gay babies?

[Mojocaster]

http://radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/images/2007/03/04-gay-babies-57210882.jpg

t's a day in the not-too-distant future. A woman, three months pregnant, sits anxiously in her obstetrician's office pondering the possibility of giving birth to a gay kid.

Perhaps, she thinks, she shouldn't have agreed to the test in the first place. Maybe it would've been better not to know, to have left everything to fate. And what difference did it make, really? Like most of her friends, the woman, though moderately religious, considers herself an open-minded cosmopolitan with a Seinfeld-ian attitude toward homosexuality: "not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Already, some scientists claim they can potentially identify fetuses hardwired for homosexuality, and the gap between recognition and intervention is quickly narrowingAt least that's how she feels about other people's gay children. But this is her baby, her first and perhaps only one. And however much she and her husband try to reconcile themselves to the idea, they know the world at large will always remain a uniquely difficult place for a boy who likes other boys.

Without resolving this conflict, she consents to an analysis of her amniotic fluid sample, mentally grouping it with the tests already performed to look for markers of Huntington's disease and Down syndrome—things to be ruled out. Only this time, the results have come back positive.

And now she has a choice to make. A hormone patch, applied to her belly, could redirect her child's genetic destiny, reversing the sexual orientation inscribed in his chromosomes. There would be one fewer homosexual in the world—if that's what she wants.

Your Favorite Genes
It's not as far-fetched as it sounds. Already, some scientists claim they can potentially identify fetuses hardwired for homosexuality, and the gap between recognition and intervention is quickly narrowing. Some of the more notable research on the subject has focused on animals—namely, sheep. Last December, researchers at two Oregon universities concluded a three-year study on sheep sexuality in which they studied the effects of hormones on rams who prefer rams. Though attempts to alter the sexual preference of sheep failed, the mere idea was enough to raise the ire of gay rights advocates, notably tennis player Martina Navratilova, who called the study "homophobic and cruel" and said it deprived the sheep of their "right" to be gay. In an article on the study in London's Sunday Times, experts predicted that within a decade, similar patches would allow parents to change fetuses' sexual orientation.

[Ed. note: The article article in the London Times was retracted after print publication of this story in Radar. The above paragraph has been updated to reflect the corrections.]

Though such patches may never be effective (the Times has since retracted the story), there's little doubt that expectant parents will soon be able to screen their embryos and choose one with the "correct" sexual preference. Even now, doctors are testing for a number of attributes using a procedure called Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), which involves growing embryos in petri dishes and testing their DNA before implanting them in the uterus. PGD has until recently been used exclusively to check for more than 1,300 chromosomal disorders, but traits such as eye color, height, and hair color can also easily be predicted by DNA analysis. In many cases, they're marked by a single gene.

Soon, as geneticists map the location of the genes responsible for more complex behaviors and pinpoint, once and for all, those that help determine homosexuality, such traits, too, will factor into would-be parents' decisions to implant an embryo and carry it to term—or to toss it and all of its undesirable qualities in the trash.

In a culture that encourages us to customize everything from our Nikes to our venti skinny lattes, perhaps it is only a matter of time before baby-making becomes just another consumer transaction. Already have a girl? Make this one a boy! Want to impress your boho friends? Make a real statement with lesbian twins!

Dueling Agendas
Of course, the introduction of choice into a realm that has always been governed by chance promises to create a new galaxy of ethical and political problems. In the past 30 years, no two issues have been more polarizing—or more politicized—than abortion and gay rights. The arrival of "gay gene" testing will force activists on all sides to re-examine long-held pieties.

Conservatives opposed to both abortion and homosexuality will have to ask themselves whether the public shame of having a gay child outweighs the private sin of terminating a pregnancy (assuming the stigma on homosexuality survives the scientific refutation of the Right's treasured belief that it's a "lifestyle choice"). Pro-choice activists won't be spared, either. Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own? And exactly how pro-choice will liberal abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?

Then there's the question of whether some gay parents will use genetic testing or hormonal treatments to intentionally produce gay offspring. It's hard to imagine the conservative culture warriors (who accused PBS of using a cartoon bunny to infect young minds with the gay agenda) sitting idly by as actual gays—even just a handful of them—use science to pass their sexuality on to the next generation. Will the surrogate mom replace the pervy Boy Scout leader as the anti-gay bugbear of choice?

Within a generation—sooner if genetic testing companies have their way—such questions will no longer be hypothetical. Even now, with a finger prick and a few keystrokes, expectant parents are ordering detailed genetic information on their unborn children, though caveat emptor is the rule in the marketplace.

A British study published in 2000, for example, identified a string of genes that affect an individual's stamina and exercise efficiency. Soon after, a company called CyGene rolled out a test that purports to measure athletic ability. Its claims are tenuous, but this hasn't stopped the company from selling hundreds of tests. What some critics have blasted as sketchy science, CyGene calls "an extremely unique way of interpreting the information out there."

Another firm, Acu-Gen Biolab Inc., is marketing a fetal DNA test that it claims predicts the gender of a baby just six weeks after conception. Apparently there are a few kinks to work out; the company faces a class-action suit filed by 40 individuals who received inaccurate information. Still other Web-based firms offer prospective parents DNA-based drug-reaction testing, nutritional genetic testing, diet consultation, and more.

"I think that people are going to be able to test for intelligence, appearance, personality, and, let's face it, they're going to select their babies to have characteristics that they consider to be superior," says Howard Coleman, CEO of Genelex, a Seattle-based biotech outfit. "Did you see Gattaca? The ability to do that kind of testing is definitely coming."

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:EJanD17kJ7bPyM:http://radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/images/2007/03/01-gay-babies-3427239.jpg

[kevinsmith]

Wow...just...wow.
Seriously, ever wonder how long before we live in some sort of fucked up sci-fi world?

[Daucus Karota]

If I could chose between a gay or straight son
I'd probably go for a straight son in order to continue the family bloodline(wouldn't really matter if he was bisexual, as long as he marries a women and produce children)




daughters are of no use, since its illegal to arrange marriages!

[Face Plant]

Its good news, deadly earthquakes could be a thing of the past. Homosexual activity cause of earthquake (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3509263,00.html)

[ahaga]

Its good news, deadly earthquakes could be a thing of the past. Homosexual activity cause of earthquake (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3509263,00.html)

holy shit..that made me lol hard!:lmao:

[BlacksicanAmer]

Those silly Jews with their funny little hats.:D

[abbie10390]

anyone see the movie Gattaca?

i saw it in school... it's all about genetic inferiority/superiority. good movie.

[Yuseke]

In before Zardozus

[Zardozus]

In before Zardozus

I had to laugh when one 'secular progressive type' was on the news, face contorted in self-righteous indignation as they scornfully asked out loud "Yeah, well NOW we will really see if those so-called Christian right-wingers are gonna be so opposed to Abortions huh??"

Of course, nobody will be for aborting 'gay fetuses' except those already for aborting babies (because they don't have a car or mortgage yet) or the usual reasons.

The real problem here is going to be on the heads of so many people who claim there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
When the 'gay fetus' is detected they will have the 'gene therapy' or have it reversed (or aborted),
and,
Then blame 'right-wing Christians' saying that 'if only they didn't stigmatize' then they would raise a gay child.
They will say that it would not be fair to the child to grow up in a world of 'so much hate'.

But they won't find a 'gay gene' and its not biological anyways. Its just something people do.
Some people are fascinated by 'S&M' or 'BDSM' and love it, practice it, its their #1 choice for sex.
There is no 'SM Gene'.
Its not "I was born a Sado Masochist".
Its a sex fetish/lifestyle and undoubtedly there are several psychological factors and choices along the way.

