The gay gene

[Kassokilleri2ff]

What would happen if scientists found "the gay gene" and could remove it from a baby before they are born. Do you think people would do it? Would gay people be pissed?

Would it ever get out? I think Christians would blow up the labs where it was discovered. If a gay gene was found it would be proof that being gay is not a choice and therefore making them wrong? Or would they just say jesus was gay but never "acted" on his feelings to justify themselves? lol!

I'm sure this has come up before, I don't know. The search engine is worthless if it has.

What if they could take it out of an adult? Would you do it? I don't think many would. If your happy your happy right? But what if you as a gay person had kids? Would you leave them be or have the gay gene removed?

 

[MalakingTiti]

Gene who? If I don't know the motherfucker's last name, how can I know who he is, or if he's gay?

 

[red7.5]

If the complexity of sexuality and sexual behavior is found to be determined by a single gene, I'll eat my hat.

 

[Deno]

I caught it on a toilet seat I think!!!

 

[ManlyBanisters]

What would happen if scientists found "the gay gene" and could remove it from a baby before they are born.

I have to stop reading there and explain something to you, K. They can't 'remove [a gene] from a baby' at any stage of gestation. What they do is they test the developing embryo for the 'undesirable' gene and if the embryo has it they 'discard' that embryo. See the recent case of the baby girl born who was selected not to have the BRCA1 gene to reduce her risk of breast cancer (link).

Do you think people would do it? Would gay people be pissed?

Yes, I think people would do it - and I don't think just gay people would be angry and opposed to it.

Would it ever get out? I think Christians would blow up the labs where it was discovered. If a gay gene was found it would be proof that being gay is not a choice and therefore making them wrong? Or would they just say jesus was gay but never "acted" on his feelings to justify themselves? lol!

'Christians' is far too broad a brush to paint the people you are attempting to describe. The vast majority of Christians I know are completely accepting of homosexuality and homosexuals - especially the gay Christians I know.

I'm sure this has come up before, I don't know. The search engine is worthless if it has.

What if they could take it out of an adult? Would you do it? I don't think many would. If your happy your happy right? But what if you as a gay person had kids? Would you leave them be or have the gay gene removed?

See above - you can't take a gene out of anything as complex as a human - you can just not allow examples of humans that have an 'undesirable' gene to develop.

Edit: if you are talking about gene splicing and genetic engineering - that is, I suppose a future possibility. But again, it is not a question of removing a given gene from an already living being but of altering the characteristics of genetic structure and using that to create a lifeform.

So you are asking, if it were possible, would gay people select their children in such a way that they would not grow up to be gay. Not being gay I can't answer that - I certainly wouldn't. But then I would select at all, based on anything - even potential for serious problems like breast cancer.

 

[Rugbypup]

YouTube - Gay Education

Says it better than I can.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

But then I would not select at all, based on anything - even potential for serious problems like breast cancer.

Ooops, missed the edit window - I'm always forgetting to type my negations, silly bunt

 

[midlifebear]

One needs look no further than the nearest Levi's store to find the gay gene. They are all stacked neatly and marked 501's.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Manly... the op asked 'IF they could"... he was not saying it could be done.
And, further, biotechnology WILL develop the ability to customize the genes of your children, within the next 50 years.


As a Sci Fi social cautionary take, its worth considering.

I think that many would opt to chose that their children NOT carry a gene that resulted in the child being "gay".

By the same token, I think many in the gay community would opt to make their children Gay ( again, no reason biotech will not be able to offer genetic parentage to gay couples )

I would bet that some might even opt to have their children born 'trans'...

Such a capacity holds the threat of stratifying society even further... with each group specifically and intentionally only throwing more of the same.

 

[Catchoftheday]

SUPERB PINK CHECK DESIGNER JEANS TROUSERS 30"W RRP £117 on eBay, also, Men's Clothing, Clothes, Shoes Accessories (end time 15-Jan-09 19:48:11 GMT)

 

[2322]

I tend to think that if a gay gene is discovered that it will spell the end of homosexuality. There would be no reason for a parent to opt for homosexuality given the advantages that heterosexuals enjoy in every society. While they're ordering up straight genes, they'll be going for the Einstein IQ, height, athleticism, and stunning good looks. They'll want their boys hung and their girls busty, their hearts free of heart disease, and their organs free of cancer. Dentistry and orthodontia will nearly die out from all the perfect teeth and Clairol will go out of business as no one will ever go gray. Everyone will be an Olympian, everyone will be a Hawking.

At least for those who can afford it.

