only beginning to understand, the easiest for me to suggest would be pharamone transfer-- When your body is exposed to the pharamones of others rarely, your body knows that you're in an underpopulated area; but if you're constantly bombarded with the pharamones of countless people (such as working in an office, or eating in a restarant, or anytime people congregate) your body knows that there are too many people around.

And most animals do NOT overpopulate like humans do-- As the famous scene from the matrix said, humans and viruses are the only two organisms that will intently reproduce until every last resource is consumed, and then survival of the species means moving to a new place/host. Even rabbits will destroy their young if there's overpopulation. But in their natural habitat, without the interference of mankind, animals have a natural instinct to find a balance with their ecosystem.

paul

[njmac]

Hell, I say give em the tax break and put it to Uncle Sam. We've got more important things to worry about than whether or not joe and sam decide to get married.

Actually, I don't think married couples even get a tax break. It's a marriage penalty. Really, that's all the more reason to wonder why anyone could care less if gays are married or are mearly living together.

[gekko513]

... How do we explain the fairly recent findings about brain differences and even genetic markings for people such as serial killers, pedophiles, etc? ... its just that the "Its not their choice so accept them" argument doesn't really work for the other types I have mentioned. ...
It's a good question. Personally I don't think it makes a difference if it's a choice or a result of some combination of genetic, biologic and sociologic factors. The fact that it doesn't hurt anyone makes it fall into the "let people mind their own business category".

I find the belief of some christian societies very strange. Jesus' advice and teachings exclusively only condemned acts that hurt other people. It was just the other guys before and after him that made all the strange rules like not sleeping with men as you do with women and that women should not speak in public. No sensible person who believes in god can, in my opinion, believe that everything that is written in the bible is true and approved directly by god. A sensible person who believes in god and believes that Jesus was the son of god would pay attention to what Jesus said and did when he lived and not to all the other crap that is written (The book of revelations springs to mind as one of the more crappy parts ;) ). I'm sure Paul and John were nice people in most ways, but they seem to have overdone their task of bringing the words of Jesus out to people a bit and added some stuff of their own. Much like some preachers still do.

[hansen]

Ok I don't want to be misunderstood here so I'll start with my positions: I do not have a problem with homosexuals or homosexual marriage. I feel that it is basically all genetic and think Christian arguments against it are hilariously ignorant (though I am a Christian).
Having said that, here is my question: How do we explain the fairly recent findings about brain differences and even genetic markings for people such as serial killers, pedophiles, etc? I am in NO WAY implying that there are genetic similarities or similarities in general between homosexuals and these groups, its just that the "Its not their choice so accept them" argument doesn't really work for the other types I have mentioned. Yes, those hurt people and homosexuals don't hurt others, but if one is geneticlly predetermined to be a serial killer, how does humanity go about dealing with him? It isn't his choice / fault. Just thinking out loud I guess about the who issue. Sorry if this seems really random / offensive.

-Doops

Yes it is always offending to be in the list of serial killers etc. even though I understand you do not mean to imply anything with that. Why are heterosexuals, red heads, peanut farmers etc. not on your list? Some of them do horrible things and they are genetically different! And why do I even have to defend that it's ok to be gay - that is beyond my understanding?

There is a different in being and acting as a gay, serial killer and whatever you mention. The big difference in the acts of gays compared to the other groups is mutual consent.

The act of serial killers etc. are clearly not acts of mutal consent and of course not acceptable. And it is very unfortunate for these people to have the urge to do these horible things. It must be very very hard. However, to think whatever you or serial killers like, I think, should always be acceptable. But no matter how hard it must be to carry these thoughts, we still should not accepts the acts of serial killers or molesters etc. Treating this challenge is one of the very tough choices of civilization. I believe in helping as much as possible as early as possible.

We have to make generally applicable laws for our society. But I do believe that no matter how we put these laws they never can be stretched like above (Its not their choice so accept them) in a meaningfull way. This is why law is judgement and not a science.

[hansen]

Jesus' advice and teachings exclusively only condemned acts that hurt other people. It was just the other guys before and after him that made all the strange rules like not sleeping with men as you do with women and that women should not speak in public.

Jesus and his 12 "buddies" :rolleyes:

[agreenster]

Even rabbits will destroy their young if there's overpopulation.

Holy crap. I didnt know that. I hated science class.

[rainman::|:|]

Holy crap. I didnt know that. I hated science class.

Yeah, i watched a disturbing example a few weeks ago, while doing research in a cemetery-- an adult rabbit eating the brain tissue out of a young rabbit's skull. It was not pleasant to say the least. Now i'm afraid of bunnies.