But yeah, it really is fun to watch this unfold.

[camjoe87]

But they won't find a 'gay gene' and its not biological anyways. Its just something people do.
Some people are fascinated by 'S&M' or 'BDSM' and love it, practice it, its their #1 choice for sex.
There is no 'SM Gene'.
Its not "I was born a Sado Masochist".
Its a sex fetish/lifestyle and undoubtedly there are several psychological factors and choices along the way..
Eh, It's possible that there is a gene that controls the chemical balance/inbalance in the brain which may LEAD to the type of behavior, but not a gene that controls the behavior itself. (ie. genes which control mood, depression, etc.)

[Fossil]

I think sexual preference is conditioned, but not innate. I imagine it has a lot to do with people's initial sexual experiences during puberty which are often, but not always, shaped by cultural standards.

So maybe most children are pushed toward boy/girl experiences by society, but then other children, through sheer circumstance, have an intense and pleasurable homosexual experience and then that leads to more homosexual experiences/pleasure seeking. In other words, people build up an association between pleasure and the same/opposite sex.

Genes are responsible for the cells that secret the hormones that produce the pleasurable sensations. But the association itself it built up through experience.

[drahkcorjc]

I think sexual preference is conditioned, but not innate. I imagine it has a lot to do with people's initial sexual experiences during puberty which are often, but not always, shaped by cultural standards.

So maybe most children are pushed toward boy/girl experiences by society, but then other children, through sheer circumstance, have an intense and pleasurable homosexual experience and then that leads to more homosexual experiences/pleasure seeking. In other words, people build up an association between pleasure and the same/opposite sex.

Genes are responsible for the cells that secret the hormones that produce the pleasurable sensations. But the association itself it built up through experience.

I find the color yellow sexually arousing. What caused that?

[Fossil]

I find the color yellow sexually arousing. What caused that?

I don't know, a mustard fetish?

[Buddah]

I find the color yellow sexually arousing. What caused that?
What seriously?
weirdo.

[American Infidel]

Eh, It's possible that there is a gene that controls the chemical balance/inbalance in the brain which may LEAD to the type of behavior, but not a gene that controls the behavior itself. (ie. genes which control mood, depression, etc.)

Meh. We've heard from the outspoken gay community, that ghey is not a choice, but that they're born with it.

Then, the same outspoken gay community became militant, when scientists believed that they had a "cure" for ghey, and the protests ensued. Weeping and gnashing of teeth, along with the usual over-application of makeup and rainbow flag to wave, to display the pride of the genetically-aberrant.

Not their fault, but don't go trying to fix 'em!

[Karajan]

I think the larger implications of being able to test babies (born or unborn) for anything like what's mentioned in the article (especially at the end--intelligence, personality, looks..) is what worries me.

It could be very good in some ways and very bad in others. It's just a matter of who's hands this kind of technology is in.

As for the gay thing, I'm all for gay rights/marriage, but I'm not sure how I feel about this yet...I'd need to think on it.

My initial reaction is that it's not right and people should just be born as who they are. This is of course assuming that being gay is on the genetic level, which is a murky claim at best. On the other hand...I've been close friends with people who are gay and while they don't go whining about anything, I read between the lines and can see that it's really not an easy life. I think if it's an actual "choice", it's a subconscious one at best that's made in the years of early puberty. I would also say that this would only be for most people, there are certainly some that "choose" the gay lifestyle later in life, but I think those are in the minority...of this certain minority...if you will. =P

Also, even if claims that homosexuality being on a genetic "before you're born" level are proven false, these tests could still predict it with some accuracy. If they're eventually able to predict things like behavior, personality and god knows what else...they could probably fit things together to come up with some sort of index on how likely it is this person will be gay. Of course environment has a large part in this as well, which is why it wouldn't be completely accurate.

So I can see that from both perspectives...while on the one hand I wouldn't want my child "altered" in any way shape or form while still in the womb...on the other I wouldn't want him/her to go through the hardship of being gay. Tough one. Personally I just wouldn't get the test, and would be staunchly against any kind of mandatory testing for this kind of thing.

[_Joe]

If I were to have a gay son, I would love him just like any other child I could have, and I wouldn't elect to change him. That's who he is.

That said, I wouldn't assume he was going to be gay, that's a decision he has to make. The tendencies are genetic, the choice is conscious.

[chalupa]

I find the color yellow sexually arousing. What caused that?

Big Bird. Freak.

[painfulogic]

I'm really surprised at the ignorance shown by so many people able to use modern technology.

If your straight could you be gay if you consciously wanted to be, and fuck people of the same sex? I couldn't, my heterosexuality is not an option.

[texmaster]

There is no evidence whatsoever anyone has ever provided that homosexuality is genetic.

The only area where its more likely is when a child is born with a recognizable sexual genetic defect. ie hermaphrodites

Anything more is nothing but theory without evidence.

[_Joe]

There is no evidence whatsoever anyone has ever provided that homosexuality is genetic.

The only area where its more likely is when a child is born with a recognizable sexual genetic defect. ie hermaphrodites

Anything more is nothing but theory without evidence.

So why would a doctor, in his right mind, tell a mother her child carried a gene sequence likely to make her child gay? Why isn't there some sort of public outcry over this if that was the case?

There are many factors that go into one's sexual orientation, and genetics is one of those many.

[texmaster]

So why would a doctor, in his right mind, tell a mother her child carried a gene sequence likely to make her child gay? Why isn't there some sort of public outcry over this if that was the case?

There are many factors that go into one's sexual orientation, and genetics is one of those many.

Easy answer? The doctor is a moron.

If genetics plays a role then name any study that found a consistent gay genetic characteristic in even 50% of homosexuals.

[Duke Dicky]

Easy answer? The doctor is a moron.

If genetics plays a role then name any study that found a consistent gay genetic characteristic in even 50% of homosexuals.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene

[_Joe]

Easy answer? The doctor is a moron.

If genetics plays a role then name any study that found a consistent gay genetic characteristic in even 50% of homosexuals.

You sound like Dwight Shrute from "The Office." Who agrees? Imagine the first line in his post in Dwight's voice, spot on.

And Duke Dikey found the study for you. Perhaps it's time to raise your standards to 80% of homosexuals, otherwise this science stuff may start making sense to you.

Homosexuality is very complex and is determined by so many factors that I am not sure whether we'll ever be able to figure it out, but we can be sure there is some genetic influence involved. The mere fact that homosexual sex is so disgusting to me convinces me that one would have to have some inherent attraction to it in order to go through with it.

[texmaster]

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene

Read the study

The findings show that identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes were shared by about 60% of gay brothers in the study compared to the about 50% normally expected by chance.

In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.

The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone.

The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.


They can't even prove these genes are the cause. All they can say it that they are there and this study was only of men with gay brothers.

[texmaster]

You sound like Dwight Shrute from "The Office." Who agrees? Imagine the first line in his post in Dwight's voice, spot on.

And Duke Dikey found the study for you. Perhaps it's time to raise your standards to 80% of homosexuals, otherwise this science stuff may start making sense to you.

Homosexuality is very complex and is determined by so many factors that I am not sure whether we'll ever be able to figure it out, but we can be sure there is some genetic influence involved. The mere fact that homosexual sex is so disgusting to me convinces me that one would have to have some inherent attraction to it in order to go through with it.

No we can't. Until you can prove the genetic material is found in even 50% of homosexuals let alone 80 or 90% actually drives sexual orientation, you have nothing.

Faith in genetics isn't fact.

[_Joe]

Read the study

The findings show that identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes were shared by about 60% of gay brothers in the study compared to the about 50% normally expected by chance.

In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.

