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

[annoyinglizardvoice]

I would change the genes to straight not that I have things against gays but I want to have things in common with my son and I don't know any gay/camp people who like football.

I'd have thought it would be popular with gays

The environment that you grow up in has a lot more affect on your sexuality than genes, so I think this is a bit of a daft question, but if it were that simple, I wouldn't give a damn if my offspring were strait or gay, but I would take issue if I thought they might be into kids or animals or something like that.

 

[BarkBark]

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.

I hope you do not always make these sorts of assumptions.

[spoiler ="~"]Main Entry: gen·er·al·ize
Pronunciation: \ˈjen-rə-ˌlīz, ˈje-nə-\
Function: verb
1 : to form generalizations; also : to make vague or indefinite statements[/spoiler]

a) I have a gay redneck cousin
b) I never heard of a story where Jesus talked about gays. I could be wrong though.
c) Well I would consider that parent stupid for changing the kids genes so they could 'fit-in'. But anywho I can imagine that happening.

 

[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?

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

Still dude what does it matter?

 

[BarkBark]

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]

Well I don't think you fully understand genes.

But I think the problem with the argument of the 'gay gene' is that, as much
whiplash it gets from the community, environmental factors have shown to
be the greatest influence on a child's sexuality. Of course there is always
bias studies, but after studying the working of the brain and the psychology
I would have to agree that environmental process is more prone to the outcome
of a child.

 

[Uinendili]

Where is the option for the fact Homosexuality is a choice, not a matter genes.
EDIT: Ok perhaps it is genes, but people can overcome genes.

Twins studies have proven that it's not 100% biological, otherwise all monozygotic twins who's twin is gay would be gay as well. As with everything in life its some combination scientists will never agree upon of environment and biology, and you can most certainly overcome either or both of those.

 

[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.

Well, how can it be black and white with bisexuality and seeming asexuality. I realize hormone count is not solely genetic, but do genetics not partially determine the magnitude of a response to an event triggering a release of hormones? As in, people with a low count will release less. In general. Right?

Now, forgive my ignorance in the subject, but does Kleinefelter's syndrome not cause infertility? If so, that is why I was wondering why bring it up. A low testosterone count will mean a low sex drive regardless of sexuality

Most Klinefelter's sufferers are infertile, yes (although I don't know how they respond to fertility treatment), but I don't see why someone who is infertile is not allowed to love or find certain people attractive.

You could define "a gay man" as being "a man who is attracted to other men", but to define a "man" is more complciated that it is usually made out to be. Is being a man having a penis and testicles? Or having a penis and testicles that you grew as a foetus? Or is being a man not having a vagina? Or is it having testicles instead of ovaries? Is it being 'masculine'? Is it to do with one's mindset, or how one is raised? Is it a matter of how one choses to urinate, stood up or sat down? Is it the physical structure of your brain? Your blood chemsitry? These definitions can be exclusive to one another, owing to a wide range of intersex conditions, environmental conditions, transsexuality, &c.

(Further more, if we have our "man", he may well have had sex - sexual intercourse as a vast array of definitions which further complciates things, which I shall ignore for brevity - with another man, but he may not consider himself "gay". Maybe he saw the act in a selfish light - he did it so that he might orgasm and did not care about his partner. Maybe he was not attracted to that man. Or maybe he is attracted to everyone equally.

What is 'attraction'? Maybe he does not wish to form a relationship with any man, but finds the male form sexually exciting. Is he still gay?)

That's what I mean by "far from a black and white issue" ^^.

And yes, genetics is an important factor for hormone production, but it's not the only one. (Don't forget that treatments exist to hinder, help, or replace hormone production as well.)

Also, hormones produced by the mother carrying the child have measurable effects on the child's development - we can entertain a "maternal propensity for giving birth to gay (see above) children" gene as well.

 

[cobra_ky]

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]

Well I don't think you fully understand genes.

But I think the problem with the argument of the 'gay gene' is that, as much
whiplash it gets from the community, environmental factors have shown to
be the greatest influence on a child's sexuality. Of course there is always
bias studies, but after studying the working of the brain and the psychology
I would have to agree that environmental process is more prone to the outcome
of a child.

there's also plenty of evidence of genetic involvement, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Biological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians

It appears to be a confluence of both genetic and environmental factors, although personally i don't think it really matters WHY gay people happen to be gay.

 

[erythro]

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.

I hope you do not always make these sorts of assumptions.

[spoiler ="~"]Main Entry: gen·er·al·ize
Pronunciation: \ˈjen-rə-ˌlīz, ˈje-nə-\
Function: verb
1 : to form generalizations; also : to make vague or indefinite statements[/spoiler]

a) I have a gay redneck cousin
b) I never heard of a story where Jesus talked about gays. I could be wrong though.
c) Well I would consider that parent stupid for changing the kids genes so they could 'fit-in'. But anywho I can imagine that happening.

Well, we all know all generalisations are wrong, all the time.

 

[BarkBark]

Well I don't think you fully understand genes.

