[qnxde]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4215427.stm

"Multiple genes - and not just the sex chromosomes - are important in sexual orientation, say US scientists"

Of course environmental influences play a part but it makes you wonder how much of it is chosen for you...

[forkies]

i know it's a genetic part of me, but i wish it weren't... if genes are found it will just give people a way to eradicate differences in sexuality

[mitchell_pgh]

Homosexuality is all over nature... I wonder why people find it so fascinating in humans.

[demograph68]

I predict....

#1) Derailment
#2) Moved out of lounge
#3) Lock

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by demograph68:
I predict....

#1) Derailment

Good job. You're the first to try.

BOT: Who cares if it's genetic or not. It really doesn't change anything.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Good job. You're the first to try.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[insha]

I'm curious of the repercussions/consequences.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
t really doesn't change anything.

Enlighten us.

[slugslugslug]

Originally posted by demograph68:
Enlighten us.

I don't think it changes anything from an ethical standpoint. That is, a sexual orientation by itself is neither right nor wrong, because a person's sexual orientation alone doesn't actually harm anyone, idiots who think God cares notwithstanding. That ethical neutrality doesn't depend on how much orientation is influenced by genetics, culture, or both.

On the other hand, individuals' and societies' reactions to homosexuality may change if it's conclusively shown to be primarily genetic. A few people may become more tolerant because they no longer see it as a deliberate choice that immorally goes against nature (not that they should've thought this anyway, had they learned about the Naturalistic Fallacy in high school). Others may feel more justified in treating homosexuality as a disease that needs to be cured, possibly resulting in a big upsurge in the "ex-gay ministries" industry.

In general, though, I think most people's opinions about orientation are pretty much emotionally derived from both their upbringing and their general character. So they'll probably keep their opinions and interpret the "in-the-genes assertion" to fit those.

[demograph68]

Good post.

[york28]

Originally posted by slugslugslug:
I don't think it changes anything from an ethical standpoint. That is, a sexual orientation by itself is neither right nor wrong, because a person's sexual orientation alone doesn't actually harm anyone, idiots who think God cares notwithstanding. That ethical neutrality doesn't depend on how much orientation is influenced by genetics, culture, or both.

On the other hand, individuals' and societies' reactions to homosexuality may change if it's conclusively shown to be primarily genetic. A few people may become more tolerant because they no longer see it as a deliberate choice that immorally goes against nature (not that they should've thought this anyway, had they learned about the Naturalistic Fallacy in high school). Others may feel more justified in treating homosexuality as a disease that needs to be cured, possibly resulting in a big upsurge in the "ex-gay ministries" industry.

In general, though, I think most people's opinions about orientation are pretty much emotionally derived from both their upbringing and their general character. So they'll probably keep their opinions and interpret the "in-the-genes assertion" to fit those.

Well put. I agree 100%.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by slugslugslug:
In general, though, I think most people's opinions about orientation are pretty much emotionally derived from both their upbringing and their general character. So they'll probably keep their opinions and interpret the "in-the-genes assertion" to fit those.

And beliefs. Other than that, this sums it up nicely.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by qnxde:
...

For Pete's sake, this has been discussed a billion times. Spare us.



-t

[Mithras]

The next natural question is, of course, genetic testing:

Ma'am, our screening finds that your fetus has no elevated risk for Tay Sach's disease; he has a 65% chance of being homosexual. What would you like to do?

[macintologist]

Originally posted by turtle777:
For Pete's sake, this has been discussed a billion times. Spare us.

-t

Couldn't help but post in the thread you should be ignoring?

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Mithras:
The next natural question is, of course, genetic testing:

Ma'am, our screening finds that your fetus has no elevated risk for Tay Sach's disease; he has a 65% chance of being homosexual. What would you like to do?

Yes, and that lies within the wider context of designer babies, which is a whole other ethical question which needs attention.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Couldn't help but post in the thread you should be ignoring?