Rabbits also possess the unusual ability to spontaneously miscarriage (auto-abort) when overpopulated...

kind of creepy...

paul

[voicegy]

[dmartin]

The fact that it doesn't hurt anyone makes it fall into the "let people mind their own business category".

Let's see... doesn't hurt anyone... what about the hurt caused by men and women leaving their families in pursuit of same sex partnerships? What about anal dysfunction caused by putting things where they were never intended to go? What about the thousands of men who have died from STDs, which have been linked to the homosexual "lifestyle", and their families? Doesn't hurt anyone? Should I go on? Should I "mind my own business"?




I find the belief of some christian societies very strange. Jesus' advice and teachings exclusively only condemned acts that hurt other people. It was just the other guys before and after him that made all the strange rules like not sleeping with men as you do with women and that women should not speak in public.

Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God. Therefore, it's not just a bunch of guys who were supposed to reiterate what Jesus taught, but it was their calling to elaborate. And so, led by the Holy Spirit, they did.


No sensible person who believes in God can, in my opinion, believe that everything that is written in the bible is true and approved directly by God. A sensible person who believes in god and believes that Jesus was the son of god would pay attention to what Jesus said and did when he lived and not to all the other crap that is written (The book of revelations springs to mind as one of the more crappy parts ;) ). I'm sure Paul and John were nice people in most ways, but they seem to have overdone their task of bringing the words of Jesus out to people a bit and added some stuff of their own. Much like some preachers still do.

We, as Christians, are called to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and spirit" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Because Jesus loved me enough to die as the atoning sacrifice for my sin, I, by the power of the Holy Spirit, am enabled to love God AND my neighbor. I feel it is important to stand up for what God teaches us in His Word. We must proudly champion God’s love toward the homosexual without condoning his or her behavior.* Let His love shine through us, and may we all be examples of the morality God desires.

[dmartin]

Jesus and his 12 "buddies" :rolleyes:

Let's not take this thread down the road of incivility, please. :(

[Ugg]

Let's see... doesn't hurt anyone... what about the hurt caused by men and women leaving their families in pursuit of same sex partnerships? What about anal dysfunction caused by putting things where they were never intended to go? What about the thousands of men who have died from STDs, which have been linked to the homosexual "lifestyle", and their families? Doesn't hurt anyone? Should I go on? Should I "mind my own business"?


Well, obviously if this country's religious extremists were able to view homosexuality as a natural occurence, then people wouldn't be forced into unnatural hetero marriages for the sake of appearances. Hmmmm?

Anal sex isn't only engaged in by gays.

What about the millions of straight people who die every year from STDs? It is suspected that syphilis was introduced to Europe by Columbus and his men. I doubt that they had there eyes on native American males after so much time at sea. The majority of the people who die from AIDS every year have never had sex with a member of their own gender.

That's fine if you disagree, but if you're going to put up a bunch of reasons to back up your claim, at least ensure they are valid ones, not somebody's "talking points"

[slughead]

While it makes for a good research paper and more insight on to how the brain works, there's so much social baggage that comes along with being queer in humans that I'm afraid that if something similar were to be found in our brains and it could be reversed with drugs that more than a few parents would go for it with their child.

*shudder*


God forbid parents would want less drama and more grandkids.

What hooorrible parents. I suppose it's wrong for parents to have good looking kids instead of ugly ones or other now politically incorrect things.

What a crock, they call it preference for a reason. I for one look forward to not having to deal with the ultra dramatic coming out and simultaneous termination of my lineage.

You have to love your kids, you don't have to love what they do or the cards they've been dealt.

[vniow]

God forbid parents would want less drama and more grandkids.

What hooorrible parents. I suppose it's wrong for parents to have good looking kids instead of ugly ones or other now politically incorrect things.

What a crock, they call it preference for a reason. I for one look forward to not having to deal with the ultra dramatic coming out and simultaneous termination of my lineage.

You have to love your kids, you don't have to love what they do or the cards they've been dealt.

http://alamak.com.sg/i/slap.gif

[FredAkbar]

I think I kind of agree with slughead here. While I understand how it might seem cowardly or something to change your kid to be straight just so he/she can "be like everyone else," I think it's by far in the kid's best interests if you do. The fact is (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm straight so I obviously don't know this first-hand) that growing up in this country is easier and involves less stress and persecution if you are heterosexual. If everyone was cool with homosexuality then sure, let your kids be "different" if that's how they were fated to be. But it just seems like it'd be a harder life, being non-heterosexual--hell, you can't even marry someone of the same sex, a rule which I think is ridiculous, but that's the way our country (world?) is. And non-heterosexuals will always be a vast minority, so I wouldn't think you could argue that letting your kid turn out to be gay will somehow help the homophobia/etc situation.

edit: great smiley though, vniow :D.

