Vaccine to prevent gay birth defect soon- 60 minutes topic
03-13-2006, 10:27 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Posts: 3,461
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
Vaccine to prevent gay birth defect soon- 60 minutes topic
Anyone watch 60 Minutes last night? They were talking about gay research and how genetic factors only play a partial role in homosexuality. Scientists have found that exposure to particular hormones at birth seem to play the primary role, and that multiple previous male births predispose women to this abnormal hormone secretion, and hence the birth defect. This is statistically proven, btw.
It's much like when a male gets a vasectomy and the body recognizes your swimmers as invaders... the female body similarly learns to react to testoterone in male humans prior to birth, increasingly each male carried to term.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the gay birth defect could be irradicated? I wonder how gays feel about this?
It's much like when a male gets a vasectomy and the body recognizes your swimmers as invaders... the female body similarly learns to react to testoterone in male humans prior to birth, increasingly each male carried to term.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the gay birth defect could be irradicated? I wonder how gays feel about this?
03-13-2006, 11:21 AM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Posts: 3,461
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
Originally Posted by WindingRoad
So being gay is a birth defect??
03-13-2006, 11:32 AM
#4
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
you guys do realize that even if you take the "gay" out of them, they are still going to act the same way, which means that women will have found a sensitive, caring guy that likes to go shopping.....and likes the pountang...which means it'll be even harder for normal straight guys to get laid. we're screwing ourselves over!
03-13-2006, 12:12 PM
#5
Originally Posted by MBasile
you guys do realize that even if you take the "gay" out of them, they are still going to act the same way, which means that women will have found a sensitive, caring guy that likes to go shopping.....and likes the pountang...which means it'll be even harder for normal straight guys to get laid. we're screwing ourselves over!
03-13-2006, 02:56 PM
#6
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by MBasile
you guys do realize that even if you take the "gay" out of them, they are still going to act the same way, which means that women will have found a sensitive, caring guy that likes to go shopping.....and likes the pountang...which means it'll be even harder for normal straight guys to get laid. we're screwing ourselves over!
Anyways, DoD did some research and Dixon Osburn, Executive Director for the Servicemember Legal Defense Network, confirmed Air Force officials were developing a chemical weapon for turning the enemy gay. So there's obviously evidence to suggest it's partially due to a chemical imbalance.
Talk about a slap in the face to the gay community if this is proven true.
I wonder what the genetic factors include, if any? Are they just adding that into the story at this point to lighten the blow or in order to avoid a firm stance? If this can be successfully and routinely tested for in hormones during pregnancy, then homosexuality will be vastly reduced in civilizations with decent health practices and facilities.There's no way a parent is going to let a birth defect of any kind slide if they can help it, I don't care if they show up to the free clinic in hemp clothing. We all love the kid with down’s syndrome busing tables at the local McDonalds but he wouldn't be like that if the parents had access to a crystal ball.
Last edited by Salty; 03-13-2006 at 03:01 PM.
03-13-2006, 03:30 PM
#7
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Whoa...
You really have to read the entire 5 page article here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1385230.shtml Very interesting
I have no problem with someone being homosexual so long as they keep it to themselves. I do have a problem with self-righteousness of any sort, especially based on creed and homosexuality. I personally do not have to get on a soapbox to tell you I'm white. I do not have respect for people of other races or orientations that do so, especially in a world with growing opportunities and acceptance.
But the part about being a self-righteousness black person, for example, is that there's no denying it's genetic. Hell, you may not even be self-righteousness but are, in fact, proud of your heritage, which is fine...
But according to this article the chances of being a genetic homosexual are damn near non-existent because these twins share the same genes (the very definition of an identical twin)! Instead, you're the product of one or more of the following: hormones, society, statistics (the older brother effect), etc. Ouch!
My point is how many homosexuals will continue to hype their illness as something to be proud of? Furthermore, how many will seek a cure via hormone pills? Because if this study turns out to be solid years from now, taking a correcitve pill won't be masking what many believed to be genetic for years, it will be the actual cure to an inadequacy. God I cannot wait for that day... Bravo and Lifetime will go straight into the crapper.
While biologists look at hormones for answers about human sexuality, other scientists are looking for patterns in statistics. And hard as this is to believe, they have found something they call "the older brother effect."
"The more older brothers a man has, the greater that man's chance of being gay," says Bailey.
Asked if that's true, Bailey says, "That is absolutely true."
If this comes as a shock to you, you’re not alone. But it turns out, it’s one of the most solid findings in this field, demonstrated in study after study.
And the numbers are significant: for every older brother a man has, his chances of being gay increase by one third. Older sisters make no difference, and there's no corresponding effect for lesbians. A first-born son has about a 2 percent chance of being gay, and the numbers rise from there. The theory is it happens in the womb.
"Somehow, the mother's body is remembering how many boys she's carried before," says Breedlove. "The favorite hypothesis is that the mother may be making antibodies when she sees a boy the first time, and then affect subsequent boys when she carries them in utero."
