View Full Version : Gay Rights will lead to eradication.
I read an article in last week's New Scientist regarding the discovery of a genetic link for Homosexuality. This must come as a great relief for all those mothers of gay men who dressed them up in pink rather than blue and visa versa for lesbian mothers.
However, if God had a rethink on gayness being an abomination or if he kept his old feelings to himself and came out and started to promote gay rights then surely homosexual people will decline in numbers over time?
How? Well if gay people were helped to realise that they were gay at an early age then they would find a gay partner before experimenting in a heterosexual lifestyle. They could be free to marry eachother and adopt children in a loving monogamous relationship.
The pragmatic and net result is that the 'gay' gene will be eradicated from the human gene pool in the next generation if it acts dominantly(like the gene for brown eyes) or it will be eradicated over a few generations if it acts recessively(green eyes).
So should the church start promoting gay rights? Or is my logic flawed? :confused
Viva Diva
24-Nov-04, 22:09
Well I think I understand the point you are making, if it is in fact a gene in the human body which makes a person homosexual then yes I suppose one day they will be wiped out if they do not ever have children by artificial insemination etc.
However if what you mean by the last statement is that the church should promote gay rights in order to cause this to come around then that is very wrong.
[mad]
Sounds like a great idea Rheghead, but hasn't there been gay people for centuries already, so will it matter? I'm convinced SOME gay people choose to be gay anyway. A sort of lifestyle choice / attention seeking thing.
Maybe the people that 'choose' to be gay may have this 'gay' gene. I think this gene just gives the 'propensity' or the inclination to be gay given the correct or incorrect circumstances. But if society absolutely accepted that 'being gay is ok' and no stigma is seen, then these people that 'choose' will not have to make a choice because they would know that they were gay. They will then seek other gay people and live happily everafter.
And so my theory, if correct, will mean that the 'gay' gene will die out.
Not in our lifetime though. :~(
I agree not in our lifetime, maybe 5000 years time? (ok it doesnt look as if we will survive due to other reasons, but what if we do?)
Given the choice, don't you think gay people would like to have a family with the person that they feel attracted to and love? So, why shouldn't gay people have gay rights, then there are no more gay people in 5000 years. So then everyone can have children that are conceived from both parents?
It does sound a bit of a eugenic solution, but no one is harmed in fact everyone gets their own way.
I think I get your point, but if gay people are allowed to get married and bring up children, that child is going to grow up mixed up. If your theory is right then it won't matter, but if it isn't as I suspect, the children will think 'normal' is being with a partner of the same sex. No?
this is a very interesting conversation.. but as for the children being raised by gay parents.. and being all mixed up.. have you thought about the children being raised by parents who are abusive both physically and sexually? or the children raised with indiferance? most studies show that children who are raised by abusive parents become abusive as adults. its also like alcolholism, children who come from alcolhoclic familys are more likley to become alcolholics.. as it is a herditary disease.. i personally dont belive children raised by gay parents will be mixed up .. just because they are raised by gay parents.. it depends on how they are raised.. and the beliefs they are taught. say for instance if they are taught that it dosnt matter the person you are with but that you love and care for that person .. i think that is a healthy relationship.. however if they are pressured into hating the opposite sex.. ie.. two women who hate men and install that in the children then i see that is wrong.. just as it is in racism and any other form of biggotry.. we cant say that something is wrong and obsene just because we dont agree with it. in my humble opinion i think that as long as no one is being hurt and no laws are being broken then let them live in peace.. my mother and i have had this conversation a few times.. and i have used my boys as an example as she things homosexuality is an abomination and that she would never have anything to do with it.
i explained to her that although i would want my children to grow up and marry and have children theirselves one day.. if they didnt and grew up to be gay .. that i would still love them as they are my children and that will never change.. more than likley i will NEVER approve of any partner they have.. as all mothers and fathers know.. NO ONE is GOOD enough for THEIR BABY!!! *grins* do parents agree with me on that one?
:D
Viva Diva
26-Nov-04, 00:26
why will it be wrong?
What was wrong about it was the insinuation that the church should deliberately turn around on it's beliefs in order to erradicate the gay gene and therefore 'kill off' homosexuality basically.
Yes they should be happy and do whatever makes them happy - whether that means one day wiping themselves out or not...
and yes the church should probably accept it one of these days but I think its wrong to suggest that they should deliberately change their beliefs (albeit temporarily, which makes it worse) until gays are wiped out.