The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone.

The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.


They can't even prove these genes are the cause. All they can say it that they are there and this study was only of men with gay brothers.

How do we know that my genes make my eyes blue? Also, don't double-post

[texmaster]

How do we know that my genes make my eyes blue? Also, don't double-post

The color of your eyes is irrelevant. Read the study. They don't even conclude any of the genetic material is related to gay sexual orientation.

And I didn't double post. I answered two separate questions by two separate people.

[Swindler]

"Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children" - Bob Edwards

I suppose it depends on whether homosexuality is labeled a disease, but even more importantly, who will be doing the labeling? I foresee a future where the decision to augment is removed from the parents and becomes the authority of the state. I might just watch too much sci-fi though.

[JuliaAguilar]

What I want to know is what ever happened to loving your kids the way they are?

[Swindler]

What I want to know is what ever happened to loving your kids the way they are?

That sounds very 'right' but is that truly loving your kids?

What if you could ensure that your child would never have the cancer that your grandmother and mother died of? That the schizophrenia running in your family will never be a concern?

What if a doctor told you that your child will likely be born mentally retarded but all you need do is get a simple treatment to make sure that it would be 'normal'? If you decide to have the kid anyways, would that be a form of child abuse? Neglect?

[JuliaAguilar]

We're not talking about disease here, though, we're talking about homosexuality, which is not even remotely life-threatening.

Really, this whole thing is probably spurred on by those "Christian" homophobes who would do anything to end homosexuality.

[_Joe]

The color of your eyes is irrelevant. Read the study. They don't even conclude any of the genetic material is related to gay sexual orientation.

And I didn't double post. I answered two separate questions by two separate people.

Are you saying there is no scientific basis to claim my eye color is caused by genetic code?

Also watch carefully, I'm about to reply to two different posts in one post by me:


We're not talking about disease here, though, we're talking about homosexuality, which is not even remotely life-threatening.

Really, this whole thing is probably spurred on by those "Christian" homophobes who would do anything to end homosexuality.

That is why such genetic engineering technology is dangerous. Who is to say where we draw the line?

[texmaster]

Are you saying there is no scientific basis to claim my eye color is caused by genetic code?

Never said that. Please read more carefully. I said they don't even conclude any of the genetic material is related to gay sexual orientation.



Also watch carefully, I'm about to reply to two different posts in one post by me:

Your prerogative. But claiming I double posted is completely false. Double posting is repeating the same information twice, not responding to two different people

[JuliaAguilar]

Double posting is posting twice in a row. There is an edit button for a reason.

[Swindler]

We're not talking about disease here, though, we're talking about homosexuality, which is not even remotely life-threatening.

True, but what's to say it won't be labeled as such once a 'cure' is discovered? Right now, because it's an element of society which we're powerless to remove, it's just 'how things are'. Once it becomes 'correctable', however, who's to say it won't be added to the list?

[JuliaAguilar]

But who says it needs to be corrected?

Just because people are grossed out by it or think it's wrong doesn't make it something that needs to be abolished. It's not cancer; it won't kill you. People are so concerned with who fucks whom? I just don't understand why it matters so much.

[_Joe]

Never said that. Please read more carefully. I said they don't even conclude any of the genetic material is related to gay sexual orientation.





Your prerogative. But claiming I double posted is completely false. Double posting is repeating the same information twice, not responding to two different people

My point is, the information you are requiring to be convinced there is a link is even impossible for regular physical properties like eye color. The fact that these genetic traits are found in 60% of homosexuals suggests there are other factors that determine one's sexual orientation. It also gives them reason to keep looking for other genetic markers.

[Swindler]

But who says it needs to be corrected?

Just because people are grossed out by it or think it's wrong doesn't make it something that needs to be abolished. It's not cancer; it won't kill you. People are so concerned with who fucks whom? I just don't understand why it matters so much.

The thing is that it does matter, though. You point out yourself that it is not accepted by general society. Sure, it's not a life-threatening but it is life-altering. Ridicule, unacceptance, confusion, 'hate'-crimes, etc...all because of an individual's predisposed sexual orientation. If there was a choice of removing that from your child's future, would it be an option? Should it? Would the alternative really be love?

[texmaster]

My point is, the information you are requiring to be convinced there is a link is even impossible for regular physical properties like eye color. The fact that these genetic traits are found in 60% of homosexuals suggests there are other factors that determine one's sexual orientation. It also gives them reason to keep looking for other genetic markers.

Once again, read the article. It is not in 60% of homosexuals. It is in 60% of homosexuals whose families have more than one gay brother.

That doesn't even come close to being conclusive or accurate even in the people that they claim in the study. It doesn't even conclude the genetic orientation has any specific bearing on homosexuality.

[texmaster]

Double posting is posting twice in a row. There is an edit button for a reason.

Thanks for sharing your opinion

[JuliaAguilar]

That's not an opinion, that's a fact. And it's against the rules of this forum.

As such, I reported you. Mainly for double posting, but also for being rude, because those of us who were telling you about your errors were only trying to help. I didn't really lolz

[_Joe]

Once again, read the article. It is not in 60% of homosexuals. It is in 60% of homosexuals whose families have more than one gay brother.

That doesn't even come close to being conclusive or accurate even in the people that they claim in the study. It doesn't even conclude the genetic orientation has any specific bearing on homosexuality.

So you're saying there is no genetic pre-disposition to being gay, at any degree?

[Fossil]

How do we know that my genes make my eyes blue? Also, don't double-post

But your eyes aren't a behavior, they are a physical trait mediated by a couple different genes. And even then, the act of seeing with your eyes isn't specified by your genetic code. The brain has to be trained during infancy in order to make sense out of the light that bounces onto the retina.

Sex *is* a behavior. Off the top of my head, I can't think a single behavior that is predetermined by genetics. Genes do provide the basis for the urge to have sex, but they don't tell you what you should or shouldn't have sex with.

[_Joe]

But your eyes aren't a behavior, they are a physical trait mediated by a couple different genes. And even then, the act of seeing with your eyes isn't specified by your genetic code. The brain has to be trained during infancy in order to make sense out of the light that bounces onto the retina.

Sex *is* a behavior. Off the top of my head, I can't think a single behavior that is predetermined by genetics. Genes do provide the basis for the urge to have sex, but they don't tell you what you should or shouldn't have sex with.

So isn't it possible that genes could also provide the urge to have sex with the same sex? I agree that environmental factors also play a large role, but there seems to be a genetic factor as well from most research in the field.

[Zardozus]

You have to look at it this way... its entirely possible there is some people (Irish, Natives) who are 'genetically predisposed' to alcohol sensitivity/addiction or something in which they have some sort of issue in the body itself.
Maybe they absorb/retain alcohol faster or longer.
Whatever the case, no matter.

The point here is that the person still has to find alcohol, choose to drink the alcohol, decide its helping some psychological pain or meeting some need (social, psych whatnot),
and,
then they still have to keep drinking enough until it becomes a habit, develop cravings and so on.
Even after that - they still have the ability to decide to slow, stop drinking, moderate it etc.

So you may very well have a certain segment who have some sort of genetic issue - lets just say some people receive a greater thrill from orgasms.. just somehow born that way.
OK.
You still have everything else 'as it stands' after that including that free will to seek, find, make habit and even refine and perfect that habit, thrill, lust etc.

