http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm"A man's sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb, according to a study"Due tot he lack of a gay gene science has flung its net far and wide to find an answer, this is an old report, but I was speaking with my biology prof about something similar last week and he made mention fo this study which has been pretty much hidden from public view since the first revelations.How do you think the lgbt community will react when parents could choose to make sure their offspring are not homosexual? Will there be riots?
>>19803 (OP)So the future has no place for gays?This is good news.
This is bollocks and the largest media network in the world is not a credible source. It is a means of shaping public opinion. Sexuality is malleable like everything else.
You know why there's no gay genes? Because you aren't fucking born gay, unless you have a legitimate chromossomic condition, and that is probably less than 1% of the entire gay population.Homossexuality isn't a disease either, it's a behaviour, it's a psycologycal thing, and as so it can be corrected.>b-but i'm born this way!hell even Freud reported treating a women who was a lesbian because of her relationship with her father and he re-oriented her and she turned hetero again. Are you gonna tell me Freud is a fraud?
>How do you think the lgbt community will react when parents could choose to make sure their offspring are not homosexual?some people will obviously be butthurt, but as a gay male myself there's really nothing lost if homosexuality just stops occurring in the future.
>>20388Feminists can't stand Freud. There's a lot of arguments against him and his record isn't exactly spotless when it comes to quack theories. Just saying, I wouldn't rely too much on his library of work in the coming years because people have been ripping it since the sixties.
>>20639Because it goes agains this radicaly liberal mindset. Anyone that goes against them must be wrong.Doesn't mean he's wrong.
>>20377>bbc>not credibleIf the beeb are reporting on something that will inspire a bad reaction in the pets community then you are pretty secure in knowing they fact checked this piece at least 5 times.
>>20388>gay is natural>i was born this way!>no gay gene>gays not born this wayQuite a change in narrative.
It's m-more than a little difficult to c-control a process l-like that, so I d-doubt it'll be an issue.T-the fact is it's neither choice n-nor genetics nor environmental factor, b-but neonatal factors t-that are beyond our current (and foreseeable) control that d-determine orientation, b-but there is a simple way t-to have a straight child.Have exactly one. The chances of the first child being gay are less than 1%; it goes up by a significant amount for the second and third, leveling off around the fifth.
>>19803 (OP)Homosexual behavior is, and will always be, apart of the human condition. That has never, nor will ever, change. We are understanding this concept, thus, support for human rights versus "you're a faggot so you get no rights."Discrimination is being done away with and that makes some people uncomfortable. Too bad.
>>20737Oh, I agree. A lot of what he said was very sensible and I admired his hands-on approach. But Irigaray, Gilbert & Gubar, Heng et al have some very wily arguments and if you're unfamiliar with them they can rip any defense of Freud apart through virtue of being less well-known and often incomprehensible.
>>20833I never said gay is natural.I said gay is a behaviour, an unnatura behaviour at that.And chromossomic conditions are mutations.
>>20388>Are you gonna tell me Freud is a fraud?...Yes? Freud isn't taking seriously pretty much anywhere, it's a known fact that the scientific value in his work is laughable and modern psychology ignores him
>>20815They cherry-pick like any other media outlet.
>homosexuality dictated by genesi will never believe this shit.i'll believe to alien abductions and feminism before that.maybe slightly influenced. slightly. but "determined in the womb" is retarded.
>>19803 (OP)Sexuality being influenced in-utero?Hmm. Interesting.I wonder what other factors there are.
>>20970> modern psychologyoh the irony.
How would there be a 'gay gene' if people who are actually gay can't reproduce with their gay lovers
>>20970And who told you that? Gay feminists? I'm not saying the guy was the be all, end all of psychology, but disregarding everything he did would be stupid.If there ever was a science heavily influenced by modern liberalism, that is psychology.
>>20906>Homosexual behavior is, and will always be, apart of the human conditionExcept that this piece hints that the hormones that cause homosexuality have been identified, and could be neutralised thus removing the possibility of homosexual offspring.
Just because we understand the process of death doesn't mean we can make people immortal.