That is of course if I picked it up right in the first place.
I had a point honest but its gone all blah :confused
I may be called out of order here but I have a point I wish to make.
Homo-sexual people claim that it is natural for them to "fancy" people of the same sex. This, to me, is obviously wrong! The only reason life exists on this planet is to procreate. In homo-sexual people this is impossible, therefore (to me at least), this makes the act unnatural!
I don't believe I'm homo-phobic but being gay is not natural!
BTW, before I get accused of being some religious nut I hold no religious beliefs at all. I cannot even claim to be atheist as that suggests that I have something not to beieve in! I will admit to being drunk when I post this so if I have made any glaring errors then I apologise in advance!!
I am also a hippocrite because I see nothing wrong with Lesbians :D (pervy!) It's gay men I don't see the point.
I also realise I'm going to regret posting this
Viva Diva
What was wrong about it was the insinuation that the church should deliberately turn around on it's beliefs in order to erradicate the gay gene and therefore 'kill off' homosexuality basically.
Point taken, but now if my theory was correct, and church and society knew this,should they do nothing?And so the continued stigmatization of homosexuality will end up with the perpetuation of the 'gay' gene as well as all the angst and difficulty that Homosexuals face in daily life. Or should the Church and Society change their views to absolute integration of homosexuality and be sure by my mechanism of 'gay' gene reduction that as years go by, the numbers of people with the gene will reduce and so there are less couples alive who face the dilemma of not being able to have a family with the person they love?
Viva, you mentioned artifitial insemination? Here I admit there may be a gliche in my theory but read on I have an answer,
AI will only available to lesbians, of course it isn't available to gay men(I am not that stupid :D
AI is an expensive procedure so is not within the budget of everyone and it is not 100% affective.
It maybe that the 'gay' gene is only passed on through the male anyway?
Your thinking now, hang on what if the lesbians just go with a man for the purposes of procreation?
Well I am sure there won't be a shortage of volunteers [lol] , but I said the Church should promote monogamous marriage. If I was a lesbian and I loved my partner dearly then I would be very uncomfortable if not down right jealous that someone else is having sex with my wife!
Come to think of it? I think I am a lesbian, only trapped in a male body!! [lol] :evil
Seriously though,taking the above into consideration, can you still see the numbers of 'gay' genes that are leaving the human gene pool are outnumbered by the number going back in through artificial insemination?
If not then my theory still holds true.
I may be called out of order here but I have a point I wish to make.
Homo-sexual people claim that it is natural for them to "fancy" people of the same sex. This, to me, is obviously wrong! The only reason life exists on this planet is to procreate. In homo-sexual people this is impossible, therefore (to me at least), this makes the act unnatural!
I don't believe I'm homo-phobic but being gay is not natural!
BTW, before I get accused of being some religious nut I hold no religious beliefs at all. I cannot even claim to be atheist as that suggests that I have something not to beieve in! I will admit to being drunk when I post this so if I have made any glaring errors then I apologise in advance!!
I am also a hippocrite because I see nothing wrong with Lesbians :D (pervy!) It's gay men I don't see the point.
I also realise I'm going to regret posting this
You are right, gay people do think it is natural to fancy people of the same sex, just as much as you or I fancy people of the opposite sex. That is their mind set, and that is ours. But where you are wrong is that we should realise that if people are gay then it is natural for them to fancy same sex partners. It is because their genetic makeup gives them the inclination to think that way. They didn't ask for the 'gay' gene and neither was the intention of their parents to give them it.
If truth be known, homosexuality is not natural to me either, but I realise it is natural for them and I respect that.
Appollo69
but if gay people are allowed to get married and bring up children, that child is going to grow up mixed up
If the adopted child has the gene or not then the parents will love him or her all the same. They will soon know as the child grows up which way sexually the child is thinking. If the gay parents love their child then they would want what is right for the child and bring them up accordingly. Somewhere in the childs development, as with us all, we notice boys are different to girls, the parents or schools will teach them why boys are different to girls.
But here is the difference to which happens today, the child will be told it is quite normal to love sexually a boy or girl if he or she feels the need to, and it is only the individual that can make that choice. It will not be a snap realisation on behalf of the parent or the child, just an instinctive one.
