If a definitive "gay gene" were discovered, would it do more to promote the acceptance of homosexuality (see, it's innate, not chosen) or the rejection of homosexuality (see, it can be cured and prevented)?
Bad. Parents may begin snorting because their child has the gay gene
Snorting wow phone what the hell *aborting
Yeah that would be sad. Love is the answer. We are responsible to train our children to have control over our body instead of letting our body control itself... In love.
Well they might snort too ;)
We can develop genes at will in the lab so just because a gene is there mutated or synthetic doesn't make the action healthy. We all have feelings but we also have choice which means we are accountable for our actions.Any attempt to alleviate...
...will fall short because we do not have the means.
Short of killing our braincells or otherwise retard ourselves to the point of loosing the capability to make free choices. Freewill is attached to accountability so if you want to alleviate shame you would have to relinquish your control of ur body.
So... What is your point?
My first sentence was my point
We can develop genes at will in the lab so just because a gene exists mutated or synthetic doesn't make the actions, it could suggest, healthy.Our genes don't control us. If they did there would be no self control or...
Free will.We should both love everyone even those with an mutations, even those who choose to act on those genes suggestive properties I always want to end on this note because love is the only way to begin the healing that humanity needs.Hip but tru
Acceptance. It doesn't matter what "causes" an orientation because there's no wrong or right about it.
What if a person is "oriented" towards having sex with animals?
So what? As long as they're not abusing animals, who cares if they find it erotic? Animals cannot consent to sex with humans, but other adult humans can.
Either way I wish there was more help available for those poor people.
Help who with what?
I wish there more available help for people who thought like this.
Acceptance. It's sad that people stand against gay rights because of a religious belief. From that POV though if my God creates people, and homosexuality is a sin to that creator, then it can't be possible that people are born that way.
God wouldn't create people in sin. If you throw proof in their faces that people are actually born that way then those people by their own beliefs would have to show compassion right?
I was in class the other day and the teacher said," How many of you think that being gay is a choice." Most of the kids in my class raised their hand. We argued about the topic. I don't think they would believe its genetic if there was proof.
When did they choose to be straight?
If homosexuality were genetic, natural selection would have weeded it out by now.
I don't care one way or the other anyway. Sorry but there are so many other issues to deal with this is like No. 50 on a list of 50.
Sadly, I think it would still be rejected.
It would, until a bunch of people (and their kids) die.
Recent neuroscience studies have found that sex, gender and orientation are formed in the womb during the first trimester. I can't remember what week specifically, but it depends on the mothers hormones at that specific time.
I'm a bit confused at what you mean. First of all, sex and gender are the same thing and have nothing to do with a mother's hormones. Second of all, sex is determined by the father donating an x or y chromosome to the offspring.
If it were as simple as an X or a Y sadly .
Sex = physical body parts
Gender = state of being male or female as defined by societal norms
This is where transgender issues happen, when the gender of a person doesn't match the sex.
Fair enough. We learn something new everyday I suppose. :)
It would finally shut up the homophobic religious people.
Let's hope. I wouldn't count on it though.
It would be interesting to see a poll taken by LGBTs to see if they would have preferred if that gene could have been altered in them or if they would prefer to be as they are. I have no idea what the answer would be. I'd love to know.
Yeah that would be interesting. I wouldn't change it for myself if I could. Now. I would have as a teenager though.
Aside from ancient superstition arguments, there is no good reason to not accept gays like everyone else.
Whether it's a choice (it's obviously not though), a gene, or something else, I fully support the right of people of all sexualities to live their lives as they choose and accept everyone for who they are.
Has to be acceptance Kermie. People will finally understand it's not a sexual deviation that people do for fun. There will be evidence. However, many will say it's treatable, blah, blah,.. But who cares?!
Most thought provoking question I've seen all week.
Thanks! How did you answer?
I'm still sitting here contemplating, but I'm leaning more towards rejection & that's what I chose for now.
..for all the reasons that you stated below. Only I disagree with milkdud. I can see how many religious individuals would jump on the opportunity of accepting the termination of carrying something they believe is some sort of abomination.
I'm quite sure it is genetic. Seems to run in families my brother was gay as is my son. I have a cousin whose a lesbian also. And different other side of the family gay.
If there's anyone else anywhere in my family, they sure are quiet about it lol
Well my dear ShowOfHands son, I hope this it becomes more acceptable more people will be less afraid to come out of the closet. I long for the day when people stop to start talking I don't have to say
"Excuse me my son is gay. Please don't use that
please do not use that word. I long for the day when ones sexuality is not a matter of discussion or laws. When I was young there were many people that thought marriage between people of different skin tones should be illegal.
I already am very outspoken and work hard for acceptance. :-)
Well I'm sure this won't be popular but here's my thoughts-- being attracted to the same gender is not a choice any more than being attracted to the opposite gender. The choice comes in when deciding to ACT on those attractions. In my beliefs, ANY...
..sex outside side of legal marriage is wrong whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. That's what I have issues with.
And I believe that marriage was instituted by God and is a religious rite that is ONLY between one man and one woman.
You in favor of taking government out of marriage completely then?
I think that's an internally consistent view. Very cruel to the people in that position, in my opinion. But I won't flame you for it. I get why you would believe that.