>>19803 (OP)I'd be more worried about homosexual couples getting homosexual children on purpose than about heterosexual couples assuring their offspring is heterosexual.Not even because of discrimination, but because of homosexuality being less common, it would be just more common not to care much if even while wanting a heterosexual child you already have something like 90% chances of getting it, on the other hand homosexuals only "breeding" homosexuals might separate the gay community from the common public.It's a pretty complex thing to be honest
ITT: we argue about subjects we know nothing about. That's what you fags do all the time.Get a fucking degree in biology or psychology and then we can talk about the importance of hormonal influence on the fetus.
>>21240this.i woiuld be scared by gay couples forcing theyr child to be homosexual because " your genes said it"
>>21178No, but it certainly is a huge step forward if we ever get to that, doesn't mean we can't discuss the idea of immortality, right?
>>19803 (OP)I've been telling people that there must be a gene for a while now, due to similar changes which occur in gay and trans people during or prior to puberty.but no one believes me for some reason.>if you could choose, why would you want a gay babby?
>>21175i can tell you right now that's it's not going to happen.you can keep dreaming though.
>>21268refer to>>21286Can't we talk about a scenario for the sake of discussion?
>>21138It is true, though. His work has been completely wrecked by every side of the gay debate; everyone has much more modern evidence now.
>>21138>Psychology>Science
>>21319>but no one believes me for some reason.Maybe because no scientific proof? A (im going to assume) illiterate opinion on the subject isn't very valid when there are people researching the subject at this very moment
>>20388>you gonna tell me Freud is a fraud?Is this a poor trolling attempt or are you actually serious
>Single study from 2006, sample size of 1k individuals.If you're just looking to make people upset you're sorta grasping at straws here.
>>21240>>21278michele bachmann what are you doing here
>>20997It's also irrefutable t-true. L-look up "birth order homosexuality"; the order you are born in dictates your preferences more than any other single factor.
>>20997The supreme argument of homessexualism, is that it is not a condition, or behaviour or anything, people are simply born like this, is who they are.But what is the only science that can determine wether or not someone is born a certain way? I'l tell you, it's biology, genetics specificaly, and if there's no difference whatsoever between a straight baby or a "gay baby", then how can anyone proclaim gay people are born gay?(as i said, chromossomic mutations not included here)
>>21138Yes he was relevant, don't get me wrong, and he did find some interesting things which turned out to be true, but he disregarded the scientific method to a great extent and is widely known in science as that one guy which said a lot of things that people still believe for some goddamned reason.It's kind of like the Tarantino of science, did a couple of things right, a whole fucking lot of things wrong, but people still praise him for all of its work as if he was Jesus himself.Please let this not be an argument about Tarantino now
>>21419If "the order you are born in" means that the younger brother has more chances, that has nothing to do with genes and everything to do with hormones
>Due tot he lack of a gay geneGenes primarily affect behavior through morphology. Not a single protein you synthesize (and that's all genes do, folks) directly results in a behavioral trait. Proteins, however, often form the structural and physiological basis or substrate from which animal behavior could potentially arise.Complex traits are also usually polygenic. You're never going to find "a gene for X" when X is a complex trait. Even something as simple as human skin color is controlled by several genes. Add another layer of complexity with the control of gene expression through epigenetic inheritance mechanisms, for example, and you start to realize real fucking quickly that shit ain't as simple as "THE GENE FOR X". In closing, stop simplifying and/or misunderstanding the science. You're either prepared to have this discussion or you're not -- and quite frankly, /lgbt/, you aren't prepared in the slightest.
>>21421>homosexualism>gay is a religionmy sides
You can thank liberals and the MUH REPORDUCTIVE RIGHTS crowd for the future extinction of homosexuals. With fetal rights having NO bearing, the manipulation of genes/conditions/hormones in a developing fetus is free game and most parents would not want a gay baby (not that your parents don't love you they just naturally crave grandchildren)
>>19803 (OP)I remember when this study first hit the news a few years back.It's interesting and sensible as a theory.The possibility of parents "changing" this is pretty slim, it has to do with the way hormones are passed to the uterus. I suppose people could just abort the fetus if they decided they didn't want a gay child. Which would be hilarious, as the tenuous alliance between feminists and the queer community would probably shatter over that.