"You mean, like she's carrying a foreign substance?" Stahl asked.
"And if you think about it, a woman who's carrying a son for the first time, she is carrying a foreign substance," Breedlove replied. "There are some proteins encoded on his Y chromosome that her body has never seen before and that her immune system would be expected to regard as 'invaders,'" he added.
It’s still not a proven theory and it gets even stranger.
"The more older brothers a man has, the greater that man's chance of being gay," says Bailey.
Asked if that's true, Bailey says, "That is absolutely true."
If this comes as a shock to you, you’re not alone. But it turns out, it’s one of the most solid findings in this field, demonstrated in study after study.
And the numbers are significant: for every older brother a man has, his chances of being gay increase by one third. Older sisters make no difference, and there's no corresponding effect for lesbians. A first-born son has about a 2 percent chance of being gay, and the numbers rise from there. The theory is it happens in the womb.
"Somehow, the mother's body is remembering how many boys she's carried before," says Breedlove. "The favorite hypothesis is that the mother may be making antibodies when she sees a boy the first time, and then affect subsequent boys when she carries them in utero."
"You mean, like she's carrying a foreign substance?" Stahl asked.
"And if you think about it, a woman who's carrying a son for the first time, she is carrying a foreign substance," Breedlove replied. "There are some proteins encoded on his Y chromosome that her body has never seen before and that her immune system would be expected to regard as 'invaders,'" he added.
It’s still not a proven theory and it gets even stranger.
I have no problem with someone being homosexual so long as they keep it to themselves. I do have a problem with self-righteousness of any sort, especially based on creed and homosexuality. I personally do not have to get on a soapbox to tell you I'm white. I do not have respect for people of other races or orientations that do so, especially in a world with growing opportunities and acceptance.
But the part about being a self-righteousness black person, for example, is that there's no denying it's genetic. Hell, you may not even be self-righteousness but are, in fact, proud of your heritage, which is fine...
But according to this article the chances of being a genetic homosexual are damn near non-existent because these twins share the same genes (the very definition of an identical twin)! Instead, you're the product of one or more of the following: hormones, society, statistics (the older brother effect), etc. Ouch!
My point is how many homosexuals will continue to hype their illness as something to be proud of? Furthermore, how many will seek a cure via hormone pills? Because if this study turns out to be solid years from now, taking a correcitve pill won't be masking what many believed to be genetic for years, it will be the actual cure to an inadequacy. God I cannot wait for that day... Bravo and Lifetime will go straight into the crapper.
Last edited by Salty; 03-13-2006 at 03:41 PM.
03-13-2006, 03:42 PM
#8
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
That's a very interesting article.
One thing I think should be pointed out is that while the twins-experiments stuff sort of rules out a genetic cause (nature), it also rules out an environmental cause (nurture) since both boys were raised by the same people their whole lives. So what it does point to is variences in development that could be caused by -genetics at the fetus level (mutations occuring after seperation of the twins), -genetics at the mother's level (her genes 'choosing' one twin to receive a different hormone level) or some type of physcological difference (which can be caused by genes directing different neural development, or a myriad of other causes).
So while this may seem to clear up the nature vs nurture argument, it actually just reveals how much more complicated the issue is than nature vs nurture.
One thing I think should be pointed out is that while the twins-experiments stuff sort of rules out a genetic cause (nature), it also rules out an environmental cause (nurture) since both boys were raised by the same people their whole lives. So what it does point to is variences in development that could be caused by -genetics at the fetus level (mutations occuring after seperation of the twins), -genetics at the mother's level (her genes 'choosing' one twin to receive a different hormone level) or some type of physcological difference (which can be caused by genes directing different neural development, or a myriad of other causes).
So while this may seem to clear up the nature vs nurture argument, it actually just reveals how much more complicated the issue is than nature vs nurture.
03-13-2006, 03:56 PM
#9
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by MVWRX
That's a very interesting article.
One thing I think should be pointed out is that while the twins-experiments stuff sort of rules out a genetic cause (nature), it also rules out an environmental cause (nurture) since both boys were raised by the same people their whole lives. So what it does point to is variences in development that could be caused by -genetics at the fetus level (mutations occuring after seperation of the twins), -genetics at the mother's level (her genes 'choosing' one twin to receive a different hormone level) or some type of physcological difference (which can be caused by genes directing different neural development, or a myriad of other causes).
So while this may seem to clear up the nature vs nurture argument, it actually just reveals how much more complicated the issue is than nature vs nurture.
One thing I think should be pointed out is that while the twins-experiments stuff sort of rules out a genetic cause (nature), it also rules out an environmental cause (nurture) since both boys were raised by the same people their whole lives. So what it does point to is variences in development that could be caused by -genetics at the fetus level (mutations occuring after seperation of the twins), -genetics at the mother's level (her genes 'choosing' one twin to receive a different hormone level) or some type of physcological difference (which can be caused by genes directing different neural development, or a myriad of other causes).
So while this may seem to clear up the nature vs nurture argument, it actually just reveals how much more complicated the issue is than nature vs nurture.