If the child hasn't got the 'gay' gene then they will know which direction to choose, just the same if they have it. They will then be free to choose their sexual preference at an early age so they won't choose a path that Society pressurizes them into.
So, now if they have the 'gay' gene they will meet and love another 'gay' gene person and so the cycle of 'gay' gene perpetuation is stopped. And of course if they do not have the gene then they go on to propagate a 'gay' gene free population. Simple eh?
I am only suggesting that gay people should be entitled to the right to marriage, adoption of children and the right to live out their lives without fear of prejudice.
The fact that there will be no gay people in the distant future must be recognised as purely incidental as a result of our compassion and respect of our fellow human beings.
Unbelievable!
I am a gay woman and in a very happy relationship with a wonderful woman. We have 2 children, one 15 about to take her exams with predicted A* across the board... but then I guess she must be weird in some way to be the product of a gay person. I have known my lady for 20 years... wonder how many "straight" people can say this?
I don't choose to be gay, I AM gay, and I am proud of it. What you are suggesting the church do is very much what Hitler tried to do, a master race! What after that? People with blue eyes should be erradicated, or what about short people?
There are murderers, child abusers and rapists out there, why not erradicate them? Why not see if there is a gene that makes them bad? Or is that all OK as long as they are "normal" in every other way?
Homophobic drivel from the lot of you. God help your kids if any of them are gay with you lot as role models... or will God help them, after all we are deviants aren't we?
I don't believe I'm homo-phobic but being gay is not natural!
Being gay is perfectly natural, in the animal kingdom it is very much the norm as anyone
here who keeps livestock will know.
Lezza - "but then I guess she must be weird in some way to be the product of a gay person."
Now that is clever.
I am not homophobic, but I don't agree that gay people should be allowed to bring up children. There is a difference. If gay people were intended to bring up children, they'd have been able to have them themselves, no?
Sadly, it's clear that Caithness attitudes remain as disgustingly intolerant and outdated as they were when I last lived there. "Not natural"... "attention seeking"!!??
It's attitudes like these that may me glad I left and didn't return.
No, wait... one of you is going to come back with "some of my best friends are gay... but it's just not natural!"
I think I get your point, but if gay people are allowed to get married and bring up children, that child is going to grow up mixed up. If your theory is right then it won't matter, but if it isn't as I suspect, the children will think 'normal' is being with a partner of the same sex. No?
apollo69, this is pathetic. If we followed your logic, gay children with straight parents would grow up 'mixed up', think being straight was 'normal' and never be gay. Since children can grow up in straight households and be gay as adults, how can you possibly justify the 'mixed up' argument?
As far as I'm concerned, it is the quality of parenting that matters, and children should be brought up knowing good male and female role models. Many gay parents are perfectly able to do this, and many straight parents fail at it. Care to bring up a better argument for suggesting that gay people shouldn't be parents?
Unbelievable!
I am a gay woman and in a very happy relationship with a wonderful woman. We have 2 children, one 15 about to take her exams with predicted A* across the board... but then I guess she must be weird in some way to be the product of a gay person. I have known my lady for 20 years... wonder how many "straight" people can say this?
I don't choose to be gay, I AM gay, and I am proud of it. What you are suggesting the church do is very much what Hitler tried to do, a master race! What after that? People with blue eyes should be erradicated, or what about short people?
There are murderers, child abusers and rapists out there, why not erradicate them? Why not see if there is a gene that makes them bad? Or is that all OK as long as they are "normal" in every other way?
Homophobic drivel from the lot of you. God help your kids if any of them are gay with you lot as role models... or will God help them, after all we are deviants aren't we?
I am sorry Lezza but I think you have missed the point entirely. I was suggesting that Society should remove the stigma of being gay. I am sure you agree whole heartedly with me on that one. Or does Lezza propose we keep the stigmas in place?
Also, a Hitlerist anti-gay eugenics programme (which Lezza seems to think is being discussed here) would involve screening at birth for the 'gay' gene and neuterization would follow on a positive medical examination.
That would be disgusting and abhorrant. All I am suggesting is what Lezza is already doing, ie living happily in a loving relationship which she sounds as if she is doing very well at. What is wrong with that?
Lezza you have proved the my point to all the bigots who have posted stigmatized replies on this thread. Gay people can be effective parents and bring up healthy children.