Jive- yes. I shouldn't have had to ask the gov't for permission to have a religious ceremony conducted between me and another consenting adult. And I still have to show that piece of paper (the license) in certain circumstances. That being said...
...since they do require it, I better damn well get the tax benefits from complying with their crap.
Fair enough. I have no problem with your stance nor should anyone else.
Kermie- my BIL is gay. My step-son was, too. I've had lots of acquaintances who are. I have no issue with someone identifying as LGBT anymore than someone who identifies as being straight. I have the same issue with heteros having sex outside of...
...marriage. How is that cruel to LGBT?? I hold ALL people to that standard not just one group (unless you call "unmarried" one group and "married" another).
Right, that's what I meant. The idea that someone can't/shouldn't have sex just because they can't or don't want to get married, gay or straight, is cruel to me.
I understand, Kermie. I am what most people today call "quaint", "old-fashioned", "behind the times". I hold to truths and morals that have been in place for a very long time. Nothing will change that. My belief in God's unchanging laws is firm.
I try not to be judgmental, though. If someone chooses a lifestyle I don't morally agree with, whatever. If it's not impacting me, I'm not going to say anything. I don't allow it in my home and my BIL is aware of that. My house, my rules. But I'll...
...give my opinion when asked!! :-)
Well that's what this app is all about ;)
Nice exchange were is my clapping smile!
I agree, gov needs to get out of marriage I am a God believer as well, let Church's marry, if you don't believe in God there is no point to marry anyway ( if gov was out of it)
Sadly, it would command more research budget than cancer.
Most likely, it would almost assuredly take away money from actual disease research in an attempt to "cure" it.
Lol I just had an image of people running a 5K for the cure...
People will use that to justify their stance. Personally, idc if its genetic or by choice. I'm just one of those weird hippies that are accepting of people... What a novel idea, not judging others...
What!? Why wouldn't you make it your business for no apparent reason even though it doesn't affect you at all?!! Commie.
It would finish the "it's a choice" debate, otherwise I don't know.
I have to hope it would but who knows. You're born with brown hair but can dye it, etc.... There are already those who think even if you're born gay you're never supposed to choose to act on it.
Sadly I think it would do more harm than good. It already shouldn't matter if it's genetic or a choice--it still shouldn't be anyone else's business. So those people who make it their business won't be swayed by something as petty as science.
The crusade will continue. Meanwhile people will start trying to screen their unborn children for the "disease." Abortion would suddenly become occasionally moral. If you allow your child to be born gay you don't care enough about them or America.
There's an awful lot of assumptions in there. You're right to a degree, it being found to be definitively genetic wouldn't change many people's moral view on it, myself included. But increase in abortion? No way.
As a Catholic I can tell you that abortion for the "gay gene" wouldn't be considered moral. Abortion for any reason is immoral- people are aborting children with defects and disorders now and we consider that to be a gravely immoral. No exceptions.
No, not everyone would feel that way. Or even most. But some would. You can't possible speak for everyone who calls themselves a Christian.
I don't think they'll ever find a, "gay gene" tho. We already have the whole genome sequenced. I don't think they'll find a "strait" gene either. U don't think sexuality is that simple in either case. I think it's more likely to be...
Epigenetic, and not genetic. But that isn't proven yet, either.
When did I say I was speaking for every Christian? I said "as a catholic." And I do have sufficient experience and knowledge of Catholic doctrine to know that the Church would not make an
exception for aborting gay babies.
Oh for sure. I never suggested that the Vatican would take an official stance like that. Not even with this commie pope!
I don't think there's a single gene either--it's likely a combo of factors. But it's an interesting thought experiment.
Totally agree, except the part about the commie pope.
What do you think of him? Just in general. I don't follow it closely obviously but he seems like a significant departure from the last.
I like him a lot. He's not liberal or progressive at all, but for some reason the media is running that theme relentlessly. He's actually very orthodox, but is just better at showing how Catholicism is more accepting than ppl believe.
But he isn't "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination- in fact, he was very diligent in stamping out communist and liberation theology movements in his diocese.
I have often thought Catholicism gets something of a bad rap. I like that he illuminates the focus on helping the poor that Catholicism has always had but not enough people know about.
Wow, Kermie- that is a very unexpected comment. You're more open minded than I give you credit for.
Ha, well, thanks. My beef is typically more with Protestants because that's who I know better and that's who is generally more oppressive. So don't get the entirely wrong impression about my open-mindedness ;)
I think a good follow up question to this would be if they did find a "gay gene" that could be somehow deactivated would it be within a parent's rights to "cure" their children of being gay?
Ooh good question.
Although it sounds similar to the circumcision discussion and we know how well those turn out lol.
Or, alternatively, you could ask if it is within a mother's rights to abort her unborn gay child simply on the basis the baby has the gay gene.
Actually, I think I asked that question a long time ago- it didn't turn out well bc people avoided the issue entirely by refusing to accept the premise of a "gay gene"
That's unfortunate. It's an interesting scenario of competing liberal values. You don't see those kinds of questions as often as you do ones asking about conflicting conservative values. Some people probably couldn't handle it.
Good for you, Kermie. I'm glad you can keep a level head about this kind of thing.
Well I don't always keep a level head lol but I try...
Yea I know, me too. It's just my experience that it is a very touchy subject for both sides.
I had honestly never thought of the latter option, but that's troubling to think people could immediately take it that way.
That's because you're a decent person.