A "Gay Gene" equals a genetic defect?

I came across this on a different board, and was wondering what you thought:



"Why should gay marriage be allowed? From a scientific point of view, they have genetical defects. Homosexuality is a mutation that disallows a person from making the choice to have normal sexual relations (aka being a heterosexual). Let's face it, if people aren't pulling their weight around in furthering the species, then why should they have the rights that have been traditionally granted to those who do further the species? What happened to natural selection? What's the worth of a life when it's the end of a line in history? Wouldn't a segment of a continued (blood)line be more important and, thus deserving of marital rights exclusively?"



It's definetly not something I agree with, and though I am not looking to argue with this person (I'm stressed out enough right now as is), as I said, I am interested in your perspectives.

I guess, "from a scientific point of view" (:wtf:) I have a genetic defect.

I'm defective.

After all, we lefties tend to have greater creative and cognitive abilities. :D

:hi: to my left-handed friends!

:hi:

being left-handed doesn't impair your ability to procreate...man built a right-hand based society, not nature.

technically, if a "gay-gene" exists, it could be considered a defect, because it does negatively affect procreation...
OR-
it could also be a natural defense against over-population of the planet...in which case it wouldn't be a "defect", so much as an anomaly... or atypical?

Except, say, a century or two ago, I wouldn't have had a "genetic defect".

I'd've been "devil spawn".

being left-handed or right-handed doesn't affect procreation of the species- homosexuality does.

Those who think homosexuality is a "defect" are just looking for an excuse to justify such a warped opinion. I mean, if procreation really, truly mattered, they'd lump sterile people into the group, but they don't, do they?

They simply don't like it because it's DIFFERENT and they feel threatened by it. Just as they used to think southpaws were of the devil, once. That's why I say it's the same thing. Procreation's got nothing to do with it. Just irrational fear.

I hope that made a bit of sense. I'm still waking up.

who says that it isn't?

be permitted to marry?

How about those with other herditary diseases? Are they being prohibited from marrying?

And what does marriage have to do with it anyway? We do not need marriiage to reproduce, and many who marry and can reproduce choose not to.

and as such, the rules placed on it are decided by the society as a whole.
in some societies- sterility(as well as other hereditary conditions) has been grounds to deny marriage, and is still grounds for divorce in some as well.

and- people don't NEED marriage to co-habitate, either.

to marry - and overwhelmingly those against same sex marriage do NOT adopt that stance (except when it comes to gays).

and since sterility wasn't the type of thing that people were traditionally tested for before marriage- in effect it's pretty much the same thing as saying that sterile people couldn't marry.

can marry.

Reproductive ability HAS NEVER BEEN aa test of marriage in the US, nor is it now.

There are numerous grounds for annulment that are not grounds to prohibit marriage. If they were, they would be grounds for the state to disband or nullify the marriage - not a matter of choice for the participants.

different societies have different rules- it is a human construct after all. and the rules of human constructs change as societies change.
they don't always make sense, but then neither do people.

and after all- marriage is not a requirement for co-habitation anyway.

Or are you just pulling that out of the air?

Cohabitation is a non issue. Equality before the law is the issue.

so i said that likewise- marriage is not required for cohabitation, either.

and since some states have historically had laws against fornication, it could be argued that marriage was a legal requirement for procreation.

marriage, being a human construct has rules that change and evolve over time, as the values of the society change.

And again, marriage is not a requirement for reproduction, which is part of the OP's argument.

And by your own vague standards, marriage has sometimes been a requirement for cohabitation, so your own methods prove you wrong.

for a man and a women- at the time Gays would have been able to legally co-habitate with their lovers(provided they had curtains on the necessary windows), while unmarried heterosexual couples would not have been able to live together.

like i said- laws and mores change with the times.

Gays have been prevented from renting.

They certainly have been legally barred from having sex in general, and in some states PATICULARLY because they can't marry.

In addition, same sex couples HAVE been barred from engaging in the most routine and standard rights and responsibilities of couples BECAUSE they can't marry.

But going back to the original post: legal marriage or the absence of it does not impair or limit the ability of humans to reproduce. It is purely a matter of a civil right.

Nature has all sorts of mechanisms for preventing overpopulation. Lemmings will run over cliffs. Frogs will spontaneously change their sex. Why not homosexuality? It's completely conceivable that Mother Nature is trying to reduce the population of the species Herself...