You have failed to mention how you got your child. Whether you adopted, got pregnant by artificial insemination or went with a man, whichever way it was done, in a perfect world, wouldn't you have preferred your child to have a mixture of genes from you and your partner?
Lezza, you are thinking from the point of view of the Gay Community which is only there because bigotted minds have driven gay people into a group where they express a voice. I go one step further with gay rights in that preferring same sex partners should be as inconsequential and socially acceptable as preferring 'sugar in one's tea'.If the human race gets to that stage then there won't be a Gay Community, just a human community with a mix of sexual preferences. But we don't hear Peter Tatchell throwing bags of flour at MPs because he is being stigmatized for preferring sugar in his tea do we? That is because there are no stigmas attached to 'sugar preference'.
I read an article in last week's New Scientist regarding the discovery of a genetic link for Homosexuality. […] The pragmatic and net result is that the 'gay' gene will be eradicated from the human gene pool in the next generation if it acts dominantly(like the gene for brown eyes) or it will be eradicated over a few generations if it acts recessively(green eyes).
I’m surprised that anybody who claims to read the New Scientist can hold such a simplistic view of genetics.
The suggestion is that the trait (and I think it’s important to note from the start that there isn’t a single gene waving a big “Welcome to the Blue Oyster Bar!” sign) may be passed on as part of the X chromosome.
Now – and please forgive me if I’m going too fast for you here, Rheghead – as the X chromosome is passed on from the mother, whether or not gay men ‘experiment in a heterosexual lifestyle’ is entirely irrelevant.
Also, it has been suggested that rather than an inclination towards homosexuality, what is actually being passed on through the X chromosome is sexual attraction to men. This would result in the males with this trait being predisposed towards homosexuality whilst the women with the same trait being predisposed towards ‘hyper-heterosexuality’; a theory which is backed up by the figures showing that women with homosexual relatives have more offspring than women without.
It’s also interesting to note (as I’m sure you did) that changes to a woman’s immunology when carrying sons has also been linked to an increased likelihood in the younger sons (of mothers with several sons) being gay.
Again, it’s interesting to note that even when combined these two explanations still fail to account for more than 2/3rds of male homosexuality.
Rest assured, homosexuality is not about to be ‘eradicated from the human gene pool’.
Point taken, but now if my theory was correct, and church and society knew this,should they do nothing? And so the continued stigmatization of homosexuality will end up with the perpetuation of the 'gay' gene as well as all the angst and difficulty that Homosexuals face in daily life. Or should the Church and Society change their views to absolute integration of homosexuality and be sure by my mechanism of 'gay' gene reduction that as years go by, the numbers of people with the gene will reduce and so there are less couples alive who face the dilemma of not being able to have a family with the person they love?
You seem to be suggesting that the answer to society stigmatising gays is, and forgive me if I’m getting the wrong end of the stick, to breed them into extinction? Can I just ask; for what, exactly? What is it about homosexuality that leads you to believe we should eradicate it?
Viva, you mentioned artifitial insemination? Here I admit there may be a gliche in my theory but read on I have an answer,
AI will only available to lesbians, of course it isn't available to gay men
Are you sure you read the article?
It maybe that the 'gay' gene is only passed on through the male anyway?
Once again, are you sure you read the article?
I am not that stupid
:eek:
I was suggesting that Society should remove the stigma of being gay…
You forgot to finish this sentence. It continues:
… for the sole purpose of eradicating them from the face of the Earth.
I am not homophobic
Really? If you aren’t homophobic, why is it that you cry when you realise that homosexuality isn’t going to be eradicated within your lifetime?
Not in our lifetime though. :~(
Thank you jjc for your input, I know from your previous posts that you make a comprehensive attempt at getting your facts correct. Males also have the X chromosome so they can pass on the gene as well?
If mothers which have gay relations have a tendancy to have larger families but only the younger sons have a greater propensity to homosexuality then older sons will now bully their younger brothers even more having read this article.
Do you think it was wholly irresponsible for New Scientist to publish the Study's findings?
My position remains unchanged though, Gay people should be entitled to marriage, the right to adopt, and the right to live their lives without fear of prejudice and biggotry,
whatever happens to human evolution!
jjc you say
Again, it’s interesting to note that even when combined these two explanations still fail to account for more than 2/3rds of male homosexuality
Are you saying that appollo69 was right when he said that some just choose to be gay for fashionable reasons or just to seek attention. And that Lezza has no instinctive reason to be a lesbian, so where does that mean to her
If wanting children to be brought up in a normal family environment makes me intolerant and /or homophobic, then I plead guilty.