[Ugg]

I think I kind of agree with slughead here. While I understand how it might seem cowardly or something to change your kid to be straight just so he/she can "be like everyone else," I think it's by far in the kid's best interests if you do. The fact is (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm straight so I obviously don't know this first-hand) that growing up in this country is easier and involves less stress and persecution if you are heterosexual. If everyone was cool with homosexuality then sure, let your kids be "different" if that's how they were fated to be. But it just seems like it'd be a harder life, being non-heterosexual--hell, you can't even marry someone of the same sex, a rule which I think is ridiculous, but that's the way our country (world?) is. And non-heterosexuals will always be a vast minority, so I wouldn't think you could argue that letting your kid turn out to be gay will somehow help the homophobia/etc situation.

edit: great smiley though, vniow :D.

Sure, all parents want what's best for their kids, but what's easiest isn't always what's best. Also, if we were to all take the easy path of life, we would be merely a pack of drones using PCs, driving ford SUVs, eating at McDonalds and living in suburban harmony.

Diversity is good for human existence. Somewhere, in the grand scheme of things every variation in the human race has a reason and a purpose.

It's also easier growing up when you're attractive and intelligent and have a great personality. Should all parents force their kids to be the above? IT's a stupid question isn't it, because you can only work on what you start out with and some things simply can't be changed even if it is 'easier' for the child.

Not trying to stomp on your statement, just trying to get you to see that homosexuality isn't an option like a sunroof or leather seats. You get what you get and make the best of it, because you can't trade it in for the one you like best.

[hansen]

]growing up in this country is easier and involves less stress and persecution if you are heterosexual

Thas is probably very true. However, I doubt this stress an persecution on the homosexuals are inflicted by other homosexuals. If someone is picked on for being different, I find it a terrible solution to remove the ones that are being picked on! And say we remove the bunch of homos will the picking stop? Will there not be a new group to pick on and then to remove?

This kind of reminds me of a large scale European project in the 1940's... Not a great success.

[FredAkbar]

Thas is probably very true. However, I doubt this stress an persecution on the homosexuals are inflicted by other homosexuals. If someone is picked on for being different, I find it a terrible solution to remove the ones that are being picked on! And say we remove the bunch of homos will the picking stop? Will there not be a new group to pick on and then to remove?

This kind of reminds me of a large scale European project in the 1940's... Not a great success.
Well, the thing is, your use of the term "picked on" reminds me of like, bullies in school. I agree that in that case you can remove the bullies or deal with them or whatever. But it's way harder to do that in this case, mainly because of legislation. Firstly, while schools have sexual harrassment rules that include persecution for sexual orientation, those rules are basically non-existant in society. I doubt that a gay guy could sue a person for sexual harrassment because he called him a fag or something. And secondly, according to legislation (not that that makes it right or anything), being gay is the "bad" thing and that's why things like gay marriage are illegal. You can't just magically remove all the legislators who are against gays...well we could at the next election, but only if the majority of the people wanted to.

Come on, obviously comparing this to the "European project of the 1940s" is a bit ridiculous. I guess I sort of get what you're meaning, but there are so many differences, like 1) this involves changing people, not killing them; or 2) this is to help the actual people it's affecting, not to "make society a better place" or any crap like that.

The only thing that would make me skeptical about this is, if say half the parents (that's a generous number, I know) do this, then that means there will be half as many homosexuals. Since homosexuality will then be twice as rare, it will be seen as even more "unnatural," "weird," "different," etc. by closed-minded people. Is that one of the things you were alluding to?

[gekko513]

Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God. Therefore, it's not just a bunch of guys who were supposed to reiterate what Jesus taught, but it was their calling to elaborate. And so, led by the Holy Spirit, they did.
Which is just plain stupid. Most of even the orthodox christians have chosen to ignore some parts of the bible.

[Muzukun]

I post this only to stir up discussion of a somewhat more scientific nature...

Let us assume that there is a genetic predisposition for sexual orientation. That is, there is a gene, which, when present in one of its forms (alleles), predisposes to heterosexuality, while another allele predisposes to homosexuality.

