Poll: If you could know your baby's sexual orientation...

[Haunted Serenity]

Sexuality isn't something in your genes. If that was the case the so called "homosexual" gene would've died out ages ago.

And no, I wouldn't change it.

1)Awesome
2)Mind if i use this in a paper?

 

[Maynia]

Why? It makes sense. If a man is gay he's going to find another gay man. Those two men are then unable (or rather choosing not) to pass on their genes. Even if it was a recessive gene from both parents then their child would not pass on their genes. Thus the gene dies out due to not being passed.

It seems to make sense on the superficial level, yes. But incidences of homosexual behaviours in penguins, bonobos, dolphins, tigers, lions and even some insects, none of which have the sort of hypercomplex societies that humanity has developed, seems to imply that there is something inherent (ie not related to choice or societal pressures) going on, even if we can't pinpoint what it is yet.

 

[lostclause]

Sexuality isn't something in your genes. If that was the case the so called "homosexual" gene would've died out ages ago.

And no, I wouldn't change it.

Wow, that is the most logical argument against genetic homosexuality that I have ever heard. Go you!

I pray that was sarcasm XD

Why? It makes sense. If a man is gay he's going to find another gay man. Those two men are then unable (or rather choosing not) to pass on their genes. Even if it was a recessive gene from both parents then their child would not pass on their genes. Thus the gene dies out due to not being passed.

There are a few theories about that like the link below and the one that argues having a 'gay uncle' figure helps you survive (invests resources in you instead of his own kids). Like I said, theories, I haven't heard one that answers it difinitively.
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html

 

[seidlet]

I am a genetics major, and if I have a child I already want to modify the crap out of it.

Gay or straight? How passe`. You didn't even include bi-sexual or asexual options. For shame.

How very insightful, yes, I would prefer my child to be asexual.

EDIT: and seriously people, please stop getting all up in arms over genetic engineering. You are only hurting our species and hindering societal progress by opposing it. Give me one reason why it is bad, and I would be perfectly willing to debate this with you over PM, so long as you leave the movie GATTACA out of it, since that movie is just that: a movie.

because our ethical progress has not caught up to our technological progress. the fact that we're even having this debate says that we are NOT ready for genetic engineering.

No, the fact that we are having this conversation says we are preparing ethically for it as a society. It is important we have these debates before we reach the point where we will be able to, dare I say, build a child from the ground up. Okay, maybe that is a little firther off, but I'm sure you understand my point.

i'm pretty sure you just said the exact same thing that i did. preparing for it, presumably, means that we're not ready NOW but we might be someday in the future.

 

[teutonicman]

It's interesting looking at the results from the poll and seeing the circumstances that people would change their baby's genes. Now obviously some people did that as as joke but what about those that were serious?

 

[DannyBoy451]

It's interesting looking at the results from the poll and seeing the circumstances that people would change their baby's genes. Now obviously some people did that as as joke but what about those that were serious?

I think people interpreted the question more as: "If you could choose for your child to not be gay, would you?"

 

[RavingPenguin]

Artificial insemination.

Not to mention there are plenty of gay men out there that are high up in the world who take on a wife and have kids to cover up the fact they are gay.

So that argument has failed harder then the hindenburg.

You assume the "gay gene" is relatively new, as far as I'm aware. Humans have been relatively unchanged for quite some time now, and artificial insemination is a new thing. Assuming otherwise either suggests that ancient times had the means to impregnate a woman artificially, or that man is evolving. As for the cover up being gay, the children would more than likely be straight, assuming this gene is recessive as it is the minority. This means that if they were to reproduce with another straight person, which they would since they would be genetically predisposed, the gene would, again, die out.

 

[erythro]

What does Kleinefelter's syndrome have to do with this? I'm pretty sure Homosexuality has nothing to do with nondisjunction

I think genetics has more to do with our sexuality than your tone seems to give it credit, you acknowledged yourself that hormone count plays a role, but hormone count is regulated by genetics and feedback loops, so you argued against yourself there.