Drutt and jjc, you are typical of the pc brigade nowadays who criticise others for being 'intolerant' etc.etc. when in actual fact it is yourselves who are unable to accept that other have different opinions which may or may not be correct. I am expressing a personal opinion, which is that it is far from normal for a child two have two dads or two mums. Your opinion is that it is okay. That doesn't mean you are right. Obviously the same goes for me. I think the vast majority of heterosexual people would agree that a child should be brought up by a mother and father.
Where we differ, Apollo69, is that whilst I disagree with your opinions, I do not wish to see you bred into extinction to shut you up.
---------------------------
Oh, and whilst we're on the subject of 'normal' family units. Would you agree that children should be removed from single-parent households and sent to live with happily married couples instead?
You wouldn't have many people left if you bred out all the people who disagree on this issue. You'd need to hope there was a few gay people who were experts in cloning techniques for life to continue. ;)
apollo69, if you were ever to take yourself out of Castletown and down south to somewhere where attitudes have caught up with the 21st century, you might find that the 'vast majority' didn't condemn people as bad parents on the grounds of their sexuality.
I at no point suggested that you are not entitled to your opinions (I only seek to debate their validity), so please explain my intolerance. You, on the other hand, think that children should only be raised in 'normal' households, which you define as being one with a mother and father. Hardly a beacon of tolerance, are you?!
As jjc has already asked you about, what would you do about all of the children who don't live within your narrow definition of a 'normal' family?
You're off again! Read you previous post again. The one where you describe Caithness people as 'disgustingly intolerant' because they don't agree with your trendy pc ways.
I have been down south and I stick to my guns that the majority of people in this country would not approve of children being brought up by gays. Why can't they have their own children? There is a reason isn't there.
On your last point I am still picking myself up off the floor after laughing at it. "Narrow definition" of a normal family = Parents being opposite sexes. HaHaHaHa!! I think you are on the wind up!
"Narrow definition" of a normal family = Parents being opposite sexes. HaHaHaHa!! I think you are on the wind up!
So you'd denounce single parents as scum too then? You may not have noticed, but it's not the 1950s and the nuclear family is no longer the norm. There is no norm. Re-examine your definition of 'normal' before you go condemning a large minority of parents.
... your trendy pc ways.
Since when did believing that all people should be granted the same basic human rights become "trendy" and "pc". I think there's a little more to it than that.
Secondly, I've not argued that all Caithness people are intolerant (I'd hope not... my family is still up there). But I do believe that intolerant beliefs are rife, enough I'm sure for many gay people living there to want to keep quiet about their sexuality. Why should they have to?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Single parents are a completely different issue, and it's ridiculous of you to compare the two. Most children in 'single' parent families still have two parents.
I'm sorry but in my opinion two gay men having children is not a basic human right.
I have no problem with gay people being gay, I do have a problem with them bringing up children.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Oh yes, classy debating style.
But we seem to be getting somewhere. You've stated, in a manner of speaking, that 2 gay men don't have a right to be parents. Not 2 gay parents.
So can you tell me exactly why it is that you think 2 gay men would be bad parents, compared with, say, 2 gay women or 1 straight man?
I personally dont really give a monkeys about gay people, or pretty much any other people in general, but I do think that its fair for a child to be brought up in a family environment by at least one of its biological parents. I think in this day and age, although we do have disfunctional familes, there are plenty of sucessful one parent families out there and add to them the one parent families where the other parent is happily present in the childs life, just perhaps not in the same house.
As for children being brought up by gay parents, well I have 2 views, I really dont mind if one of those parents is actually the biological parent and has left a previously "straight" life and taken their child with them, although if I was the parent left without I would fight furiously to keep my child. However, I do think the line should be drawn at a gay couple adopting a child. Talk about making life complicated for a child. I'm not trying to say that a gay couple would not make good parents as we all know that the ability to be a good parent does not go hand-in-hand with the ability to produce children. Perhaps I'm more 'disgustingly intolerant' than I would like to think, but it just seems to go against the grain too much for me.