Now, lets say that this gene has been present in humans (and our ancestors) for thousands of years. Those who receive the 'hetero' allele (for want of a better term) will be heterosexual more often than would be expected, while those with the 'homo' allele (again, dont shoot me for nomeclature) would be homosexual more often than would be expected. What this implies is that throughout these thousands of years, since homosexuals would be expected to reproduce less than heterosexuals, the 'homo' allele would be gradually phased out of the genome. That is, a higher proportion of the next generation would carry the 'hetero' allele rather than the 'homo' allele, and thus over time, the 'homo' allele would be reduced in prevalence in the overall population. As such, the genetic predisposition for people to be homosexual would, gradually, subside.

Why then, you ask, do other genetic traits that lower the likelihood of passing genes (i.e. genetic diseases like Cystic Fibrosis) not disappear over time? Well, like these other traits, it is possible that the sexual orientation gene is constantly being mutated and the 'homo' allele is constantly being replenished in the population.

All in all, I have no answer to these questions. I personally feel that there is a part of the phenomenon of sexual orientation that is in-born. I dont recall ever saying, "I think I'm going to be heterosexual". I just was.

However, it would be interesting to understand the genetics of the whole thing, I think!


ok, not sure if anyone else explained things in this way but I had to do a fun little research paper while back on this and since this one posed a nice point I thought I'd throw this in...

I'm a happy gay guy and after awhile you do wonder what causes it to happen, so doing a research paper on this you eventually stumble upon a Dr. Dean Hamer or something close to that. His research suggested there actually is a particular gene that codes for this. Now the second you read about that you'd figure 'well how does the gene get passed if the dad is gay?' doing this you forget about a major player in children development, mom.

It was suggested that the gene really is passed on by the mother, not the father as it's carried on the mother's gene and therefor could not exist on the father's. Some of the characteristics of an individual was having an increase in sexual promiscuity (which was something associated with gay men at the time... and still is now I guess...)

For the gene to continue going however the mother would have to be affected in the gene in a way so she would have more children. If she passes it on to her young you theoretically have a few sons carrying the gene, and a few daughters who will do the same thing that mom did.

Another factor in it spreading was that you can be a carrier just not show it (visual str8 guy) and thus spread it that way. Also you have the nurture vs. nature issue where someone can be genetically predisposed to being gay, yet never really go down that path themselves. aaaand finally the conclusion was that the gene, if it did exist would only pop up in about 30% of the cases. So there's my little bit on this ^-^

[hansen]

Well, the thing is, your use of the term "picked on" reminds me of like, bullies in school. I agree that in that case you can remove the bullies or deal with them or whatever. But it's way harder to do that in this case, mainly because of legislation. Firstly, while schools have sexual harrassment rules that include persecution for sexual orientation, those rules are basically non-existant in society. I doubt that a gay guy could sue a person for sexual harrassment because he called him a fag or something. And secondly, according to legislation (not that that makes it right or anything), being gay is the "bad" thing and that's why things like gay marriage are illegal. You can't just magically remove all the legislators who are against gays...well we could at the next election, but only if the majority of the people wanted to.

With picked on I ment harrassment etc. Just because it's hard to prevent harassement of gay people, doesn't mean the problem of harassement of gay people should be taken care of by removing/changing the gay people. We are not the wrong do'ers here! That's my point.


Come on, obviously comparing this to the "European project of the 1940s" is a bit ridiculous.
yes, that's obviously stretching it way too far. However, the underlying thought of aligning people to a defined "normal" was a center piece of this horrible project.


I guess I sort of get what you're meaning, but there are so many differences, like 1) this involves changing people, not killing them; or 2) this is to help the actual people it's affecting, not to "make society a better place" or any crap like that.

I don't want to be helped - I'm happy with the way I am. I don't feel different. I don't feel something is wrong so nothing to correct - with regard to sexual orientation ;-). I am however not happy that in some parts of the world this is not acceptable or even legal.

[angelneo]

With all the arguments and controversy surrounding homosexuality, we have to agreed that the society has become increasingly acceptable of its existence and it is only a matter of time when we will treat it just like a part of our life and society.

[flinch13]

But it is still a flaw, not just a preference thing.

A flaw, huh? I agree that it is not a preference thing, but I'm going to have to go with the fact the human sexuality in general is imperfect, not that homosexuality is a flaw. That is just plain insulting.

[rainman::|:|]

If you believe that gays recruit people to leave their happy hetero marriages, you're too ignorant and ill-informed to be part of this conversation. Gays are gay from birth, not from the point in time that they decide to be gay instead of hetero. The idea that homosexuality destroys marriages is rediculous, those marriages were never healthy to begin with-- because the closeted gay person did not love the other one in a romantic sense. Ever. And they wouldn't have felt forced into a sham marriage to begin with if it weren't for bigoted people like you when they were younger.

