Gay Gene: Nonsense, Offensive, or Both?

Aw, it is touching watching ur tentative, inquisitive journey to understanding.

So, you are worried that maybe the free will of homosexuals might be offended by you?
Or, wanting to study and gain knowledge may be offensive to some posters?

Well, I suggest that you don't "want to study and gain knowledge" about the gay gene (?) from a basketball message board.
Or else . . . oh right . . . "the free will of homosexuals" . . .
You're back to that "free will of homosexuals" thing, just like your pro-choice thing with abortion.

This is a troll thread. You are disingenuous. You are anti-homosexual. You believe it's a choice and you don't like that. You are trolling the board.

 

My first take was that this was a troll thread, albeit clever. But I was not 100% sure.

How about a little scientific experiment? Ask all your gay friends if this topic is offensive.

 

I don't find the topic offensive. What leads to taking it as offensive is...

This. That humans can "play God" and shut off socially undesirable traits.

If we had NO CAPABILITY of any sort to rewire, then a genetic link wouldn't mean anything - we just are what we are, we get what we get, and live on. Since there IS even that 3% of opening of doing something "preventative", it can lead to offending since you're basically saying "we can manuver and code 'your kind' out of here". Since humans like to put their ocd hands in everything and exhibit control, its a bit worrisome

 

It is obviously mostly nature, and very rarely nurture.

 

well... your genes are from your parents... and your parents have been nurtured... and there is this whole field of genetic science (whatever they call it) about "nurturing" carrying over to next gen / genes. It's one hot mix of boiling soup. Very cool and interesting, but bottom line, it's people livelihood that matters and I doubt folks living their life the way they want it give a damn if it's nature or nurture or some mix...

 

We're all on to you. You're playing a deep game. Haymitch's game. And that game cuts deep.

Spoiler

 

Haymitch, it's pretty obvious who is trolling and being self-righteous, and it ain't you. Just don't engage it. You don't have any history of being a troll or argumentative for argument's sake.

 

Pinning root causes on gene expression especially through neuroscience is a tricky thing.

The airforce once thought up trying make a Gay Bomb out of a cocktail of pheromones where once dropped made wartime good feelings.

Some research pointed out that homosexual and heterosexual minds derived different reactions from the same pheromones. Despite the binary definitive assertions that line has, it produces several different questions.

One is whether science can influence sexual behavior and desire further upstream such as gene expression, and if gene expression is too complex, whatabout other pathways such as protein, neurotransmitters or hormones?

With CRISPR, genetic research and gene therapy is having its own revolution to the point where cheesy Xmen movies about antidotes for the mutant gene sound like close allegories of a distant future. On a "less invasive level, one could take a daily pill just like an SSRI (or "just like" the chemical castration treatment Edward Teller and many others pre-60s took) to pray the gay away and act norm gender hetero. Whether that's a future we want, it'll be there because there'll be demand for a cheap solution that avoids realized pain, shame or temporary stigma.

The other issue is despite our inherent brain wirings for A or B, that still doesn't give a neat and tidy answer because it also depends on other factors like what sex means to the person, what ways they derive pleasure, sustained meaning, appetite, or how much conforming to norms does to Each and all of those qualities of life. Some people thrive and have jumped into their sexual identities as a pillar of their core identity. That aspect could be a choice, but it's so powerful and overriding to the point of sparking culture wars and uncomfortable discussions about it. Pre-60s, many Americans were born Christian and apostasy carried risk of deep alienation with family and community. There are some similarities with sexual identity mainly because of heavy status and cultural implications for the person and their families. We're moving away from that entanglement as a society, but there's no guarantee sexual tolerance isn't beholden to pendulum shifts as it has in the past rather than an implied default assumption of progressiveness.

There a hedonist angle that's generally overlooked or ignored because of amoral implications. There's likely no gene for getting off for having your scrotum stomped on or going wild over red heads spreading pastrami sandwiches across their bodies. I wouldn't decribe kink as a choice either. It hardens back to a philosophical mindset that explored sex as a gateway to our oppressed primal urges that are finding its way in a normalized and rigid "civil" society. That part none of us are proud to openly reveal may also be what makes us feel the most alive.

The genetics issue is a great and fabulous reason to discuss this topic. In the next ten years, we'll see that steady trickle of tailored gene treatments that began in the last two decades tip over into an outpouring of consumerized affordable solutions. It's the next and last boob job.

We will begin to discard our imperfections and become the photoshopped gods we imagined in our minds and in our digital selves. Tailoring behaviors will be an opt-in thing rather than a big brother top down cleansing thing.

It's easier to enforce perfection by spreading fear and uncertainty over getting left behind. We've been told we're exceptional, but there's a price for it.

Discussing this openly now rather than skirting the issue in fear of opening up old wounds and triggered reactions will likely safe us some hurt over which part of our core being to hack away and optimize.

 

Not everyone is gay or straight.

 

I think the bigger issue is the false dichotomy that romantic and emotional partnering are the result of either conscious, immediate, ethically measurable choices or genetics. The desire to determine behavioral traits through genetics is a transparent means of rationalizing social discrimination: eugenics, plain and simple. Taken to its logical extreme it will result at best in physical quarantine and at worst in genocide.

 

I cannot possibly fathom how OP's questions are offensive in any way, shape, or form.

 

When babies are made in lab (who want to go through that pain!), we will perfect some everyone-love-everybody genes. Sexual orientation is heresy.

 

As a child of the 80s, I was told that homosexuality was caused by "gaydiation."

 

Its becoming my generalized slogan and reaction to things: "White People Be Over-COMPLICATIN' Sh**"

The science/intelligence community has tolerance and diversity in their core ethical values. Yet produces all kinds of solutions to painlessly passively "white out" the diverse and different. (Which actually will lead into even worse more perverse forms of different)

Its just where, if they ever really have, they can no longer say with a straight face its about "organic" and "natural". Just have it Artificialization Top to Bottom like they're doing anyway and skip all the preachy "ethical" morality mularkey lol. Yes better to know than to not know, but it starts with this kind of questioning in the first place.

 

we're told conversion therapy doesn't work (I don't know enough about it to say), so it must be genetic

the real dilemma for the left will be if/when sexual orientation can be determined prior to birth, gay children will be aborted (just as 90% of downs children are)

 

Sounds more like a dilemma for the right.

 

Am I detecting a "tough love" finale?

 

Is seriously devoted to a religion genetic? I wonder how well conversion therapy for being the wrong religion work?