I think it stems from my really liking the "survival of the fittest" way that nature goes about things, I have a similar view of IVF and such like, by that I mean, if you can't, then perhaps you're not supposed to. After all, there's no IVF or incubators in the jungle. I know that someone like JAWS will try and turn this back on me with something like, but what about medication surely that also goes against nature. He'd be right and to a point I'd agree, but I feel that forcing life to twist itself into the shape that we find fashionable in our current age is a bit much.
Roll on genetic engineering!!! That way we can all have perfect children with massive brain capacity who can outwit all of us and destroy the universe :) The film Gattica spring to mind. Most of us should probably just have been put down at birth :/
Males also have the X chromosome so they can pass on the gene as well?
That’s right, they can pass it on to their daughters who, in turn, might pass it on to their sons who, in turn might then demonstrate this trait. Then again, they might not, so they might pass it on to their children … and so on … and so on.
So, are we to discourage everybody who has a gay relative from procreating now? It seems that simply encouraging homosexuality isn’t going to eradicate this dreaded disease, so what do you propose we try next? Perhaps once ‘a gay’ is found all of their relatives should be steralised?
If mothers which have gay relations have a tendancy to have larger families but only the younger sons have a greater propensity to homosexuality then older sons will now bully their younger brothers even more having read this article.
Do you think it was wholly irresponsible for New Scientist to publish the Study's findings?
Okay, I admit it. I used to pick on my younger brother. Sometimes he asked for it, sometimes I was just plain nasty.
I’ll tell you something though, I don’t recall ever thumbing through the pages of The New Scientist for ammunition.
So long as there are people (Hey, Apollo69! Listen up, I’m talking about you.) who believe that homosexuality is some kind of ‘attention seeking’ choice then, in my opinion, trying to explain the many and varied differences between humans is far from irresponsible.
Equally, so long as there are people who believe that homosexuality is some kind of religious punishment then explaining the ‘facts’ is important.
The same goes for people who believe it to be amoral, sickening, perverse, dangerous … you get the idea?
Are you saying that appollo69 was right when he said that some just choose to be gay for fashionable reasons or just to seek attention. And that Lezza has no instinctive reason to be a lesbian, so where does that mean to her
No, I don’t recall saying any such thing. For a start, I think this entire thread stands as evidence that it is anything but ‘fashionable’ to be homosexual.
What I tried to point out was that the “maternal” and the “immune” effects on sexuality account, according to the head of the team of geneticists whose study you would use to breed out ‘the gay gene’, for only 21% of male homosexuality. The remaining 79%? They’re still working on that. As Andrea Camperio-Ciani says, “Our findings are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality”.
Oops genuine mistake gay 'people'. Now I'll be branded a sexist as well as homphobic. :D
If gay people were supposed to have children why can't they. I think I will give you a clue. Get a book out the library and find out how straight people have families and do the rest of the working out yourself. It isn't normal and in reality it isn't possible.
I personally dont really give a monkeys about gay people, or pretty much any other people in general, but I do think that its fair for a child to be brought up in a family environment by at least one of its biological parents. I think in this day and age, although we do have disfunctional familes, there are plenty of sucessful one parent families out there and add to them the one parent families where the other parent is happily present in the childs life, just perhaps not in the same house.
As for children being brought up by gay parents, well I have 2 views, I really dont mind if one of those parents is actually the biological parent and has left a previously "straight" life and taken their child with them, although if I was the parent left without I would fight furiously to keep my child. However, I do think the line should be drawn at a gay couple adopting a child. Talk about making life complicated for a child. I'm not trying to say that a gay couple would not make good parents as we all know that the ability to be a good parent does not go hand-in-hand with the ability to produce children.
Zael, hi. I can see where you're coming from.
Being brought up by a biological parent, or at least a parent that the child has known since birth, is certainly preferable in terms of the child's sense of security and identity. Any parent, regardless of sexuality, who brings up their child/ren in a secure and happy environment deserves our admiration.
Perhaps where we differ is that, where you refer to having adoptive gay parents "making life complicated for a child", I would regard the complications and confusions being as a result of that child being subjected to homophobic attitudes at school/in friends' parents etc, which might lead them to question the validity of their family life, as opposed to the gay-parent family itself being invalid.
And perhaps I just don't see the relevance of whether a parent has lived a 'straight' lifestyle previously.