Keep something in mind here... many people are born with a desire to want to murder people.
A 'Violence gene'.
Honestly, I suppose if you were to push anyone the right way, anyone could exhibit that overwhelming urge to want to kill someone.
Some people only need to get annoyed in traffic and they all but force themselves to stay put and NOT begin smashing the other persons face until they die.
Personally, I wanted to kill someone once... and by this I mean the 'urge' or 'rage' or 'hatred compulsion' was compelling me to want to strangle or just harm them till they were dead.
Of course I have an intolerant so-called 'christian' belief that judges murder as being wrong and bad and so I do not act upon that violent urge to hurt someone I think wronged me (or others).
Even still.. it appears I was born with this because I remember ever since I was like 14 years old when I first realised I wanted to smash this other boys face into his locker.
Then I knew I was different than the others?

[Jonny Rotten]

You have to look at it this way... its entirely possible there is some people (Irish, Natives) who are 'genetically predisposed' to alcohol sensitivity/addiction or something in which they have some sort of issue in the body itself.
Maybe they absorb/retain alcohol faster or longer.
Whatever the case, no matter.

Natives are predisposed to being an alcoholics? i have a good friend you is a native and hes also my roommate for a few years now and i drink far harder than him. this is nothing more than a stereo type. here in Canada, if you look at the history of this country, the only real thing that has be mis-handled is the treatment of the aboriginals, they are under federal law as the rest of the country is under provincial law... why is that? i forget the term but they were seen as prize for the crown because they concurred the land, as if they were things. now if you look at the living conditions, they are not up to par. all that i am saying is natives irish (which you can make a similar look at... i think) may tend to drink but the living conditions are more than likely the cause than genes, which they have not found an alcoholic gene (not saying that there is not one just that one cannot simply say that it is a gene)

[particlephysics]

your thread is erroneously represented in that babys can be born gay. Being is having to do with the environment your born in not genetics

[Spike Lee]

The thing is that it does matter, though. You point out yourself that it is not accepted by general society. Sure, it's not a life-threatening but it is life-altering. Ridicule, unacceptance, confusion, 'hate'-crimes, etc...all because of an individual's predisposed sexual orientation. If there was a choice of removing that from your child's future, would it be an option? Should it? Would the alternative really be love?

With that same argument I suppose we should alter peoples genes to not make them black or brown.

[texmaster]

That's not an opinion, that's a fact. And it's against the rules of this forum.

Wow. I had no idea thanking someone was considered rude. I'll have to remember that.

As such, I reported you. Mainly for double posting, but also for being rude, because those of us who were telling you about your errors were only trying to help. I didn't really lolz

Yes I know you reported me instead of addressing the topic. Next time, if you respond respectfully you will get the same from me.

Now back to the topic, how about sharing your opinion?

So you're saying there is no genetic pre-disposition to being gay, at any degree?


None that has come anywhere near to being proven.

Anyone believing there is proof of gay genetic traits is relying soley on faith, not fact.

[camjoe87]

Anyone believing there is proof of gay genetic traits is relying soley on faith, not fact.

Like I said .. there could be a gene that predisposes people to being gay. Not necessarily a gay gene .. I would say it's much broader than that and has a lot to do with controlling chemical reactions in the brain.

I dunno, I think it makes sense that there could be a gene controlling what kind of people you are attracted too. Obviously having gay tendencies (some animals for instance) has nothing to do with whether your attracted to one sex or the other.

A lot of people like to bring up the acnient romans (or greeks?) views on gay sex .. which most males participated in at the time (for social reasons) .. But I'm not sure if you could say they weren't attracted to women seeing as they still reproduced. But then again, I'm not sure if gay men/women today are still attracted to the opposite sex ?? It's hard to say.

[Swindler]

With that same argument I suppose we should alter peoples genes to not make them black or brown.

That touches on my original point, though I probably played the devil's advocate a bit too heavily. Once the door is open to augmenting our unborn, it will all depend on who has the say. The Parents? Doctors? Government?

[mat_da_yo]

It's impossible to determine if someone is gay, period. It all depends on the person's surroundings.

[Mojocaster]

It's impossible to determine if someone is gay, period. It all depends on the person's surroundings.
What do you mean "surrondings?

so if the baby boy is born in California, and the parents paint his room pink, and they don't buy him boy specific toys, is he more likely to be gay?

[Duke Dicky]

I guess the question I'd like to know is, what does it matter if homosexuality is genetic or brought on by social factors?

[texmaster]

I guess the question I'd like to know is, what does it matter if homosexuality is genetic or brought on by social factors?

Its important because it is the cornerstone of the gay community's entire argument of "I was born this way" Their religion is their sexual preference and they do whatever they can to get kids sexualized at younger and younger ages from books like Tommy has 2 mommies to showing kinder gardeners how to put a condom on a cucumber. They rob children of their innocence in a quest to find new followers.

If its social factors that determine the vast majority of homosexuals then it can be treated as such which is everything they are against.

[Spike Lee]

Its important because it is the cornerstone of the gay community's entire argument of "I was born this way" Their religion is their sexual preference and they do whatever they can to get kids sexualized at younger and younger ages from books like Tommy has 2 mommies to showing kinder gardeners how to put a condom on a cucumber. They rob children of their innocence in a quest to find new followers.

If its social factors that determine the vast majority of homosexuals then it can be treated as such which is everything they are against.
When people say we live in a society of fear, look no further to this guy.

[Fossil]

So isn't it possible that genes could also provide the urge to have sex with the same sex? I agree that environmental factors also play a large role, but there seems to be a genetic factor as well from most research in the field.

Sure, it's possible. Other animals use pheromones to attract mates, and humans might. If we do, then something like that would support a genetic predisposition to a certain sex. But even that wouldn't fully explain why humans get aroused looking at porn -- no scents there, just pure visual stimulation.

[BJ and UT5]

You have to look at it this way... its entirely possible there is some people (Irish, Natives) who are 'genetically predisposed' to alcohol sensitivity/addiction or something in which they have some sort of issue in the body itself.
Maybe they absorb/retain alcohol faster or longer.
Whatever the case, no matter.

The point here is that the person still has to find alcohol, choose to drink the alcohol, decide its helping some psychological pain or meeting some need (social, psych whatnot),
and,
then they still have to keep drinking enough until it becomes a habit, develop cravings and so on.
Even after that - they still have the ability to decide to slow, stop drinking, moderate it etc.

So you may very well have a certain segment who have some sort of genetic issue - lets just say some people receive a greater thrill from orgasms.. just somehow born that way.
OK.
You still have everything else 'as it stands' after that including that free will to seek, find, make habit and even refine and perfect that habit, thrill, lust etc.

Keep something in mind here... many people are born with a desire to want to murder people.
A 'Violence gene'.
Honestly, I suppose if you were to push anyone the right way, anyone could exhibit that overwhelming urge to want to kill someone.
Some people only need to get annoyed in traffic and they all but force themselves to stay put and NOT begin smashing the other persons face until they die.
Personally, I wanted to kill someone once... and by this I mean the 'urge' or 'rage' or 'hatred compulsion' was compelling me to want to strangle or just harm them till they were dead.
Of course I have an intolerant so-called 'christian' belief that judges murder as being wrong and bad and so I do not act upon that violent urge to hurt someone I think wronged me (or others).
Even still.. it appears I was born with this because I remember ever since I was like 14 years old when I first realised I wanted to smash this other boys face into his locker.
Then I knew I was different than the others?

I sincerely hope that you do not work in scientific field because your understanding of scientific method is an insult to logical people everywhere. You mentioned in an earlier post that homosexuality is not genetic, its just something people do and now you're saying there is definitely an violence gene that give people an inert desire to murder other people. The one thing that both of those claims have in common is that there isn't enough evidence to support either of them. It doesn't work this way no matter who your imaginary friend is. If you can't provide conclusive proof that these controversial claims are true then why do you make them?