There will be the genetic haves and have-nots, super soldiers and brilliant thinkers, all in the nations that can afford to breed them. Those who are the have-nots will serve the haves as the have societies skyrocket in productivity and technological advancement. We may even breed slaves for their strength, docility, desire to work and desire to be dominated. They may look human but their genetic sequence will be patented and will have some genetic variance to make them able to be considered non-human. These pseudohumans will do labor that robots cannot, perform complex tasts that robots cannot, and reamin in slavery their entire lives. And when robots become cheap and able enough to do all these things, we will then resort to merely keeping them as sex slaves, infertile and disease-free, possibly as companions as most people keep dogs.

Why would homosexuality die out? I can see a few particular reasons but the most compelling, beyond the social aspect, is that it will be outlawed to design a genetic defect into an embryo on purpose or to let a known defect remain. Enough people in the world believe homosexuality to be a defect that this could well become law.

We are approaching a time when the world will change more rapidly than it did for our grand and great grand parents. Societies will be restructured, borders redrawn, and the true technological and biological revolution will launch humanity into its greatest upheaval since the agricultural revolution as we will change entirely what it is and means to be human.

 

[HellsKitchenmanNYC]

YouTube - Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild! Official Trailer


Imagine a world w/o these genes!

 

[Zacker p]

If somebody could explain this to me, please do. But it seems impossible for there to be a "gay gene" because then, it would die out in one generation when no gay people dont have children.

And even if some in the closet try to force themselves into straight lives and do reproduce, it seems that the number of those woudl be small enough so that the gene would die out soon.

 

[HellsKitchenmanNYC]

This whole idea also goes on the supposition that every parent would have an embryo tested. There are tons of things and conditions that could happen to a child and most parents don't test for them. Even if it was discovered I doubt every rational person would opt to not have a gay child.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

I should hope not, I think it's really important for children and people to grow into who they really are, not mess with them before they have a chance or choice on who they want to be.

 

[2322]

If somebody could explain this to me, please do. But it seems impossible for there to be a "gay gene" because then, it would die out in one generation when no gay people dont have children.

And even if some in the closet try to force themselves into straight lives and do reproduce, it seems that the number of those woudl be small enough so that the gene would die out soon.

Not really. Not all genes express themselves every generation. You could well have your g.g.g.g. grandfather's eyes or your g.g.g. grandmother's nose. You may even find that if you and the mother both have red hair genes, you could have a ginger kid even if neither of you are remotely ginger. Some genes are recessive, others dominant and that plays a role as well.

Gay people have reproduced for ages because the social mandate to marry and reproduce trumps sexual preference across virtually all societies up until recently and then only in western countries.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

If somebody could explain this to me, please do. But it seems impossible for there to be a "gay gene" because then, it would die out in one generation when no gay people dont have children.

You are quite right.
This is because homosexuality is not really genetic, it appears to be developmental.
AND/OR- it must serve some important function in a social species to persist.

With every child a woman bears she is exposed to fetal cells that actually get into her blood. A form of microchimerism..

These cells can have a whole host of effects on the woman's physiology... immune reactions from these cells are implicated in Lupus and other diseases that women suffer way out of proportion to men.

Thus, the environment and physiological response of the mother to pregnancy changes with each child. Her womb is different for each pregnancy.
There is a clear correlation between the likelihood of a person being gay, and the number of older male siblings they have.

It is believed that some condition within the womb changes in women who have several children, and this change increases the likelihood of a child being pre-disposed to a gay sexuality.

Keep in mind that not all women are the same, some women have these conditions present with their first child...

Studies have also shown that homosexual behavior appears in nearly every Social species of mammal in which it has been looked for.

Thus... the general consensus is that EITHER, Homosexuality serves an important purpose in reducing male competition for females in social species... in which case it might have a genetic component that survives because the gene is only activated by females having multiple male children.

OR the changing conditions in the womb alone simply have the result of affecting the sexual development of the fetus.

If the latter is the case.... then homosexuality may simply be a By Product of Live mammalian birth.
That is... it may simply be that there is no way mammalian reproduction COULD work without producing SOME percentage of homosexual offspring.
In such a case, homosexuality would survive because it is an intrinsic probability inherent in our reproduction..

The fact that the percentage of the population that shows signs of homosexual behavior seems to be fairly constant thru time strongly argues for the latter scenario to be true.

In this case, science may not be able to identify a "gay gene" they could 'turn off' but they may identify the physiological changes in the womb that cause a fetus to develop with a gay orientation... and come up with some therapy to prevent fetuses from developing in this way.

But, yes, it is essential that homosexuality either serve a useful purpose, or that it be a consequence of how our reproductive systems function for it to survive as a feature of our species.