My grandpa was born left-handed and is now ambidextrous. When he was a little kid attending a catholic school in his little austrian mountain village, the backwards nuns tied his left hand behind his back so that he would learn to write with his right hand, the way God intended!

His mother freaked when I was born because I had red hair. That, too, I guess, is a sign of Satan's favor.

Why do you reckon we don't leave retarded and deformed babies in the woods to be carried of by animals anymore??

Sheesh. We're suppose to have evolved above the animals.

I'm a heterosexual female, but my purpose in this life does not involve breeding. Shall I go ahead and end it all now?

This wouldn't happen to be the same type of person who uses Terri Shiavo as a poster child for life, would it??

If being gay was "bad" from a scientific standpoint, there would be some natural selection acting against it to reduce that allelle's (although in this case it is probably many genes) frequency in our population.

Having a mutation is not necessarily bad-- this person has their terminology confused.

Heck, a delection (DEFECT) in one gene, ccdf confires immunitity to the HIV virus. So it's not bad...

Who says heterosexuality is "normal"? Geez, talk about heterosexism and the "heterosexual presumption!"

In the words of Dorthy Parker: "Heterosexuality isn't normal. It's just common."

...in the case of mammals, a binomial system of genders in sexual reproduction is heterosexual coupling...but homosexual relations in animals is common AND is not acted against in nature.

It's unfortunate science is being improperly used by these RW assgoblins.

and frankly, these people need to do some research. Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. . .nor, for that matter, is sexual intercourse. Oh sure, marriages can be annulled, but not arbitrarily by the state, of course. . .only by the parties involved. In other words, these people are full of crap.

If they are so concerned about providing special rights for a family to continue its "lineage". . .which, frankly, I don't see what benefit that holds for anyone but the "family". . .it would seem these are the same cultural elitists that justified incestual relationships in order to keep the genetic code pure within the famly.

This obsession over gay lives is really getting out of hand. In my state, for example, first cousins can marry as long as the woman is over 50 and can't have children. . .and that's coded into law. Perhaps they need to explain how the sanctity of marriage wasn't protected then?

.
I strongly urge you to read the full court opinion in the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts same-sex marriage case decided in 2003 by the highest court in Massachusetts.

Why do I suggest that? Because it will inform you of all the reasons why same-sex couples have a right to marry as do opposite-sex couples. Yes, the highest court in Massachusetts enumerated all the reasons why, legally and socially. And it would answer your own questions that you raised in that ignorant quotation in your OP.

Give it a try, pull up a good comfy reading chair, some fresh popcorn, and a cold drink . . . add to that mix, some time:

http://www.masslaw.com/signup/gtwFulltext.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm

You'll never again question it because you'll know after reading this case! Enjoy.

.

I don't have time to read it tonight, but I think I might go through that tomorrow after my morning class. Thanks for the link.

Delete due to double post.

In the first place, making babies certainly doesn't require a marriage...as the significant number of 'bastard' children attests.

And of course there are many married "normal" couples who do NOT have progeny.

Is 'furthering the species" really the best thing we should aspire to when the approximately 7 billion humans on the planet are using up its resources at a rate that will consume them in a few generations? What is more important...making a lot of offspring with a questionable future, or a few with a greater chance of living comfortably?

And finally (for the moment), what SPECIFICALLY would be a rational
argument against allowing 2 people who love each other to have equal
rights?...and how SPECIFICALLY would doing so damage or endanger any
'traditional' couples and their place in society?

Wonder how that person feels about people who have lots of babies? Wonder if they spout such ignorant and racist garbage as "welfare queens" and "I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for other people's kids"

Because if breeding was the basis for rights, then people with lots of children should have all kinds of rights and special privileges.

and the moron has obviously never heard of lateral heredity- desirable traits and survival traits "inherited" through lateral(aunt, uncle - and I'd even include adoption)relationships.

I was just watching a documentary on Himmler, the nazi SS chief, who was obsessed with genetics and the furtherance of the aryan race. Your post seems eerily similar. Obsession with reproduction, continuing the race etc.

The purpose of marriage, production of offspring and continuing the human species? Look around, we are hip deep in humans. Sure if the human population was limited to ten people, all homosexual, you would have a problem. This is not the case, homosexuality has zero impact on continuing the "blood line."