Also, on a somewhat related note, I sincerely hope that you do not work in a field involved with history as your understanding of that is also piss poor. Murder = bad is not a Christian idea uniquely. It was around long before Christianity or the ten commandments or the idea of a single god and it is shared by the majority of the world right now, Christian or not.

Its important because it is the cornerstone of the gay community's entire argument of "I was born this way" Their religion is their sexual preference and they do whatever they can to get kids sexualized at younger and younger ages from books like Tommy has 2 mommies to showing kinder gardeners how to put a condom on a cucumber. They rob children of their innocence in a quest to find new followers.

If its social factors that determine the vast majority of homosexuals then it can be treated as such which is everything they are against.

When did the gays do the condom/cucumber thing cause I must have missed that? Also, I did a google search for "Tommy has 2 mommies" and wasn't able to find anything. Do you have an ISBN number or something? Because otherwise I'm going to have to assume you're full of shit.

What the hell difference does it make if they're gay because of genetics or because of environmental factors? They're gay. Its been established. Move on.

[Zardozus]

BFUTS
Please do not try and respond to anything I am posting. You are just wasting my time with nonsense about how you think something is 'scientific' or whatever crap you think you are about to smack down here.

Here is what I think is FUCKIN HILARIOUS when you actually have the nuts to put a 'who me?' look on your face and pretend like you don't know that human beings are prone to rage and violence.
Seriously,
I seriously want to ask you if you don't suddenly feel so embarrassed, so stupid about yourself and so plain dumb to stand up and pretend to be asking (with a straight face) that you are somehow 'confused' and 'never heard that before' and 'need to see some proof'
LMAO!
Wow.
I honestly hoped you are embarrassed right now because that shame would help you think twice about the next time you decide to pretend like you should say something like a 'scientist' LMFAO!
Real good kid.. lol.. real good heh.

[texmaster]

When people say we live in a society of fear, look no further to this guy.

So its fear to tell the truth now?

[kazuri]

It is obviously genetics and surroundings.

Scientists can change some insects/animals sexuality at will.

And obviously adults have made their kids incredibly anti-anything, be it gay, racist, etc etc. Its only natural that it could be the other way around as well. How many times are the homosexual male childmolesters victims to being molested by males themselves? Quite often from what I have seen.

[texmaster]

When did the gays do the condom/cucumber thing cause I must have missed that? Also, I did a google search for "Tommy has 2 mommies" and wasn't able to find anything. Do you have an ISBN number or something? Because otherwise I'm going to have to assume you're full of shit.

I was obviosuly being facetious about the title. The argument is still the same.

You need examples of this? No problem

In a controversy with a familiar ring, parents of a Lexington second-grader are protesting that their son's teacher read a fairy tale about gay marriage to the class without warning parents first.

The teacher at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School used the children's book, ''King & King," as part of a lesson about different types of weddings. A prince marries another prince instead of a princess in the book, which was on the American Library Association's list of the 10 most challenged books in 2004 because of its homosexual theme.

''My son is only 7 years old," said Lexington parent Robin Wirthlin, who complained to the school system last month and will meet with the superintendent next week. ''By presenting this kind of issue at such a young age, they're trying to indoctrinate our children. They're intentionally presenting this as a norm, and it's not a value that our family supports."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/20/parents_rip_school_over_gay_storybook/

A parents group is asking a judge to halt an explicit sex-education curriculum implemented by a Maryland school board that teaches homosexuality is innate and provides depictions of "erotic" sex techniques.

Brandon M. Bolling, of the Thomas More Law Center, told Judge William J. Rowan III that state law requires that information presented in public schools be supported with evidence, and the teaching that homosexuality is "innate" lacks that support.

"The Maryland law says you have to teach something that is factually accurate," he told the judge. "They are not doing that. That is illegal."

He also argued that the lessons required by Montgomery County Board of Education teach students how to use condoms in violation of a state prohibition against material that "portrays erotic techniques of sexual intercourse."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59763

What the hell difference does it make if they're gay because of genetics or because of environmental factors? They're gay. Its been established. Move on.

As I said, it matters to the gay community.


'I was born this way'


PAUL MILLER (name changed to protect identity) is finally at peace with himself. After years of self-denial and "living a lie," Miller has been able to come to grips with the fact that he is attracted to men.

"I can't help being the person I am," he declared, his defiant voice sounding somewhat relieved that he could say this openly. "I didn't just wake up one morning and decide that I wanted to be gay, I was born this way and so are a lot of other Jamaican men and women. We are no different from anybody else -- God made us this way and no, I am not ashamed of who I am."

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/pages/gay/indexa.html

It is obviously genetics and surroundings.

Scientists can change some insects/animals sexuality at will.

And obviously adults have made their kids incredibly anti-anything, be it gay, racist, etc etc. Its only natural that it could be the other way around as well. How many times are the homosexual male childmolesters victims to being molested by males themselves? Quite often from what I have seen.

The racist charge is always amusing because it is so incredibly flawed.

Here's a hint: Homosexuality is not a race.

And since you made the claim: "Scientists can change some insects/animals sexuality at will."

Post the article that says they have done so at a genetic level.

[kazuri]

The racist charge is always amusing because it is so incredibly flawed.

Here's a hint: Homosexuality is not a race.

And since you made the claim: "Scientists can change some insects/animals sexuality at will."

Post the article that says they have done so at a genetic level.

You're pretty fucking stupid if you dont understand I was giving an example of how EASILY children are influenced by their surroundings. Are you telling me the west borrow kids just ALL happen to be born hating gays like their parents? All of them, out of all the parents they could have come from, they all ended up being kids to those lunatics? Its surely amazing how EVERY one of their kids is so anti-gay!

Children are EASILY influenced.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3025835.ece

There have also been other experiments with changing the sexuality of mice, without even any gene manipulation being done by the scientists(at least with chemicals etc), but I dont feel like doing anymore research for you. If you do not believe it, look it up yourself.

[BJ and UT5]

BFUTS
Please do not try and respond to anything I am posting. You are just wasting my time with nonsense about how you think something is 'scientific' or whatever crap you think you are about to smack down here.

Here is what I think is FUCKIN HILARIOUS when you actually have the nuts to put a 'who me?' look on your face and pretend like you don't know that human beings are prone to rage and violence.
Seriously,
I seriously want to ask you if you don't suddenly feel so embarrassed, so stupid about yourself and so plain dumb to stand up and pretend to be asking (with a straight face) that you are somehow 'confused' and 'never heard that before' and 'need to see some proof'
LMAO!
Wow.
I honestly hoped you are embarrassed right now because that shame would help you think twice about the next time you decide to pretend like you should say something like a 'scientist' LMFAO!
Real good kid.. lol.. real good heh.

Nope no shame or embarrassment whatsoever. I didn't say that people don't have violent tendencies. I said there has been no discovery of a violence gene, which is what you were talking about. You said, like you knew definitively, that these things exist, and I'm saying you don't, because the nobody in the field of genetics has figured it out yet either. I mean jesus christ this is the argument thats currently going on with homosexuality. Are you going to deny that people have homosexual tendencies? Then using your tortured logic, we have to assume that there is gay gene. You should probably stop discussing things like genetics and evolution without some cursory understanding of what those things are or how they work.

I was obviosuly being facetious about the title. The argument is still the same.

My point was that you were trying to demonize people for things that they hadn't done. I still haven't seen any evidence that the condom/cucumber thing exists or was pushed by the "gay agenda". The book doesn't seem like it was pushed by this "gay agenda" either. Furthermore the debate over whether the discussion of homosexual marriage is de facto sexual education is still up for debate, so can't justify saying that anybody is trying to rob your children of their innocence.