And oh yeah, life is a lot harder if you're african-american, so let's kill all the black people to save them suffering. Or bleach them out like Michael Jackson.

:rolleyes:

paul

[jayscheuerle]

But it is still a flaw, not just a preference thing.


Flaw... n. 1. An imperfect or defective part, as in a crack or blemish. 2. An intangible defect <a character flaw>

Just who determines what a flaw is? I'm losing my hair. Is that a flaw? I guess it is if having a full head of hair makes me a more successful human..

Let me suggest some other flaws:

Being short.
Being red-headed.
Being bow-legged.
Being fat.

Having bad vision.
Having a heart murmer.
Having no rhythm.
Having a lisp.

Liking violent video games.
Liking coffee.
Liking to smoke.
Liking boy bands.

Believing the check IS in the mail.
Believing everything you read.
Believing in the supernatural.
Believing what your leaders tell you.

Taking too long.
Taking a stinky one.
Taking drugs.
Taking me seriously.

"Flaw" is an utterly ridiculous term for homosexuality. It would make it less likely for me to have children, but so does my vasectomy.

- j

[bryanc]

...
growing up in this country is easier and involves less stress and persecution if you are heterosexual.

...but that's the way our country (world?) is. And non-heterosexuals will always be a vast minority, so I wouldn't think you could argue that letting your kid turn out to be gay will somehow help the homophobia/etc situation.


I hope I'm not flogging a dead horse here, and I appreciate that "your heart's in the right place" with respect to wanting to spare people the suffering of being bullied and marginalized by society, but do you really think the solution to these kinds of problems is to prevent people from being different in the first place?!?

As someone pointed out, we can't 'magically' get rid of the bigots that make our laws...but we can vote for someone more enlightened.

It's good that people are different. We need diversity (including diversity of sexual orientation). Not only would the world be a boring place if we were all the same (or even just more similar), our species would likely become extinct. Diversity is our hedge against change...there will always be some of us who have what it takes to cope with a new environment (and if you believe being gay will never be 'what it takes' you are simply to ignorant to recognize that there is no way to predict what will be advantageous in the future).

The solution to these problems is tolerance (legislated, where necessary). How can we learn tolerance? Easy...start pushing your boundaries and trying to deal in a civilized way with people who are different enough to make you uncomfortable. You may never start liking them...but that's not the point...you don't have to like 'em...you just have to deal with 'em fairly.

And to the 'Christian' who thinks he should be opposing homosexuality because it 'harms' people, I have a few questions:

Do you oppose alcohol? tobacco? fastfood? driving without seatbelts? firearms? vidogames? etc.? If you do, then at least you're being consistent, but you're still being incribly arrogant to impose your beliefs on others. (Although, I have to agree that some of the above things, like firearms and tobacco, can be harmful to people other than the individuals choosing to use them, and therefore can be considered reasonable subjects of legislation limiting their use). If you're opposing homosexuality, but not fastfood (for example), then you're not only being arrogant, but also hypocritical (somthing that is entirely normal for a Rightwing Christian fundamentalist, but not very charming, to say the least).

Didn't one of your imaginary friends say something like 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'? How about you folks try to set what you consider to be a good example...keep praying to your magical skydaddy for us, but don't try to dictate how others should live their lives.

Cheers

[Chip NoVaMac]

Ia one that has a belief in basic Christian Values, I find that it offensive that anyone would try to pervert the Word to fit their agenda. But that has been done through time. Given the times (disease, war, and other factors), the writings of the time (Old and New) were used to get people on the same page.

I was brought up as that we are God's Children. As His children, no loving parent would forsake their child. God gave us the basics to live by, the Ten Commandments. Note that homosexuality is not among them. The Ten are those that can keep us from God's grace and a place in Heaven.

The Bible speaks in favorable terms of owning slaves, as long as we treat them fairly and equally. How do we reconcile that today that we know that slavery is wrong in both religious and social terms? Could it be that we choose the time and place of "acceptance"?

Move towards parents that would shun their child if they knew that they could be "Gay". What would these same parents do, if they knew their child could murder, or be disabled? Drug treatments, or abortion? Drug treatments may interfere with God's master plan. Abortion may be "murder" in how you look it.