Deserving marital rights based on reproduction? Advocates for fertility testing prior to marriage. How long after marriage must the holy matrimony be annulled for lack of procreation. Sterile people, you are out of luck, no marriage for you. The infirm and old, nope, no marriage for you.

You should stay away from the freeper board, what is scientifically established is that freepers do carry a genetic defect resulting in a syndrome characterized by microcephaly, a tendency toward inbreeding, and a difficulty with language skills. A typical freeper specimen is included for you perusal and derision. Enjoy.

.....then why should they have the rights that have been traditionally granted to those who do further the species?

I find that comment extremely offensive

their marriage license revoked and be forced to quit cohabitation. If they aren't "pulling their weight" at 80 and 76 and punching out kids, why by god they are on the same level as those upstart gays. We cant have that. Sorry Grandma!

incredibly stoopid.

and no matter how hard we try, no one will ever "figure it all out"..there are too many variables..

His/her comment is unfathomably stupid. For one thing, a gay person CAN make a choice to have offspring, whether through "normal" hetero sex for the purpose of breeding, or through other means. Also, would this person apply fertility tests to all prospective couples to determine if they are capable of reproducing, and thus deserving of marital rights? Does it also mean that post-menopausal women should be barred from marriage? What a moran.

What is it about gay marriage that threatens these people? Is there some finite pot of goodies that is conferred upon couples when they marry and allowing same sex marriage will reduce everyone's share or something? How is this writer's ability to reproduce jeopardized by gay marriage? Is he/she afraid of turning gay? Maybe that's it....

than heterosexuals who procreate to "further the species" . . . the species doesn't need furthering . . . it needs reducing . . . and gays who don't have kids are being far more socially responsible than straights who do . . .

...that a certain segment of mankind is nature's method of population control (e.g., LGBTs who don't reproduce, and heteros who can't).

Seems to me that argument is bolstered by the steady incidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

Of course, there's always the age-old exchange:

Idiot fundy homophobe: "Homosexuality is NOT natural!"

You: "Naturally-occurring homosexuality has been documented in more than 550 species of animals."

Idiot fundy homophobe: (sputtering) "But... But... People aren't animals!"

You: (roll eyes, give up)

I always tell people it is part of "G-d's plan" for population control and those that oppose homosexuality are actually working against the nature of G-d and calling His master plan into question. This usually shuts them up very quickly.

Studies show that homosexual animals (which we are) tend to be caregivers and relieve pressure on the female allowing for them to join the hunt, especially in lean seasons.

As for the marriage thing...I guess an woman that has experienced menopause should not be allowed to marry, same for infertile people.

and often gay couples (or singles) will foster or even adopt children that no one else wants -- handicapped kids, AIDS/HIV kids, kids who've been abused and take it out on others, etc. . . some years back, I myself worked for a specialized foster care organization and took three different "troubled" teens into my home at various times . . . all were straight (and still are), and all are doing pretty well last I heard . . . one kid who was with me over a year is married, has a daughter, has held the same job for years, and recently bought his first house . . . all this from someone who most of the "professionals" (social workers, parole officers, etc.) were predicting would be in jail or dead by age 20 . . .

just think how much faster the human race would reach the over-population stage.

The idea that we are here as a population control is rather naive. If we were the percentage should be flexible and responsive to environmental cues, so that as the population increases the percentage would as well.

But you'd be hard pressed to figure out a biological mechanism for that coiled up in the genetic code.

A much more elegant and logical explanation is simply Kin Selection.

then it's more likely that it IS a genetic defect...(provided that there IS a "gay" gene).

Biology has rather a more broad canvas than that for which you give it credit.

That aside, there are numerous "conditions" regarded as defects, from albinism to near sightedness - but they are not grounds for legal prohibition of marriage.

isn't something i'm familiar with- it wasn't part of high school biology when i took it.
is it an accepted law, or a theory?

haven't caught up. Fortunately, biology is not limited to high school classes.

Line of thinking ,is what happens in a eugenicists mind when you say being gay is not a choice.
You can't help it it's a genetic problem.How do you "fix" it?
Clean the"gene pool" of "inferiors".
When you say being gay is a choice the nazis try to say your choice must be wrong or denied.
But this also denies free will is a human right.