I have no problem with gay people being gay
So long as they all die out in your lifetime, eh?
I do have a problem with them bringing up children.
Why? What is it that you think two men will do to a child that a single parent won’t? Equally, what do you think they will fail to give to a child that a single parent would provide?
If gay people were supposed to have children why can't they. I think I will give you a clue. Get a book out the library and find out how straight people have families and do the rest of the working out yourself. It isn't normal and in reality it isn't possible.
And if we were meant to fly we’d have been born with wings; if we were meant to drive on roads we’d have been born with wheels; if we were meant to swim we’d have been born with gills….
:roll:
Surely you have a better reason that that?
Drutt, I just meant that they would have had the child themselves with their previous partner from their straight life and yes those are the sorts of complications I was referring to.
Drutt, I just meant that they would have had the child themselves with their previous partner from their straight life and yes those are the sorts of complications I was referring to.
Ah I see what you mean - that their previous straight life led to them biologically parenting the child/ren, rather than it being preferable that they'd experienced a straight life. I hadn't meant to misinterpret your statement - thanks for clarifying. :D
kirsty_31
26-Nov-04, 19:31
Ahaha.. Homos [lol]
Ahaha.. two-year-old :roll:
kirsty_31
27-Nov-04, 01:03
Ahaha.. ur not funny
am i the only person who thinks that everyone has enough problems on their own doorsteps at times without picking on other peoples doorsteps?? :confused what ever happened to the live and let live attitude? we are all different some people like green some people like blue some like neither??? we all just want to live happily and have a peaceful life? so there are people who are different and people who are the same who are we to judge them?? just my thoughts on it all maybe i am just laid back lord knows but isnt it the main thought of us all that all children are raised in a stable household with no abuse or suffering with parents who love them and is it not a basic human emotion to be loved? does it really matter who loves who? opening myself to a barage of abuse here probably but hey these things happen! :D we will never see a whole world of happy people but if by either ignoring what doesnt concern us or threaten our happiness directly and others are happy who are we to upset others who choose to live their lives as they are happy doing? If it doesnt directly affect me and people are happy then it is none of my business there is enough stress in every day life without it being added to!
BE HAPPY!!
jjc wrote
Also, it has been suggested that rather than an inclination towards homosexuality, what is actually being passed on through the X chromosome is sexual attraction to men. This would result in the males with this trait being predisposed towards homosexuality whilst the women with the same trait being predisposed towards ‘hyper-heterosexuality’; a theory which is backed up by the figures showing that women with homosexual relatives have more offspring than women without.
It’s also interesting to note (as I’m sure you did) that changes to a woman’s immunology when carrying sons has also been linked to an increased likelihood in the younger sons (of mothers with several sons) being gay.
Again, it’s interesting to note that even when combined these two explanations still fail to account for more than 2/3rds of male homosexuality.
Let me summarize this whole thread, and say I retract my hypothesis that if Gay people were given full equal rights and destigmatized by the entire Society then the numbers of Gay people will not reduce. This is due to my new understanding of how the genes that are responsible for homosexuality in men are passed on to the next generation.
According to jjc's interpretation of the New Scientist's article on a genetic link to homosexuality.
The genes are passed on through the mothers X chromosome, but the mothers are women who are afflicted with Hyper-Heterosexuality (or Nymphomania in my dictionary). These Nymphomaniacs will tend to have large families (no wonder) and if they consist of mainly boys then the youngest have the highest predisposition to having a same sex preference.
I agree my hypothesis was false, but this is ludicrous!!
Ludicrous or not, gay people should have the same rights as heterosexuals whether they have a gene that makes them fancy the same sex or not.
I' ll certainly be looking at my wife in a new light from now on! [lol] [lol]
am i the only person who thinks that everyone has enough problems on their own doorsteps at times without picking on other peoples doorsteps?? :confused what ever happened to the live and let live attitude? we are all different some people like green some people like blue some like neither??? we all just want to live happily and have a peaceful life? so there are people who are different and people who are the same who are we to judge them?? just my thoughts on it all maybe i am just laid back lord knows but isnt it the main thought of us all that all children are raised in a stable household with no abuse or suffering with parents who love them and is it not a basic human emotion to be loved? does it really matter who loves who? opening myself to a barage of abuse here probably but hey these things happen! :D we will never see a whole world of happy people but if by either ignoring what doesnt concern us or threaten our happiness directly and others are happy who are we to upset others who choose to live their lives as they are happy doing? If it doesnt directly affect me and people are happy then it is none of my business there is enough stress in every day life without it being added to!