Hormone count is also affected by prenatal or antenatal physical trauma, disease (even after recovery), diet, and a host of other environmental conditions, it is not solely genetic.

However, the genetic factor involved in hormone production is in part the reason I bring up aneuploidy - Klinefelter's, for those who do not know, is where the child has two copies of the X sex chromosone as well as a Y chromosone. It results in low testosterone production (among other things).

My main reason for mention it is because it is one of a variety of intersex conditions which prevent homo- and heterosexuality from being a black and white issue.

 

[Skeleon]

...assuming this gene is recessive as it is the minority...

Considering the large variation in sexuality and sexual orientation (including various degrees of hetero- to homosexuality with loads of bisexuality-"levels" inbetween), I very much doubt it's mono-factorial, i.e. dependent on a single gene.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

I would prefer him to be straight, because than I could easily associate with him better. But if he came out gay, It wouldnt overly change my opion of him

 

[Numb1lp]

If I have a gay son, that would be fine. As long as he's rich, I could care less.

 

[RavingPenguin]

...assuming this gene is recessive as it is the minority...

Considering the large variation in sexuality and sexual orientation (including various degrees of hetero- to homosexuality with loads of bisexuality-"levels" inbetween), I very much doubt it's mono-factorial, i.e. dependent on a single gene.

Would any variation not be recessive then?

There are a few theories about that like the link below and the one that argues having a 'gay uncle' figure helps you survive (invests resources in you instead of his own kids). Like I said, theories, I haven't heard one that answers it difinitively.
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html

So, according to that article the gay gene for men if present in woman only increases fertility. Then what about lesbian females, and as Skeleon pointed out, what about bi sexuality and varying levels of homosexuality?

It seems to make sense on the superficial level, yes. But incidences of homosexual behaviours in penguins, bonobos, dolphins, tigers, lions and even some insects, none of which have the sort of hypercomplex societies that humanity has developed, seems to imply that there is something inherent (ie not related to choice or societal pressures) going on, even if we can't pinpoint what it is yet.

To this point I would argue a level of freindship or comraderie that all humans exihibit. These animals are not having sex with each other, therefore I think we can determine the possibility that these creatures are not sexually attracted to the others. They simply feel a sense of familiarity with them, much as you do with your freinds.

I hate genetics, its too confusing. Also I'm debating whether to stick around as I'm obviously losing.

 

[cobra_ky]

we can totally get into the argument of more/less gay. gender identity isn't binary, neither is sexual preference.

I am of the camp that believes if you are born a man you are a man for life, at least at this stage of scientific progress. Hell, if you are born both, you're both! But that's just me, and I don't care what gender people want to turn themselves into, really, just like I don't care what someone's sexual orientation is.

interesting. how do hermaphrodites fit into your theory?

What I'm saying is, while we are on the topic of discrimination and such, as this thread has tunred into, let's say I'm someone who has chosen to be gay. I only have sex with male partners, and it actually isn't too bad, and I enjoy it, and would never go back to a female. Never had any tendencies before I tried it. As far as I'm concerned, this would make me gay, or at least everyone would consider me to be gay.

uh, let's NOT say that, since i don't think that constitutes "choosing to be gay." you can choose to have sex with other men if you want, but you can't decide whether you enjoy it on a sexual level or not.

in this case, your choice to have sex with a man led to the discovery that you are actually gay. you could have just as easily had sex with a man, been utterly disgusted by it, and remain straight. (in fact, i'd say that outcome's a lot more likely.)

If somebody discrimninated against me because I was "less gay", I would take their ass to court. Just like how black people may exclude people of their own skin colour because their skin is darker or lighter, because that happens all the time. I don't think this would happen as much with the "gay community", however, because they have made it their mission seemingly to make sure they show love and open-ness to all, and it would be hypocritical of them to discriminate against someone who chooses their lifestyle over someone that was born with that preference.

you're right, you probably wouldn't be discriminated against. that's beside the point. There is an entire spectrum of sexuality, and it has nothing to do with choice. some lesbians find femmes attractive. Others prefer butches. I even know a girl who is attracted to gay couplings of either gender, but not heteros. these issues are a lot more complicated than most people give them credit for.