Nazis love free will for THEMSELVES.

But free will for people they deem "inferiors"
Well they'll bend over back wards to rationalize why you should not have free will. But the Nazi has no grounds for that argument,it leads straight to the heart of the issue. Some Bullies seek to have domination and control over others consent and choices and freedom.

There is no valid reason for the Nazi to restrict others choices to what nazis prefer.
So he uses force,to control and kill those he is threatened by and his cowardice and pathological narcissism is revealed..

Is that a genetic mutation? Or a genetic gift?
Most of the gay people I know are educated, creative, intelligent,
reasonably good looking, contributors to this country. Gosh, how terrible is that?

"Wouldn't a segment of a continued (blood)line be more important and, thus deserving of marital rights exclusively?"

Stupid argument. What does one thing have to do with another? Following this moran's logic then people who can't have children shouldn't be allowed to marry.

...you should ask this nitwit if s/he believes that fetuses with Down's Syndrome should be aborted.

After all, Down's Syndrome is a genetic defect.

Of course, then you'll get the "But people with Down's Syndrome are born that way! It isn't a choice!" -- which will give you the opportunity to call him/her out on his own contradiction: If being gay is genetic, it's no more a choice than having Down's Syndrome.

And, for the record, there's nothing wrong with lumping the genetics of being gay in with the genetics of having Down Syndrome. LOTS of things are genetic, which doesn't make them necessarily bad. Look at intersexed people (whom I gladly embrace as part of the LGBTQI community, if they care to belong) -- people with XXY chromosomes are simply different from XX's and XY's. Do we deny them the right to, say, vote?

Ask your friend if s/he is saying that some of us are not worthy of the same rights as others, based on our genetics. If so, s/he is about one step away from becoming a full-fledged Nazi. (And about half-a-step away from becoming another William Shockley.)

So, you have a grand opportunity here to nail this asshat, who is comparing apples and oranges by confusing a "moral" issue (marriage) with genetics.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling -- I'm kind of tired -- but I hope you get my point... or that somebody else can expand on what I'm trying to say here.

Don't be afraid to argue with this jerk; he/she is setting up straw men, and just begging to be taken down a notch. Or ten.

"Wouldn't a segment of a continued (blood)line be more important and, thus deserving of marital rights exclusively?"
===

What if that last life in the "line of history" cures cancer? Is it not worth having lived to this neaderthal because he didn't spread his seed and make more children?

Point two, if gay men donated sperm to further their family line, would the poster feel better and let them live their lives as they were born?

It's an argument full of holes.

Your rights are dependant on the ability to perpetuate your "bloodline"?

I'd bet my last 2 cents the post came from a Neo Nazi.

Maybe they should start with the easy questions.

The whole essay is an ill-thought-out crock -- where does it leave infertile straight couples, for instance?

Along about the time I read that gays always comprise about 10% of the population I had to ask myself what Mother Nature had in mind, because that's an awful lot of people. People, by the way, who are extremely well-represented in the creative arts. Hmmm.

Left-handers are about 10% of the population, too.

Though not gay, I am a "different" person myself, and I come from a "different" family, starting with my parents. (Ten-plus years ago my kids, husband, and I spent some time with a family therapist. At one point he said we were "the most counter-cultural family he'd ever met," and he didn't mean we look like hippies.)

There are a lot of people who do not conform to the norm, and although that can be painful at times even if family and society are not overtly trying to make you align with everyone else, I think the reason is that God, or Mother Nature, or Whoever the Divine is, likes diversity. I also think the Divine has a sense of humor, but that's just a personal opinion based on the evidence.

But seriously, I have come to believe that differences/diversity in the gene pool are like the presence of the Trickster in mythology. For better or worse, the story cannot move forward without the Trickster. Assuredly, the story would be very dull, as well.

Hekate

1. The guy clearly has no actual clue of genetics or heredity. Malnutrition diseases also seem to run in families, as do some varieties of crime and religion and alcoholism and promiscuity.

2. He thinks of other people and himself as "the species" rather than human beings. How can he possibly be civilized?

3. And then there are his musings on magic materialism generally and that perennial favorite vanity-driven conservative masturbatory musing, the "bloodline" crapola. Some of us aren't just glorified domesticated pigs and sows, though in some places porcine-looking folks (they always seem to be Republicans) seem to reproduce and act that way in a painfully identifiable way. Need we point out that Jesus of Nazareth's 'bloodline' ended on The Cross, that worthless bum?