For myself, I feel that God will judge me by the deeds that I have done towards society; as opposed as whom I chose to share my bed with. For if I were created in God's image, then God's image for us in not perfect. And the test is how we deal with those imperfections, and the desire to do unto others as we would have others do unto us.

[Chip NoVaMac]

To those that want to spare their children and others from bigotry and hatred; it begins within you. What I have gone through as a Gay Male is not my doing; but the narrow mindeness of society that I have to live in. I could have chosen to marry a woman, but that would have been a lie to myself. And I do believe that God would not want me to live a lie to myself, let alone Him.

[themadchemist]

I post this only to stir up discussion of a somewhat more scientific nature...

Let us assume that there is a genetic predisposition for sexual orientation. That is, there is a gene, which, when present in one of its forms (alleles), predisposes to heterosexuality, while another allele predisposes to homosexuality.

Now, lets say that this gene has been present in humans (and our ancestors) for thousands of years. Those who receive the 'hetero' allele (for want of a better term) will be heterosexual more often than would be expected, while those with the 'homo' allele (again, dont shoot me for nomeclature) would be homosexual more often than would be expected. What this implies is that throughout these thousands of years, since homosexuals would be expected to reproduce less than heterosexuals, the 'homo' allele would be gradually phased out of the genome. That is, a higher proportion of the next generation would carry the 'hetero' allele rather than the 'homo' allele, and thus over time, the 'homo' allele would be reduced in prevalence in the overall population. As such, the genetic predisposition for people to be homosexual would, gradually, subside.

Why then, you ask, do other genetic traits that lower the likelihood of passing genes (i.e. genetic diseases like Cystic Fibrosis) not disappear over time? Well, like these other traits, it is possible that the sexual orientation gene is constantly being mutated and the 'homo' allele is constantly being replenished in the population.

All in all, I have no answer to these questions. I personally feel that there is a part of the phenomenon of sexual orientation that is in-born. I dont recall ever saying, "I think I'm going to be heterosexual". I just was.

However, it would be interesting to understand the genetics of the whole thing, I think!

I find it hard to believe that the same mutation would just keep occurring over and over again, creating a relatively stable homosexual population without the evolutionary success of the gene itself. While CF disease genes may be propagated by mutations in some instances, the rate of such propagation is likely much lower than the transfer of these genes through carriers. CF is actually autosomal recesive. Remember that the mutations are random and prevented to an astonishing degree by self-repair mechanisms and cellular self-destruction mechanisms. While it's certainly possible that a certain arrangement of nucelotides is more susceptible to a particular form of mutation than others, it remains highly unlikely that random mutation itself could sustain one particular mutation so consistently and so prevalently (considering the minuteness of genetic error).

Of course, there are some diseases that follow the model you suggest, including Hutchinson-Gilford syndrome. If homosexuality, like Hutchinson-Gilford, does not appear regularly in lineages, then I might be more willing to agree with your assessment. However, we probably do not have accurate pedigrees of homosexuality because the taboo on homosexuality would motivate people to suppress the appearance of the trait within their familial lines. In addition, I believe that the number of traits that sustain themselves in this manner is not as high as the number of traits sustained by inheritance.

A viable alternative to this mechanism does exist and is evinced in the case of sickle-cell anemia in African populations. Yes, the homozygote recessive, conferring anemia, is lethal. However, the heterozygote, which has one wild-type and one disease gene, produces a mixture of the two gene products. There is sufficient normal hemoglobin (HbA) to prevent the symptoms of anemia. However, there is enough disease hemoglobin (HbS) to prevent the success of the malaria-causing pathogen. In Africa, malaria runs rampant and therefore the heterozygous genotype is more favorable than either homozygote.

While homosexual behavior may very well be a phenomenon resulting from the modification of a variety of genes, let's consider the one-gene model for a moment. If being heterozygous for this sexuality-determination gene confers some sort of selective advantage, then that suggests a possible mechanism for the propagation of the gene through a series of more viable carriers.

[Chip NoVaMac]

If you believe that gays recruit people to leave their happy hetero marriages, you're too ignorant and ill-informed to be part of this conversation. Gays are gay from birth, not from the point in time that they decide to be gay instead of hetero. The idea that homosexuality destroys marriages is rediculous, those marriages were never healthy to begin with-- because the closeted gay person did not love the other one in a romantic sense. Ever. And they wouldn't have felt forced into a sham marriage to begin with if it weren't for bigoted people like you when they were younger.

And oh yeah, life is a lot harder if you're african-american, so let's kill all the black people to save them suffering. Or bleach them out like Michael Jackson.