[texmaster]

My point was that you were trying to demonize people for things that they hadn't done. I still haven't seen any evidence that the condom/cucumber thing exists or was pushed by the "gay agenda". The book doesn't seem like it was pushed by this "gay agenda" either. Furthermore the debate over whether the discussion of homosexual marriage is de facto sexual education is still up for debate, so can't justify saying that anybody is trying to rob your children of their innocence.

You can deny the truth all you like, the articles are there for all to read.

So homosexual agenda is being pushed by what group in your world if it isn't homosexuals? lol

You're pretty fucking stupid if you dont understand I was giving an example of how EASILY children are influenced by their surroundings. Are you telling me the west borrow kids just ALL happen to be born hating gays like their parents? All of them, out of all the parents they could have come from, they all ended up being kids to those lunatics? Its surely amazing how EVERY one of their kids is so anti-gay!

Children are EASILY influenced.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3025835.ece

There have also been other experiments with changing the sexuality of mice, without even any gene manipulation being done by the scientists(at least with chemicals etc), but I dont feel like doing anymore research for you. If you do not believe it, look it up yourself.

No I believe the article.

The findings, from a team based at the University of Illinois, suggest that homosexuality has a clear biological basis, but that this is not necessarily hard-wired by the genes. A combination of genetic and environmental factors seems to be required

They just admitted they can't even prove their genetic altering did anything.

For "pretty fucking stupid" I at least read the article and not just the title :rollseyes

[kazuri]

Yep, they certainly said they cant prove it.

'As predicted, they were able to turn fly homosexuality on and off, within hours.'

[BJ and UT5]

You can deny the truth all you like, the articles are there for all to read.

So homosexual agenda is being pushed by what group in your world if it isn't homosexuals? lol

I'm trying to say that the homosexual agenda is a concept concocted by homophobic individuals. And trying to explain that some families have two parents of the same gender to avoid confusing children isn't pushing a pro-gay agenda and can be done any rational individual.

[camjoe87]

The findings, from a team based at the University of Illinois, suggest that homosexuality has a clear biological basis, but that this is not necessarily hard-wired by the genes. A combination of genetic and environmental factors seems to be required

They just admitted they can't even prove their genetic altering did anything.

For "pretty fucking stupid" I at least read the article and not just the title :rollseyes
Hm. It clearly states genetics play some role in this.

Do you believe animals have instincts? If you do, where do these come from? The genome obviously. How do animals know who to mate with, especially lower-order animals? There has to be some sort of biological trigger that can dsitinguish who or who they can not mate with.

Now if you believe in evolution, it would only make sense that these genes have carried through all the way to humans. Now, we don't rely on these genes so it would not be detrimental to us to have mutations in these genes. But being a social species of primates it makes sense that environment and society may play a big role in shaping our viewpoints and how we think. So I would say it is a combination of genetics and society which is what the article seems to be suggesting.

But as others have said: who cares?

[texmaster]

Yep, they certainly said they cant prove it.

'As predicted, they were able to turn fly homosexuality on and off, within hours.'

"with environmental factors"

And they could only say the genetic material they found "suggests" a connection. They even said outright they could not find a hardwire connection.

The moment they admitted the so called genetic evidence required environmental factors, the theory was proven false.

Hm. It clearly states genetics play some role in this.

Uh no it doesn't if you have to have environmental factors as a requirement to prove your genetic evidence, it ceases to be evidence.

Do you believe animals have instincts? If you do, where do these come from? The genome obviously. How do animals know who to mate with, especially lower-order animals? There has to be some sort of biological trigger that can dsitinguish who or who they can not mate with.

Of course.

Now if you believe in evolution, it would only make sense that these genes have carried through all the way to humans. Now, we don't rely on these genes so it would not be detrimental to us to have mutations in these genes. But being a social species of primates it makes sense that environment and society may play a big role in shaping our viewpoints and how we think. So I would say it is a combination of genetics and society which is what the article seems to be suggesting.

But as others have said: who cares?

As I've already said, the gay community cares. Feel free to read the examples I provided.

And again it fails to be genetic evidence if it requires a society component.

The heterosexual desires need no environmental influence to activate and that is the key point.

I'm trying to say that the homosexual agenda is a concept concocted by homophobic individuals. And trying to explain that some families have two parents of the same gender to avoid confusing children isn't pushing a pro-gay agenda and can be done any rational individual.

That is exactly what it is doing.

You are exposing children to sexuality at an age when they cannot possibly understand it.

The old homophobic line is a lazy and inaccurate conclusion. You have no evidence whatsoever of your theory.

I have the book and the people who are pushing the agenda as my evidence. Feel free to list your sources.

And BTW, yes it is gay people pushing this. If what I already provided isn't enough for you, how about a gay legistlator?

The state's Senate Judiciary Committee has approved SB 1437, which would mandate grades 1-12 buy books "accurately'' portraying "the sexual diversity of our society.'' It also requires students hear history lessons on "the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America.''


Sponsored by Democratic Sen. Sheila Kuehl ? a lesbian actress best known for playing Zelda in "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis" in the '60s ? the legislation would add "gender" (actual or perceived) and "sexual orientation" to the law that prohibits California public schools from having textbooks, teaching materials, instruction or "school-sponsored activities" that reflect adversely upon people based on characteristics like race, creed and handicap.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49638

[Lord Gold]

Sexual preference has nothing to do with genetics. It's a preference.
There is absolutely no evidence to support that theory.

[NastyEvilDemon]

I don't care if they're born gay or not. Just as long as they're born with common sense enough to keep their fucking hands and comments to themselves, I don't give a shit what they do in their bedroom.

Now, when science can accurately predict hot bi-sexual women, then let me know.

[BJ and UT5]

That is exactly what it is doing.

You are exposing children to sexuality at an age when they cannot possibly understand it.

The old homophobic line is a lazy and inaccurate conclusion. You have no evidence whatsoever of your theory.

I have the book and the people who are pushing the agenda as my evidence. Feel free to list your sources.

Recognizing that some children might have two parents of the same gender exposes children to sexuality no more than recognizing that heterosexual parents exist. You're bias is causing you to paint everything a homosexual does with this "homosexual agenda" tone.

[texmaster]

Recognizing that some children might have two parents of the same gender exposes children to sexuality no more than recognizing that heterosexual parents exist. You're bias is causing you to paint everything a homosexual does with this "homosexual agenda" tone.

Obviously you didn't read my examples. Go back and try again. The law in California was written by a lesbian.

Please go back and check it out.

[BJ and UT5]

Obviously you didn't read my examples. Go back and try again. The law in California was written by a lesbian.

Please go back and check it out.

And the California law doesn't push teaching little kids about sex at all. It says that books have to represent the sexual diversity of society. This could be something like, oh I don't know, acknowledging gay people exist. And who gives a shit if its written by a lesbian?

[camjoe87]

Uh no it doesn't if you have to have environmental factors as a requirement to prove your genetic evidence, it ceases to be evidence.


I said genetics plays a role in it. They said genetics plays a role in it. I'm not sure if I understand what you're arguing here. They said it SEEMED to go hand-in-hand with environmental factors.

How big of a role each plays in determining sexual preference is unknown, but the role is there.

[texmaster]

And the California law doesn't push teaching little kids about sex at all. It says that books have to represent the sexual diversity of society. This could be something like, oh I don't know, acknowledging gay people exist. And who gives a shit if its written by a lesbian?

Once again you prove you didn't read the source. This doesn't discuss acknolwedging gays in society as you so inaccurately put it. Its forcing schools to change their rules based on sexual preference.

Please read it this time.

It also precludes textbooks, teaching materials, instruction, and "school-sponsored activities" from reflecting adversely upon persons based on their sexual orientation, or actual or perceived gender.