People who confuse a narrow knowledge of the material world with understanding and wisdom used to be called pagans. They're still among us and usually term themselves conservative Christians.

at least they're admitting it's not a CHOICE.

* weak heart that periodically jumps a beat
* left-handed
* unique mix of left- and right-brain functionality
* homosexual (eeeewwwwwwwww!)
* Odd facial structure (I want to say 'impish' except I ain't 3ft tall)
* Pervasive Developmental Disorder

What else?


It sounds like that posting person thinks that if there's only one Dodo left, it should be exterminated. After all, what value is its life.

BTW: Is that person "pro-life"? I highly doubt it.

And has that person looked at world population numbers? I don't think homosexuals are doing a disservice by not breeding freely.

?

If marriage were necessary to continue the species, it wouldn't have taken government to come up with it.

People with this genetical defect should just be naturally selected out by deciding their lives have no worth and denying them the opportunity to marry. What person in their right mind would argue with that? I don't see why it's worth discussing.

Because it would follow that certain people would want to 'cure' homosexuals. That makes me cringe because then it would imply there's something 'wrong' with being gay - which I don't believe in the least.

While it does support the nature over choice argument, I just cringe when I think of where it could lead.

Gene therapy. Let say the gay gene exists and is found in a kid. His parents then have him/her "treated" no more gay genes. Ain't science wonderful.

The writer says homosexuals can't make the "choice to have normal sexual relations." What does choice have to do with it? Or does he speak for the closeted ones who've made the "choice"?

Sounds like he's grimly going through the motions, "pulling his weight." His bewildered wife probably wonders what's missing. After a few kids--including at least one boy--he'll probably figure he's done his duty & start drinking heavily. (It's well known that girls don't really continue the "bloodline.")

Committed couples should be able to avail themselves of the legal & financial benefits of marriage. No matter their gender--or their desire/ability to procreate. Or call it "civil union" & let those who wish (straight or gay) have a religious "marriage" as well.

they have some sort of defect, and the fewer of them that are made the better off we will be.

Shame

Back in a harsher time, one strategy to furthering your bloodline was to reproduce as often as possible. Another strategy was to reproduce only once or twice but make sure that those offspring survived. Having some members of the community or family not tied directly to reproduction allowed more children to survive. It is suggested that women might go through menopause for this reason too, so that surviving grandmothers can help care for their grandchildren. In a harsher world, raising children to adulthood was more than half the battle.
As others pointed out, many gay couples adopt or foster children. Surely this is furthering the species even if one considers raising children as the purpose of marriage. Besides that, there are other worthwhile pursuits besides raising children.

I thought they were flattering.

"gay gene"=paradigm blindness

sex -- and i assure that isn't so.

and many if not most of my gay male friends have done the deed with women folk.

many of my lesbian friends have been married and have children -- i know gay men in the same boat.

this effectively shoots down any argument about not being able to procreate --

gay people can have children and gay people do -- under a whole variety of circumstances and some of them very, very creative.

so where exactly then is the defect?

If we start talking about genetic differences/inferiority, eventually you can find yourself in an ethical corner supporting the Aryans.

If gayness is genetic, is it a merely a trait or a defect?

Right now there's no genetic proof so it can be dismissed as a debauched lifestyle choice. If we had genetic evidence (or for that matter, scientific proof of biological altruism) the same people who say it ain't right now will use the scientific evidence as proof of gay inferiority. It's hard to open a closed mind.

Most would call sicle cell anemia a defect, yet it allowed for the survival of entire gene pools of Africans in a malaria-ridden environment. While it is a horrible condition, many of historically-recent African descent wouldn't exist today had their ancestors not developed the mutation.

Our existance in this world is far too brief for us to determine what strains and mutations are necessary for our long term survival. For all we know, homosexuality may be necessary for us to colonize other planets before our sun goes supernova. If it is indeed tied to a single gene or genetic sequence, it wouldn't be very scientific to refer to it as a defect, except in the case that it is a non- or malfunctioning version of the "normal" gene or sequence. Even then, most scientists would refer to it as a mutation rather than a "defect."

The idiot who got you riled is no more a scientist than those trying to push ID.