BE HAPPY!!
Unicorn, well said!
According to jjc's interpretation of the New Scientist's article on a genetic link to homosexuality.
The genes are passed on through the mothers X chromosome, but the mothers are women who are afflicted with Hyper-Heterosexuality (or Nymphomania in my dictionary). These Nymphomaniacs will tend to have large families (no wonder) and if they consist of mainly boys then the youngest have the highest predisposition to having a same sex preference.
I agree my hypothesis was false, but this is ludicrous!!
First, I didn’t say that all mothers of gay males are ‘afflicted with Hyper-Heterosexuality’. That sweeping generalisation and misunderstanding of genetic inheritance is yours, and yours alone.
Second, why do you feel the need to replace ‘hyper-heterosexuality’ with nymphomania in such a condescending manner? I took the phrase directly from the article you claim to have read. The genealogists chose it, not me.
Third, as you claim to have read the article, how can my post have shed new light on your understanding? I am quite certain that I haven’t explained anything in a more understandable way than The New Scientist.
Fourth, the genetic trait identified by Andrea Camperio-Ciani’s team is entirely independent of the effects that the changes in a woman’s immune system might have on successive sons.
Fifth, it only becomes ludicrous when you confuse possibility and certainty, make links between separate studies when links don’t exist and ignore the fact that even the scientists who produced the report say that they are still unable to explain more than 70% of cases of homosexuality in men.
gay people should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
I find it difficult to reconcile this statement with the suggestion that homosexuality should be encouraged for the specific purpose of ‘breeding out’ the ‘gay gene’. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and, reading these nine words as an independent sentence, will agree with you.
Now we just need to move on from trying to find a reason to accept gay people in society and just get on with doing it…
kirsty_31
27-Nov-04, 11:52
wats Hyper-Heterosexuality?
hyper- sexuality in women is nymphomania, or
Abnormally intense sexual desire in women
jjc, I agree we your last few comments, but jeeps, have you no sense of humour?
BTW Nymphomania is a proper word not bar room slang to describe someones behavior.
What hyper-sexuality in men is, I don't know? jjc,could you research what it is?, I trust your skills at research.
Hyper-sexuality in men is called Clintomania!
The Godfather
27-Nov-04, 22:15
How can it be a gene if there are not gay animals (exept aparently Giraffes but there heads are too high up to see if the other giraffe is of same sex).
Arnt we animals?
Why should we be different.
I think it will be interesting to in the future see all the children that have been brought up by a couple of gays and see what % of them are gay.
jjc, I agree we your last few comments, but jeeps, have you no sense of humour?
I’d like to think I have one; but if you define having a sense of humour as finding the idea of eradicating homosexuality funny then I guess not, no.
Firstly
welcome back jjc and Drutt - i have missed you both !!!
Im with Unicorn on this. There are in this weird world many many children in two heterosexual parent households who are not loved, nurtured or valued. There are many children in care whos have suffered a variety of miserable and complicated experiences at he hads of their heterosexual parents. The criteria for adopting a child should surely be that they will be loved inside a stable relationship, valued and have a better chance of achieving their potential than they would have had if they had not been adopted.
Forgive me but i fail to see why two gay parents cant offer a child that sort of environment simply cos they love someone of the same sex - we are judging people on what they do in the bedroom for gods sake. There are heterosexual people whos bedroom antics would make you wonder about their suitablility for a whole range of things. As long as children are loved nurtured and cared for the rest will be sorted. And whoever it was who said having gay parents complicates things well how about this
being the only child in the class to wear glasses
being a fat kid
being the only kid on free school meals
being the only kid with flat shoes when the rest are wearing heels
being the only kid whos parent is disabled
being the only child who lives with their grandparents
being the only child who speaks with an english accent
being the only child who is black/asian/chinese/
all these things make life more complicated. Do we stop them happening because of that. Life is complicated. its messy, its scary, its full of nasty people who say hurtful things and children have to deal with that, they learn and they grow and they deal with it and thats how they mature. HAving two parents of any sex who can discuss and enable their child to deal with these problems is the most important thing and to be honest it matters not one bit what their sexuality is
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.