:rolleyes:

paul

What you didn't the toaster oven after your last "conversion"? <sarcasim>

In my case I now realize that there was something different back when I was about 10 or 11. Though my upbringing did not allow me to explore those feelings. Looking back, and by own Mother's admission she "knew" about the same time.

In the end she welcomed meeting the "people" that mattered most in my life. So much so they became her "sons" when she was in ICU. One time she asked why I didn't just settle down with Rick.

My Dad on on the other hand, looked at my boyfriends; as male friends. Fortunately they were more into football games than I was. He did have an issue during a "falling out" that I was a spokesperson for the Whitman-Walker Clinic and SAIN (STD's AIDS Information Network - a local BBS that I ran) back in the early 80's.

To those that feel that there is not a biological or genetic reason. One of my uncles was a single man. I believe that through his daily devotion to the Catholic Church (realized later in life by myself), that is how he dealt with the issue of being "different". I was close to both of my Mother's brothers till I came out. The uncle above, took it as an front to his own personal behavior and belief system. My other uncle was a priest in the Church. His comments were that he would pray to the Virgin Mary on my behalf.

It was only after I explained where I came from that he could say that he was trusting in God. He still prayed for me, for that is what he was taught. But he also held hope and prayers that "my choices" in life did not lead me astray. Having been groomed since pre-birth (long story) for the ministry, he knew that I took the Faith in God and His word to be serious.

But then again I was also brought up that we are not to just blindly follow any one persons word. I am young enough to remember comments about the treatment of slaves in sermons, based on the Bible. For I believe that such statements also speak to those that earn less than a living wage today.

Asd I have tolod others, I am willing to accept damnation to Hell. Yet, I can't imagine that a loving God would forsake His child for some minor issues. To me the Big Ten are the issues that need to be addressed. But how often do you see the conservatives go after such:

The use of His Name in Vain, such as G*d Damn, of ****** G*d please make them stop?

Or remembering the Sabbath Day? In Virginia we held a special session to correct an "oversight" that allowed people to take a Saturday or Sunday off. This from the same hypocrites that denied me the right to privilege to my partner's insurance (health and life), and prevents us from even entering in to legal contracts that provide for many of the same rights married couples are able to enjoy.

Adultery, we are willing to forgive those that marry, but want to marry someone else.

Or maybe the subject of coveting thy neighbors wife and property (with includes servants - depending on your interpretation means slaves, it does in mine)

Which of His laws are you willing to accept? Only those that mean anything to you? Then you can be looked upon as money changers in the temples.

[jayscheuerle]

okay, it's missing a "g"....

[FredAkbar]

In response to everyone who is against the thing I was defending earlier ("changing" your kids before birth to make them straight), understand that I didn't mean I am in favor of some kind of mass plan to erradicate homosexuals from our society. I was merely defending it as an option if a parent wanted to do that for their child. That doesn't even mean that I'd do it to my kid. Just like if I were a woman I might not feel comfortable having an abortion, but I still support pro-choice laws, to give others the right to do so, whether I'd do it myself or not.

The problem with this issue here is that no matter what, there will be bad consequences. If there are still homosexuals, they will have to deal with crap. If we lessen the number of homosexuals (not by killing them of course, so I don't like how some people are comparing that idea to killing homosexuals (or blacks as you sarcastically mentioned, Paul)), those that are still around will face even more crap, and also as people have said (and I agree), it's better to appreciate people's differences rather than try to make everyone the same. Believe me, I'm totally against conformity and all that. Basically in some ways we have a lose-lose situation here, so whatever anyone suggests, people will find a problem with it.

edit (felt like saying more): I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone, I'm just trying to join in the discussion and talk about different things to see if there's any way to solve the problems that homosexuals face in society today. To the poster that replied to one of my posts and referred to "some poster" saying that although we can't magically remove the legislators that are against homosexuality, but we can vote them out...that was me too. But I really don't think that legislature will support gays for quite a while. Maybe if Kerry gets elected and/or Congress becomes more liberal, that will change. But I know that Bush is strongly against things like gay marriage and as far as I know, Congress is willing to agree with him.

[Mac|caM]

Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God. Therefore, it's not just a bunch of guys who were supposed to reiterate what Jesus taught, but it was their calling to elaborate. And so, led by the Holy Spirit, they did.

The Bible is a product of its time. In amongst the Ten Commandments and stuff, it says that haircuts are an abomination (Leviticus 19:21, I believe) and that unruly children are to be stoned to death, among other gems. If you take every bit of it literally, you can really mess yourself up.