>>20973>report something I find feely>cherry picked and lacking in credibility
>>21552What? Is that not word? It's certainly a word in portuguese.Is that really gonna be your "argument"?
>>21504It's hormones...t-that are in the womb. You said "determined in the womb" is r-retarded.It's the mothers hormones affecting the child, n-not "more chances" or whatever. Like I s-said, do the research.
>>21504Exactly. Which is what OP's study reveals.I remember reading (and it might not have been this study) a theory that connected it to a maternal "allergy" to testosterone.I know, for instance, that the BF's mom experienced precisely this during her pregnancy; a massive hormonal imbalance.
I'm gay, and because I'm gay I'm familiar and comfortable with that part of myself. I like being gay.If I'd been born straight, I'd be familiar and comfortable with that part of myself. I'd like being straight.So would I have minded if my parents had chosen to birth me straight instead of gay? Of course not, I'd have been happy with myself either way.
>>21639>I suppose people could just abort the fetus if they decided they didn't want a gay childOh wow, i don't even support abortion, but the butt-frustration would be just so hard to resist.
Let science talk, not popular opinion or feelings.If it turns out that sexuality is determined before birth then I will accept it. Depending on how it is determined pre-birth will decide how broken I feel as a human being.
>>21330You're talking about asspull theories as facts and claim that facts are not so true as they seem. You talk about it like you know how things work, but you're unqualified to even talk about it. Typical social science bullshit.This approach and cesspool of misinformation is the biggest problem for humanity in my opinion. I'm sick of this thread and this board. Visit /sci/ once or something.
>>21626we're all going to be extinct soon dear, it's okay.i know, thanks a lot obama!that's why i find it funny when people stress over the extinction of homosexuality, or the white race. you paranoid dorks need to pull it together.also it makes me wet myself laughing when people say there are liberals in american politics, so don't joke like that.
>>21781>feeling brokenI guess, but that's a pretty dumb way to look at it.At the end of the day, you are who you are; shit, is your queerness affecting your ability to enjoy life?Being weird is no reason to hate yourself.
>>21893I wasn't really being serious when I said that. I've always been weird, having someone tell me why I'm weird won't really affect me. It's just interesting to know why I guess.
>>20388>Are you gonna tell me Freud is a fraud?Oh my god.
>>21672The word in English is "homosexuality" mate
>>21841>Hey guys what would happen if you could choose the sexual orientation of your child>IT WON'T HAPPEN>But what if->NOI don't give a fuck if it's a possibility, I'm just arguing for the sake of argument goddamnit
>>22021We use both, and they mean the same thing.Stop being a faggot.
>>22115But I thought that /lgtb/ was made so that we could be as much of a faggot as we wanted.
>>21841>I'm sick of this thread and this board>board has been up for 2 hours>I'm sick of this!
>>21240>>21278That's just homophobia.You should really look at quite a few families with same-sex couples who have adopted children. Many of those children grew up to be in heterosexual relationships.Stop being idiots.
>>22455Gender and LGBT studies are one of the most unscientific fields and I'm having a trouble to even call them "science". This and similar threads here are just further proof of it.You're just going to circlejerk each other and end up like the greens. Wait, actually you are already like them..
>>22617>Many of those children grew up to be in heterosexual relationships.Many of those children are also human wrecks. Actually, these wrecks are the majority and healthy ones are a minority.
>>19803 (OP)>implying they shouldn't make their kids asexual or bisexual
>>22617>You should really look at quite a few families with same-sex couples who have adopted children. Many of those children grew up to be in heterosexual relationships.I'm fairly certain that wouldn't happen if they were engineered to be homosexual in the first place, right?And take into account I'm only saying this because it's just more practical, I'm assuming that an homosexual couple would be more prone to the use of this service because the odds are clearly against homosexual offspring, my hypothesis is that this could create a trend of purely homosexual families.The only one thing I'm assuming about homosexuals is that there are about as many homosexual people who don't want heterosexual children as there are heterosexual people who don't want homosexual children, and I don't think it's all that far fetched
>>22737>Many of those children are also human wrecks. Actually, these wrecks are the majority and healthy ones are a minority.source? i have no idea one way or the other. surely a gay union would present certain difficulties for kids but i dont know what they'd be or what the results typically are.