You can't prove it

-t

[dcmacdaddy]

Genetic or a combination of genetics/environment? It doesn't matter to me. Homosexuals are people who should get treated as such. If you don't approve of homosexuality this is not going to change your mind. And if this does change your mind then you are intellectually suspect, IMHO, if your opinion of a person's sexuality changes based on how "scientific" the rational for said sexuality is.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Genetic or a combination of genetics/environment? It doesn't matter to me. Homosexuals are people who should get treated as such. If you don't approve of homosexuality this is not going to change your mind. And if this does change your mind then you are intellectually suspect, IMHO, if your opinion of a person's sexuality changes based on how "scientific" the rational for said sexuality is.

So if it's proven to not be a choice (as in not controllable, in-born, etc.), it's still A-OK for people to sh*t on them because they don't like it?

Interesting...

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Genetic or a combination of genetics/environment? It doesn't matter to me. Homosexuals are people who should get treated as such. If you don't approve of homosexuality this is not going to change your mind. And if this does change your mind then you are intellectually suspect, IMHO, if your opinion of a person's sexuality changes based on how "scientific" the rational for said sexuality is.

Originally posted by maxintosh:
So if it's proven to not be a choice (as in not controllable, in-born, etc.), it's still A-OK for people to sh*t on them because they don't like it?

Interesting...

Umm, where did I say that? Let me explain it for you step by step.
Genetic or a combination of genetics/environment? It doesn't matter to me. Homosexuals are people who should get treated as such.
I don't care whether or not it is genetic or choice, it is not going to change how I treat, or think about, homosexual people. I think of them just as people, you know, individual persons like you and me. So, that's how they get treated. If your gay and want to get married, fine by me. If you want to adopt children, fine by me. You want to file taxes jointly, fine by me. The status of homosexuals as individual people is more important to me than their status as part of a collective group.

So, where in my post did I say, or even imply, that I thought is was "A-OK for people to sh*t on them because they don't like it"?

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:

Umm, where did I say that? Let me explain it for you step by step.
Genetic or a combination of genetics/environment? It doesn't matter to me. Homosexuals are people who should get treated as such.
I don't care whether or not it is genetic or choice, it is not going to change how I treat, or think about, homosexual people. I think of them just as people, you know, individual persons like you and me. So, that's how they get treated. If your gay and want to get married, fine by me. If you want to adopt children, fine by me. You want to file taxes jointly, fine by me. The status of homosexuals as individual people is more important to me than their status as part of a collective group.

So, where in my post did I say, or even imply, that I thought is was "A-OK for people to sh*t on them because they don't like it"?

[/B]

I couldn't tell what "as such" was referring to--homosexuals or people. But it still seems to me as if your original post is implying that people that think that homosexuality is evil/wrong/a choice *shouldn't* change their mind (or if they do, they're feeble-minded) just because science is proving that it's a genetic trait. I'm not sure I agree with you on that.

[qnxde]

I wasn't actually trolling I thought someone might be genuinely interested in some hard evidence that it's genetic.

Every time the conversation is brought up, the usual suspects go on with "show me one bit of concrete evidence that it's genetic, nothing conclusive has been found which means it must be a choice" and then even if any is shown, it always ends up like this:

tort: Yes but it's 100% natural, they've observed animals doing it in the lab and in nature, and it doesn't hurt anyone therefore how could it be morally bad?
retort: I've observed my dog eating it's own feces in the back yard last week and that's natural too but does it means humans should stoop to the level of animals

And then somebody posts a photoshopping or invokes godwin's law and the whole thing just goes down the drain...

This is why I love MacNN

[spacefreak]

So, it turns out Dr. Laura was right after all. It was so nice for the gay community to bash her back then.

Think she'll get an apology?

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So, it turns out Dr. Laura was right after all. It was so nice for the gay community to bash her back then.

Calling homosexuality a "biological error" that is "deviant" and can be "cured" through "therapy" and likening it to pedophelia, bestiality and incest is not the same thing as saying it has a genetic basis (e.g., it's a natural trait).

[simonjames]

in today's Sydney Morning Herald (sorry, no link as the paper requires registration) there was a tongue in cheek headline:-

Gay scientists find christian gene

no that would be funny