If we're talking about genetic make-up then aren't we leaning toward what color hair and eyes you have. What the article is saying is that because they're exact twins with exact genetic make-up, genetics cannot be a factor. So when you say "genetic" you really mean when the mother sabotages the womb with an imbalance of hormones without knowing it, right? I don't think introducing a third party (the mother) counts for anything in this case.
I mean adults often become diabetic because they stuffed their faces too much, not because of their genetic make-up from birth. Food would be the third party in this case.
I can see what will happen if this evidence is eventually proven to be factual... We’ll set the standards a little lower on what is and isn’t genetic in order to appease the gay community. Brilliant.
Last edited by Salty; 03-13-2006 at 04:02 PM.
03-13-2006, 04:08 PM
#10
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Look, even 'identicle twins' have genetic differences because, like I mentioned, genetic mutations can occur after the two fetuses have split. This may or may not be one of them.
Secondly, the mother's genetics (the mother's genes) may tell her body, when carrying twins, to give one a different level of hormones than the other. This would be a geneticly caused thing then (because you need a mother to have a child...) but it would be environmental from the kid's POV.
Then there's possiblility that there is no difference in the two boys genes, and no difference in the hormones delievered to them by their mother, and no difference in the way they've been raised. So then what is causing the difference?
That doesn't make sense, since hormones are dictated by genetics (it doesn't matter if it's the mother's genetics or the child's genetics causing the hormonal difference). And statistics doesn't control anything, it is a human-made system to help analyze what has happened and predict what will. It cannot be the 'reason' for anything to happen.
And while you are right that many adults become diabetic from eating crap, there are even more people who find out they're diabetic when they're in middle school and it's entirely genetically caused.
All I'm saying is that this particular article only raises questions, it answers none at all. And that's a good thing, just don't draw conclusions where even the people who know better than anyone what's going on have only told us that the picture is more complicated than we thought.
Secondly, the mother's genetics (the mother's genes) may tell her body, when carrying twins, to give one a different level of hormones than the other. This would be a geneticly caused thing then (because you need a mother to have a child...) but it would be environmental from the kid's POV.
Then there's possiblility that there is no difference in the two boys genes, and no difference in the hormones delievered to them by their mother, and no difference in the way they've been raised. So then what is causing the difference?
Originally Posted by Salty
Instead, you're the product of one or more of the following: hormones, society, statistics (the older brother effect), etc. Ouch!
And while you are right that many adults become diabetic from eating crap, there are even more people who find out they're diabetic when they're in middle school and it's entirely genetically caused.
All I'm saying is that this particular article only raises questions, it answers none at all. And that's a good thing, just don't draw conclusions where even the people who know better than anyone what's going on have only told us that the picture is more complicated than we thought.
03-13-2006, 04:22 PM
#11
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by MVWRX
That doesn't make sense, since hormones are dictated by genetics (it doesn't matter if it's the mother's genetics or the child's genetics causing the hormonal difference).
Originally Posted by MVWRX
And statistics doesn't control anything, it is a human-made system to help analyze what has happened and predict what will. It cannot be the 'reason' for anything to happen.
Originally Posted by MVWRX
And that's a good thing, just don't draw conclusions where even the people who know better than anyone what's going on have only told us that the picture is more complicated than we thought.
Seems like a natural reaction, too... i'd be on the defensive if I just realized my lifestyle is based on one or more controllable factors.
Last edited by Salty; 03-13-2006 at 04:29 PM.
03-13-2006, 04:31 PM
#12
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by Salty
My point is that popping a pill doesn't eliminate the fact your ancestors are ALL African and your skin color is undeniably black. If breakthroughs are made to suggest homosexuality is, in fact, an imbalance of some sort or something that can be cured with another means, then it won't have any legs to stand on.
Originally Posted by Salty
Doesn't mean the staggering statistics mentioned in the article regarding "the older brother effect" is meaningless. We cannot begin to throw out any and all mathematical and medical breakthroughs with statistics and statistical evidence since the beginning of time. Punnet square comes to mind...
Originally Posted by Salty
But I have a feeling that if that evidence ever exists, people like you and certain homosexuals will try and justify it by any means necessary, even if it means bending the rules on genetics when giving explanation.
03-13-2006, 04:32 PM
#13
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by Salty
Seems like a natural reaction, too... i'd be on the defensive if I just realized my lifestyle is based on one or more controllable factors.
Are you calling me gay?
I'll just assume you're not.
And just to point out, this article says nowhere that homosexuality is caused by any controllable factors. That's what you read into it.
03-13-2006, 04:41 PM
#14
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by MVWRX
I disagree. Conversely, I have a feeling that since conclusive evidence doesn't exists, people like you and certain homophobics will try and justify assumptions by any means neccesary (such as drawing conclusions from this article...)
03-13-2006, 04:44 PM
#15
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by MVWRX
And just to point out, this article says nowhere that homosexuality is caused by any controllable factors. That's what you read into it.
That's where you read between the lines.