"School-sponsored activities include everything from cheerleading and sports activities to the prom," said Karen England of Capitol Resource Institute, a traditional-values organization. "Under SB 1437 school districts would likely be prohibited from having a 'prom king and queen' because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation.

"Under SB 1437 school districts would also likely have to do away with dress codes and would have to accommodate transsexuals on girl-specific or boy-specific sports teams."

I said genetics plays a role in it. They said genetics plays a role in it. I'm not sure if I understand what you're arguing here. They said it SEEMED to go hand-in-hand with environmental factors.

How big of a role each plays in determining sexual preference is unknown, but the role is there.

But what does that mean? How can it play a "role" or even be proven it IS gay genetic material when it requires a societal component?

[BJ and UT5]

Once again you prove you didn't read the source. This doesn't discuss acknolwedging gays in society as you so inaccurately put it. Its forcing schools to change their rules based on sexual preference.

Please read it this time.

It also precludes textbooks, teaching materials, instruction, and "school-sponsored activities" from reflecting adversely upon persons based on their sexual orientation, or actual or perceived gender.

"School-sponsored activities include everything from cheerleading and sports activities to the prom," said Karen England of Capitol Resource Institute, a traditional-values organization. "Under SB 1437 school districts would likely be prohibited from having a 'prom king and queen' because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation.

"Under SB 1437 school districts would also likely have to do away with dress codes and would have to accommodate transsexuals on girl-specific or boy-specific sports teams."

I did read the article, and I took the quotes your citing with a grain of salt because they're not written expressly in the bill, rather they are brought up by a homophobic organization who's trying to disparage homosexuals for achieving equal rights. The bill says that its against the rules to disparage homosexuals or use texts that disparage homosexuals, and from that these people derive the notion that California is trying to get rid of men's/women's clothing so trannies don't feel too uncomfortable. This is my whole point from the beginning.

[texmaster]

I did read the article, and I took the quotes your citing with a grain of salt because they're not written expressly in the bill, rather they are brought up by a homophobic organization who's trying to disparage homosexuals for achieving equal rights.

Ah the tired and woefully innacurate homophobe line. Next you'll call me a racist as well. :ohnoes:

The bill says that its against the rules to disparage homosexuals or use texts that disparage homosexuals, and from that these people derive the notion that California is trying to get rid of men's/women's clothing so trannies don't feel too uncomfortable. This is my whole point from the beginning.

Read the bill

"No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion, as those terms are defined in Section 422.56 of the Penal Code." -- SB 1437, Sec. 2.

For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall apply:

(c)"Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

(h)"Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. -- California Penal Code, Section 422.56.



What you are failing to grasp is what this means

School proms could no longer have King and Queen because that is discriminatory to homosexuals

Gender-specific sports would also be discriminatory towards transsexuals for the same reason

Cheerleading if it were all girls as 90% would also be descriminating.

"No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion, as those terms are defined in Section 422.56 of the Penal Code." -- SB 1437 Sec. 2.

So any textbook having a man and woman as mother and father would be discriminating towards homosexuals because it doesn't include their view and therefore would be removed.

And before you claim that doesn't mean all instructional materials, look at their definition:

"'Instructional materials'" means all materials that are designed for use by pupils and their teachers as a learning resource and help pupils to acquire facts, skills, or opinions or to develop cognitive processes. Instructional materials may be printed or nonprinted, and may include textbooks, technology-based materials, other educational materials, and tests." -- California Education Code, Section 60010(h).

So now transexual speakers can come to school to promote their lifestyle to children and anyone who objects to this would be discriminating towards them.

This would also include pedophiles (and before you scream that is against the law, this bill says nothing about making an acception to all inclusive) since the law states:

[i]"No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion,

So under this bill pedophiles could come to the school to promote their sexual orientation.

Still think its no big deal? :rollseyes

The one thing they forgot out is the last part, religion. Many people in their religions do not believe in or expressly forbid homosexuality so the bill is a conflict upon itself not that it will stop the agenda of the day.

Do yourself a favor and really start to think about this bill and all the loopholes it opens up.

[BJ and UT5]

Ah the tired and woefully innacurate homophobe line. Next you'll call me a racist as well. :ohnoes:



Read the bill

What you are failing to grasp is what this means

School proms could no longer have King and Queen because that is discriminatory to homosexuals

Gender-specific sports would also be discriminatory towards transsexuals for the same reason

Cheerleading if it were all girls as 90% would also be descriminating.

The bill doesn't say anything about discrimination. It says text and instructional materials can't depict people negatively because of sexual orientation. None of those things you listed depict anybody negatively, racist.


So any textbook having a man and woman as mother and father would be discriminating towards homosexuals because it doesn't include their view and therefore would be removed.

And before you claim that doesn't mean all instructional materials, look at their definition:



So now transexual speakers can come to school to promote their lifestyle to children and anyone who objects to this would be discriminating towards them.

Again, this law is not about discrimination. Its about depicting people negatively because of sexual orientation.

This would also include pedophiles (and before you scream that is against the law, this bill says nothing about making an acception to all inclusive) since the law states:

Ah the tired and woefully inaccurate pedophile line. Because anyone who is gay must also be a pedophile. Never mind that laws are already in place about being a child molester. If we make a law that says don't disparage gay people then its just a matter of time before kid touchers overrun the school.

The one thing they forgot out is the last part, religion. Many people in their religions do not believe in or expressly forbid homosexuality so the bill is a conflict upon itself not that it will stop the agenda of the day.

Do yourself a favor and really start to think about this bill and all the loopholes it opens up.

You're going to have to explain this again. Something about religion and then... the bill conflicts itself? Just because religions forbid homosexuality doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to comply.

[texmaster]

The bill doesn't say anything about discrimination. It says text and instructional materials can't depict people negatively because of sexual orientation. None of those things you listed depict anybody negatively, racist.

Actually it did.

"No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion, as those terms are defined in Section 422.56 of the Penal Code." -- SB 1437, Sec. 2.

The interpretation could easily be seen as negative if the story only included heterosexual couples.

The same for Prom, Cheerleading, etc.

Again, this law is not about discrimination. Its about depicting people negatively because of sexual orientation.

And if they are not mentioned, they are excluded. It does not say negative in the law, its says "reflecting adversely" which is far more open to interpretation.

Ah the tired and woefully inaccurate pedophile line. Because anyone who is gay must also be a pedophile.

Of course that is a lie since I never said anything of the sort.

I said it was a sexual orientation which would be allowed in this bill.

Please read more carefully.

Never mind that laws are already in place about being a child molester. If we make a law that says don't disparage gay people then its just a matter of time before kid touchers overrun the school.

As I stated which you obviously did not read, the law does not forbid sexual orientation that is against the law.

You're going to have to explain this again. Something about religion and then... the bill conflicts itself? Just because religions forbid homosexuality doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to comply.

LOL You just hit the nail on the head of the argument from the right and don't even realize it. Well done.

[Chewy]

Sexual preference has nothing to do with genetics. It's a preference.
There is absolutely no evidence to support that theory.

Actually there is no evidence to support is a preference either, in fact right now its still an enigma.

There is a multitude of concepts that have been studied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation


that being stated there is an extra dynamic of other animals in the animal kingdom that engage in homosexual activities and relationships, the question then becomes this do other animals have choice and preference or are they guided by instinct?

[droogsteve]

I said it was a sexual orientation which would be allowed in this bill.

Please read more carefully.



As I stated which you obviously did not read, the law does not forbid sexual orientation that is against the law.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read more carefully.

Here's the definition of "sexual orientation" as defined by the law, that you yourself posted:


"Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. -- California Penal Code, Section 422.56.