But I think the problem with the argument of the 'gay gene' is that, as much
whiplash it gets from the community, environmental factors have shown to
be the greatest influence on a child's sexuality. Of course there is always
bias studies, but after studying the working of the brain and the psychology
I would have to agree that environmental process is more prone to the outcome
of a child.

there's also plenty of evidence of genetic involvement, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Biological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians

It appears to be a confluence of both genetic and environmental factors, although personally i don't think it really matters WHY gay people happen to be gay.

I have to admit I really don't care how gay people can get and why.
Let me make it clear have a gay friend, and I know a gay guy that
I simply can't tolerate (Yes we get it! You like penises! Shut up!).

The one thing that I find burdensome is when they say 'It is completely
genetic' and go on and on like their life depended on it. I will of course
accept this information as true, but how do we know that environmental
did not influence the biology of their body? Environmental variables have
numberious times shown that they can directly affect how are bodies work.

The one thing I would like to see (Although hard to gather) is the comparison
of two newborns, one that later becomes a gay man while the other one grows up
to be straight, and reports on how their biology is different.

 

[BarkBark]

Well, we all know all generalizations are wrong, all the time.

It does not matter if the generalization is right in my opinion.
Because all generalization is made up of is a bias out look. Their
usually is not much logic involved in assumptions of the sort.

 

[erythro]

Well, we all know all generalizations are wrong, all the time.

It does not matter if the generalization is right in my opinion.
Because all generalization is made up of is a bias out look. Their
usually is not much logic involved in assumptions of the sort.

Well, no, some generalisations may be, others can be empirically or logically true. "No man can survive a temperature of 3 K for a week solid". "All triangles have three sides". "Every pharmaceutical company is conspiring against us", you know the sort of thing.

 

[BarkBark]

It does not matter if the generalization is right in my opinion.
Because all generalization is made up of is a bias out look. Their
usually is not much logic involved in assumptions of the sort.

Well, no, some generalisations may be, others can be empirically or logically true. "No man can survive a temperature of 3 K for a week solid". "All triangles have three sides". "Every pharmaceutical company is conspiring against us", you know the sort of thing.

But all of those (Except for the last) are proven theories!

There is a difference from
-Drinking bleach is fatal
then from
-All cool kids die from drinking bleach

Generalization holds no factual information behind it.

 

[GunVsHead]

Hmm, playing god are we? Very well. Well I wouldnn't tamper with my baby's genes, being as it may that I think that everyone is a bit bi, lol. As long, as my kid doesn't become one of the many homophobic in the world or a gay with their steriotyped culture. I wonder then how much do genes really change a persons sexuality versus social standards.

 

[Skuffyshootster]

Straight people deal with less crap and make babies. There's no good reason to keep them gay/bi/a.

 

[Jerious1154]

In an ideal society where people were treated the same regardless of their sexual orientation, it wouldn't make any difference to me. But if I had the opportunity to save my child from a life of discrimination and intolerance I would definitely take it.

 

[erythro]

It does not matter if the generalization is right in my opinion.
Because all generalization is made up of is a bias out look. Their
usually is not much logic involved in assumptions of the sort.

Well, no, some generalisations may be, others can be empirically or logically true. "No man can survive a temperature of 3 K for a week solid". "All triangles have three sides". "Every pharmaceutical company is conspiring against us", you know the sort of thing.

But all of those (Except for the last) are proven theories!

There is a difference from
-Drinking bleach is fatal
then from
-All cool kids die from drinking bleach

Generalization holds no factual information behind it.

Well, "proven"? "Empricial truths" rely on proof by induction: from the specific to the general. I have seen one hundred children die when injected with this formula, so I conclude all children will die when given this injection. That would be a generalisation - say the formula contains smallpox: those children who have had cowpox survive, those who have not do not (forgive the somewhat anachronistic example, but when I first wrote that paragraph it was about cats and boxes of bees which I don't think has the same tone ;-)).

Generalisations with no evidence backing it up may be false, yes. Those with evidence backing it up may also be false, but lets accept the scientific method for now, and say those generalisations with sufficent evidence supporting them are more likely true (otherwise we circle the drain of unfalsifiability which can royally stuff itself, I think).

Those generalisations which are logically true - "all triangles have three sides" is true by definition, "if all dogs are mammals and fido's a dog, then fido is a mammal" is also logically true, &c, cannot be false.

But, anyway, what you are saying is not "those are generalisations ergo they are untrue", what you are saying is "there is not enough conclusive evidence to support those generalisations, therefore they are untrue". And yes, they probably are. =)

 

[BarkBark]

-Nothing left to debate-

You are only a few posts in, yet your already on your way to be a true Escapist.

 

[lacktheknack]

How is a gay person going to have a baby?

 

[lxl_c0d3m0nk3y_lxl]

EDIT: Ok perhaps it is genes, but people can overcome genes.

not necasserily, i have brown eyes, i can't overcome that can i?

OT: i would leave them natural, and if they weren't what i wanted i would beat the shit out of them until they were. isn't that ESSENTIALLY the same concept? just, doing it a little bit differently............