NO, but I can't remember it so I guess it didn't strike out as interesting. However dawkins did say somewhere there is no gay gene, just maybe a gene which society might allow to bladebla



Cuz its ****ing weird. And a child should have a mother and father. Don't lead with another why, its purely opinion.

Ethics is under the umbrella of philosophy. In general a hypothetical can be used to explore the unintended or possible consequences of advancements in science and technology and conflicts with ethics, laws, and social constructs and standards.

Keeping the debate within civil standards would be useful to the forum.

-Zeno

A very simple explanation for how the gene could have survived is that it could be recessive. But yes, I don't believe there is a single "gay gene" anyway.

I'm just trying to explain that your initial criticism was pretty groundless.

If it's just an opinion, why do you try to impose it on others? What you want has non-trivial consequences, so you should provide good arguments if you want to be taken seriously.

Lol

Am I the only person who read this as "Im rubber you're glue. What ever you say bounces off me and sticks to you"?

The idea of a gay gene 'mutating' or whatever happens for it to be created and then surviving is absurd. Unless we include bisexual into gay definition, but it still has no benefit to the species as a whole whatsoever.

Only if gay people have enough children to pass on the gay gene, you have a point with the recessive thing but I'm not sure- only did biology at A level then forgot about it.. but recessive genes are still vulnerable to 'dieng out'?


not sure... I didn't want ot get into it I just made a point and said I don't want to be asked any whys for this reason. It's just the way it seems to be and should need no argument.

Why are you a sexist? Just to define it

sexist - a man with a chauvinistic belief in the inferiority of women

So women are obviously inferior in some ways but are also superior in others. Do you believe that a woman are of lesser value than men in society?

btw: I also spend most of my time in Thailand, I wonder if living there has affected your view of women given your other threads.

LOL, seriously.. "Your idea is absurd. I mean, I don't know anything about genetics at all, and I'm not even going to bother to say why it's absurd, but I'm quite convinced that it is."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease

OP you ARE a homophobe and so is everyone else who answers yes to your questions.
For your sake, accept who you are and don't fight it, it's ok, huge majority of non-gay peps are homophobes, you are home, np.

EDIT:
Forgot to answer your questions heh.
I say yes to both... because I'm homophobe.
See? No need to come up with silly explanations as to why you don't want a gay child.

Of course you are a homophobe if you would genetically alter your child for no reason other than to satisfy your own personal desires.

If you could inject your infant with a drug that would make sure he/she never dates a black person would you?

I mean what possible bearing does being gay have on anything? Why should it matter who your child falls in love with?

Being gay would have no effect on your life other than the fact you like people of the same sex?

No one would ever discriminate against you if you were gay? I assume where you live, you would be allowed to get married if you were gay; correct?

So what? Does the blue eye color have any benefit for the species? Still, it's right there.


There are still so many recessive genes that haven't died out. And having many children is not necessary for their survival.

sickle cell aneimia does not directly effect sex, it just makes people short of breath and some blood cells get caught up together and stuff, it is not really physically observable from a mate, gawd what a bad example to compare. The gene of being gay actually directly inhibits or reduces at least in bi sexuals a male fertilising an embryo.

Also I purposely put a question mark. Recessive or not, 'bad' genes have less chance of survival?

Everyone has brown eyes, boy is born with blue eyes, blue eyes are considered beautiful and miraculous, some kind of magic, brown eyed women want to sex boy with blue eyes. Blue eyed boy has 150 sexual partners in lifetime. Brown eyed twin has 7. Also serves for identification, cosmetic difference play a huge role,

Biological evolution has slowed down a tonne (to make way for societal evolution)... And these genes would not have such a strong effect than a gene which directly inhibits procreation. It is very obvious.

lol people really know nothing about me i am prolly one of the most least homophobic people you will ever meet.

Having said that i am using the dictionary definition of homophobic maybe thats where i am going wrong?

'most least'.....

There should be two terms imo

homophobic- a fear a homosexual practice but still respects peoples right to choice.
gayist- a homophobe who doesn't like gay people.

Changing the sexual orientation of a fetus would not make you homophobic. But it is possible that someone who changes the sexual orientation of their fetus is a homophobe.

LOL.. it just killed a bunch of kids before they ever got laid. Come on man.

Again, I have no irrational fear or hatred for homosexuals and or homosexual behavior.

The more gays about the better imo

Think about it..

Surly you guys know, phobia itself means and irrational fear.

'Life expectancy is shortened, with studies reporting an average life expectancy of 42 in males and 48 in females.'

So plenty of time for sex and upbringing of an independent adult.

Now this ain't gonna have no where near as much effect as having a gene which shifts attraction from females to males. Anyway this argument is dumb, the OP was hypothetical, the idea of a gay gene both manifesting and surviving is absurd.

I would take the injection to make my baby not be gay. Not so much because it would have an 'easier time' in the world, but because I am not gay and I think I would have a harder time understanding and relating to a lesbian daughter or a gay son.

I don't know, maybe that's homophobic. As for the question of whether I would change the kid's race, if my baby was for some reason black then I would make it white, sure, but only because I'm also white. I guess deep down I just want my kids to be like me in some way, not necessarily personality wise, but since I'm white, heterosexual and middle-class I'd like it if my kids were that way too. Is it weird to want your kids to belong to the same demographic as you? Idk.

You approve of gays as long as your kid isn't one.
What do you fear?

Jesus christ man. If you're going to respond with something completely irrelevant to my actual post, can you at least do it with something that doen't support my general point?

http://health.nytimes.com/health/gui...lications.html

I never said it didn't have an effect, the effect relative to a gay gene would just be very small.

GMAFB. Killing 35% of little kids (the infection mortality rate w/o aggressive antibiotics), on top of all the other fun complications, is hugely significant. But the gene was so advantageous for the heterozygous (and the relatively unaffected homozygous) in endemic malaria regions that it spread wildly even though it was preemptively removing quite a few of its carriers from the gene pool.

Your idea that something that has huge negative consequences for some individuals' reproduction arising and spreading is absurd... is what's absurd