[jayscheuerle]

The Bible... says... that unruly children are to be stoned to death, among other gems. If you take every bit of it literally, you can really mess yourself up.

Don't stone them to death. Just get them a little high. Nobody is unruly when they're high. Stoned kids just watch Sponge-Bob all day (just like college students), and you know what the Bible had to say about talking sponges (Poriferas 8:12)...

Hey, nobody reads books any more. God's written word may have been good enough for the past 2000 years, but I think it's time He put out a DVD. I, for one, am very interested in the out-takes, bloopers, and alternative endings... - j

[cKdah]

Politics...

Should a parent be allowed to prevent homosexuality in their child through genetics?

Yes or No

Then should a woman have the right to terminate the existence of her child?

The definition of "the beginning of life" causes the abortion methodology to oppose the ideal of preservation of natural selection.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Politics...

Should a parent be allowed to prevent homosexuality in their child through genetics?

Yes or No

Then should a woman have the right to terminate the existence of her child?

The definition of "the beginning of life" causes the abortion methodology to oppose the ideal of preservation of natural selection.

This is my fear that I alluded to in other posts. There is no yes or no answer. As some have written, who would not want a biological "fix" to prevent their child from being different from others? And there are others that would want to terminate a pregnancy if there were no "fixes" available.

Years ago I did a photo shoot for the Downs Syndrome group and their Walk On The Capital. The love that the parents had for the "special gift" that God gave them was moving. It contrasts with some of my experiences seeing other parents deal with the same issue. The child was a "burden", they questioned what they did "wrong" to be punished by God.

To me I see us growing selfish. I have seen people go to China and other countries to adopt babies. While there are children here that would love to be part of a family. The excuse heard is that they didn't want to "risk" having a crack baby, or an older child with "issues". Looking for their view of perfection.

[AhmedFaisal]

If you believe that gays recruit people to leave their happy hetero marriages, you're too ignorant and ill-informed to be part of this conversation. Gays are gay from birth, not from the point in time that they decide to be gay instead of hetero. The idea that homosexuality destroys marriages is rediculous, those marriages were never healthy to begin with-- because the closeted gay person did not love the other one in a romantic sense. Ever. And they wouldn't have felt forced into a sham marriage to begin with if it weren't for bigoted people like you when they were younger.


Yep, and just today we got a perfect example for what you depicted. Gov. James E. McGreevey of NJ is the perfect example of someone forced into a sexuality by his environment and upbringing that is just not who he is. I feel sorry for the guy.
Regards,

Ahmed

[Chip NoVaMac]

Yep, and just today we got a perfect example for what you depicted. Gov. James E. McGreevey of NJ is the perfect example of someone forced into a sexuality by his environment and upbringing that is just not who he is. I feel sorry for the guy.
Regards,

Ahmed

There are those of us that feel for his personal situation. i am not sure how he had voted on "Gay" issues. That might taint my compassion for him.

[rainman::|:|]

There are those of us that feel for his personal situation. i am not sure how he had voted on "Gay" issues. That might taint my compassion for him.

i was thinking the same thing, i want to go check his voting record... see how self-hating he was. but yeah, i kind of relate to him, my first boyfriend was jewish, too... :cool:

paul

[guifa]

My sociology teacher also taught us about the studies that propose that the proverbial "seven-year itch" had an evolutionary purpose of mixing up mating pairs on a regular basis, the seven-year period co-inciding with the children being grown enough not to need the constant attention two parents. It also must be remembered that it used to be common to live in large familiy groups and tight-knit villages, so that there was never a shortage of proper male and female role models, or of caretakers for the young ones.
I'm confused. How does scabies affect parental relationships?

[macsrus]

Who cares

[Chip NoVaMac]

Who cares

Depends on what you care about. If you are talking about Homosexuality in general, it depends a lot, since is part of the public debate.

If you are talking of the biological or genetics of Homosexuality, that is a different debate all together. As is a person coming out.

[Rower_CPU]

Moved to political forum.

Good discussion folks, but this forum is where it should have been to begin with.

[Neserk]

To me I see us growing selfish. I have seen people go to China and other countries to adopt babies. While there are children here that would love to be part of a family. The excuse heard is that they didn't want to "risk" having a crack baby, or an older child with "issues". Looking for their view of perfection.

Interesting... I know someone who adopted a child from Korea who was later diagnosed with Autism.

[pseudobrit]

This is my fear that I alluded to in other posts. There is no yes or no answer. As some have written, who would not want a biological "fix" to prevent their child from being different from others?

Gattaca.