That being said, I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone that they can't choose to be gay. Sure, you can think what you want about the person, but in the end they'd have to go through all the same BS a gay-from-birth person would in their life, the same discrimination and hateful comments, and I'm sure the gay community would accept that person for that.

i'm not arguing that they aren't gay, i'm saying they didn't consciously choose to be gay.

EDIT: butchered the quotes.

 

[LateRRose]

What If I'm Bi?

 

[lostclause]

So, according to that article the gay gene for men if present in woman only increases fertility. Then what about lesbian females, and as Skeleon pointed out, what about bi sexuality and varying levels of homosexuality?

I hate genetics, its too confusing. Also I'm debating whether to stick around as I'm obviously losing.

I think we're in the same boat here. I have no idea about lesbians, unfortunately. As to Skeleon, it's possible that the gene displays partial dominance, that is, is neither dominant nor recessive but I'm more inclined to blame nurture in this whole debate.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

Artificial insemination.

Not to mention there are plenty of gay men out there that are high up in the world who take on a wife and have kids to cover up the fact they are gay.

So that argument has failed harder then the hindenburg.

You assume the "gay gene" is relatively new, as far as I'm aware. Humans have been relatively unchanged for quite some time now, and artificial insemination is a new thing. Assuming otherwise either suggests that ancient times had the means to impregnate a woman artificially, or that man is evolving. As for the cover up being gay, the children would more than likely be straight, assuming this gene is recessive as it is the minority. This means that if they were to reproduce with another straight person, which they would since they would be genetically predisposed, the gene would, again, die out.

artificial insemination isn't new. The safe ways of doing it are new though.

And you completely misunderstand genes. A gay man does it with a woman, has two kids, they do it straight, they have 2 kids, they do it straight, those next kids can have gays among them if gay is found to be a gene.

Genes DO NOT die out, they simply become dormant. We have unlocked the genetic code for chickens to form teeth, and it works despite them not having teeth for millions of years.. but.. shouldn't that gene have died out since no chickens today have teeth? And thats after millions upon billions of years of evolution.

 

[Skeleon]

Would any variation not be recessive then?

Well, multi-factorial heredity would be more complicated than the simple dominant versus recessive schema.
It'd be a number of genes influencing each other as well as epigenetics (factors that decide which genes are actually expressed on the proteine level).
It would basically increase chances of having a more homosexual/bisexual behavioural pattern but no guarantee as well as various "shades" between "pure heterosexual" and "pure homosexual". Studies have shown that very few people are either one of those, most humans are somewhere inbetween the two extremes.
If it is multi-factorial as I assume, that'd mean that "homosexual genetic influences" (for lack of a better word) could be passed on to descendants without becoming phenotypic (in the sense that NO attraction whatsoever to the opposite sex exists) unless combined with other genetic material in the right way.
It's obviously more complicated than that, but I hope I got the basic jist right. Genetics. It's been a while.

 

[I Stomp on Kittens]

I'll have a straight baby, it's just easier, and more (re)prouctive.

Haha
Same here. It will save them the tears and all the disrespect comments made about them.

 

[Yubadias]

Everyone who picked 'I am straight and I would change the genes to be straight' either is:

a) a redneck
b) a Christian with the wrong interpretation of what Jesus said
c) a concerned parent who knows gays are treated differently for no reason and want to protect their children.

 

[nicholaxxx]

but homosexuality ISN'T a matter of genes, a perfectly straight* couple could have a homosexual son/daughter, and a bisexual couple (because technically a gay couple COULDN'T have biological childeren) could come out with a straight son/daughter

[small]* as that may have sounded wrong, no. I am not implying that heterosexuality is in any way 'perfect' I just used the term 'perfectly straight' as in a 180 degree line (AKA perfectly straight)[/small]