Gay Rights will lead to eradication.

[Rheghead]

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?

[Viva Diva]

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.

[Rheghead]

why will it be wrong?

[apollo69]

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.

[Rheghead]

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.

[apollo69]

Not in our lifetime though.

[Rheghead]

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.

[apollo69]

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?

[brandy]

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?

[Viva Diva]

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

[bosstard]

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 (pervy!) It's gay men I don't see the point.

I also realise I'm going to regret posting this

[Rheghead]

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
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 , 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!!

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.

[Rheghead]

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 (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.

[Lezza]

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?

[fred]

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.

[apollo69]

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?

[Drutt]

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?

[Rheghead]

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'.

[jjc]

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

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.

[jjc]

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.