Very clear and specific. Nothing in there about pedophilia. Orientation is defined by this very law as gay, straight, or bi. Pedophilia IS NOT a sexual orientation defined by this or any other law. It is a deviant sexual behavior. You might as well claim that the law will allow rapists to come in to teach our kids the joy of rape. It's ludicrous on it's face.


There's also the matter of existing law. Pedophilia and promotion of pedophilia are already illegal by state and federal criminal law, as is disseminating sexually explicit material to minors. If you really believe that existing written-in-stone criminal statutes can be superseded by some touchy-feely school curriculum written by the PC police, you are shockingly ignorant of the law and how it works.


As I stated which you obviously did not read, the law does not forbid sexual orientation that is against the law.

Of course not, those things are already forbidden by law. It doesn't forbid forcible assrape either, will that be legal as well?

Your argument is too ridiculous to even be called specious. It's like saying you're allowed to stab people in a gun-free school zone because that specific law doesn't mention knives.



Personally, I don't believe this law is necessary. I don't believe that current school materials "adversely effect" gays or anyone else, and I'm a big believer in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of thought. This seems like just your typical California "gee, look how diverse we are" bullshit. Pandering to gays and liberals at it's most blatant.


Then on the other end of the spectrum, we have people like you with your "OMG, teh gayz are taking over!!!" hysteria. This hysteria leads you to abandon all logic and common sense to the point of making ludicrously outrageous claims about teaching pedophilia in schools. It's ridiculous. No one wants to ban football or the prom, hand over your son to a child molester, or make him wear a dress to school. Even if they did, this bill allows them no such power. This bill is completely unnecessary, transparent pandering, but pretty much harmless. You need to calm down.

[texmaster]

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read more carefully.

Here's the definition of "sexual orientation" as defined by the law, that you yourself posted:




Very clear and specific. Nothing in there about pedophilia. Orientation is defined by this very law as gay, straight, or bi. Pedophilia IS NOT a sexual orientation defined by this or any other law. It is a deviant sexual behavior. You might as well claim that the law will allow rapists to come in to teach our kids the joy of rape. It's ludicrous on it's face.

Read the actual definition of sexual orientation

sexual orientation
n.
The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes.

Now, show me where it limits age in that definition.

You just fell into the same trap.

Before patting yourself on the back, think about what you just posted.

And just to cover all basis, this bill says nothing about excluding "deviant sexual behavior" either.

Why? Because the title alone of what you just described is a judgment on behavior. You disapprove and therefore exclude that from what you consider the norm.

The very thing this bill is striving to change.

Think about it next time.

There's also the matter of existing law. Pedophilia and promotion of pedophilia are already illegal by state and federal criminal law, as is disseminating sexually explicit material to minors. If you really believe that existing written-in-stone criminal statutes can be superseded by some touchy-feely school curriculum written by the PC police, you are shockingly ignorant of the law and how it works.

Sigh. Obviously you didn't read my post when I pointed out this bill does not say it would exclude anything illegal when it came to sexual orientation.

Of course not, those things are already forbidden by law. It doesn't forbid forcible assrape either, will that be legal as well?

Since it makes no judgments whatsoever, how could you prove it does exclude it?

We aren't talking about performing the act, we are talking about accepting the practice as a choice.


Your argument is too ridiculous to even be called specious. It's like saying you're allowed to stab people in a gun-free school zone because that specific law doesn't mention knives.

Actually that would be covered by another law.

One that doesn't exist in this topic.

Feel free to keep digging that hole of yours though.

Personally, I don't believe this law is necessary. I don't believe that current school materials "adversely effect" gays or anyone else, and I'm a big believer in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of thought. This seems like just your typical California "gee, look how diverse we are" bullshit. Pandering to gays and liberals at it's most blatant.

And you would be correct.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, we have people like you with your "OMG, teh gayz are taking over!!!" hysteria. This hysteria leads you to abandon all logic and common sense to the point of making ludicrously outrageous claims about teaching pedophilia in schools. It's ridiculous. No one wants to ban football or the prom, hand over your son to a child molester, or make him wear a dress to school. Even if they did, this bill allows them no such power. This bill is completely unnecessary, transparent pandering, but pretty much harmless. You need to calm down.

Ah of course I said nothing of the sort. All I did was point out the flaws in the bill.

I see you ducked the discussion on banning books that only included discussing man and woman relationships.

Can you explain why?

Here's some reading material on the subject

The bill, approved 22-15, would prevent textbooks, teaching materials, instruction and "school-sponsored activities" from reflecting adversely on anyone based on sexual orientation or actual or perceived gender.

Sponsored by Democratic Sen. Sheila Kuehl a lesbian actress best known for playing Zelda in "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis" in the 1960s ? the legislation would add "gender" (actual or perceived) and "sexual orientation" to the law that prohibits California public schools from having textbooks, teaching materials, instruction or "school-sponsored activities" that reflect adversely upon people based on characteristics like race, creed and handicap.


Before you go back to the tired "anyone who has a problem with this bill is a racist, bigot, homophobe etc" try actually reading the bill and recognizing how open it is to interpretation.

[droogsteve]

Sigh. Obviously you didn't read my post when I pointed out this bill does not say it would exclude anything illegal when it came to sexual orientation.

It doesn't have to. There are already laws against pedophilia that are very specific. This law DOES NOT AND CANNOT supersede existing criminal law! The laws against pedophilia would have to be rescinded for that to happen. Why is this simple legal concept so difficult for you to grasp?


Actually that would be covered by another law.

One that doesn't exist in this topic.

Ummm, yeah. So is pedophilia.

Feel free to keep digging that hole of yours though.

LOL, nothing funnier than someone who thinks they're winning while they make an ass of themselves. :lol:


I see you ducked the discussion on banning books that only included discussing man and woman relationships.

Can you explain why?

I "ducked" nothing, and there's nothing to explain. Discussing a man and a women relationship doesn't "adversely effect" homosexuals anymore than discussing homos adversely effects me. The idea that it would prevent people from discussing heterosexual relationships is asinine.


Before you go back to the tired "anyone who has a problem with this bill is a racist, bigot, homophobe etc" try actually reading the bill and recognizing how open it is to interpretation.

Show me where I called anyone a racist, bigot, homophobe or anything of the sort. Never happened, my reading challenged friend.


Next time, I'd suggest actually READING before spewing your nonsense. I said that I'M AGAINST THE BILL. It's liberal hippie PC bullshit, and I said so quite clearly. Since reading comprehension isn't your strong point, I'll refer you to my original post:


Personally, I don't believe this law is necessary. I don't believe that current school materials "adversely effect" gays or anyone else, and I'm a big believer in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of thought. This seems like just your typical California "gee, look how diverse we are" bullshit. Pandering to gays and liberals at it's most blatant.


I personally can't stand PC bullshit like this bill. However, I HATE overwrought hysteria based on ignorance of the law, which you show in abundance.


Oh BTW, despite your self-professed knowledge of California SB 1437, there's one tiny detail that apparently escaped you. IT WAS VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR LAST SEPTEMBER. That's right, it doesn't even exist anymore. If you bothered to actually do a little research rather than depend on right wing blogs as your news source, you might have known this.

[noxela]

[QUOTE=Daucus Karota;4284880]If I could chose between a gay or straight son
I'd probably go for a straight son in order to continue the family bloodline(wouldn't really matter if he was bisexual, as long as he marries a women and produce children)

Yes to this statement! As long as he marries no matter if he is a bisexual then he can preserve the bloodline. However, I still respect gays i guess there are lots of factor's affecting their sexuality. A lot of them didn't choose to be like gay and want to change if given the chance. :boink: