Gay Scientists Isolate the Christian Gene
Fri, 2009-07-24 07:45
#1
Maysie
Gay Scientists Isolate the Christian Gene
Fri, 2009-07-24 08:15
#2
Refuge
I knew it! 
Fri, 2009-07-24 08:21
#3
ha! funny....
Seriously, though (am I allowed to be serious in this thread?) - what will be the consequences when a supposed "gay gene" is alleged and reported to have been discovered? (why would any self-respecting scientist believe such nonsense?). Will it be added into the already huge list of things that are tested for prenatally?
Fri, 2009-07-24 08:32
#4
Maysie
No you are not allowed to be serious. 
And I truly don't think any serious scientist is looking for "the gay gene". In my humble opinion, since such a gene doesn't exist, they will be looking for a long time. Think of all the window treatments that money could go towards!
And if the anti-gay community is so interested in looking for genetic "proof" wouldn't it be easier to look for a "straight" gene?
Fri, 2009-07-24 08:34
#5
Yeah, at least we can rest assured that we aren't losing any good scientists to such foolish pursuits.
Fri, 2009-07-24 10:40
#6
Dear scientists. Save yourself a lot of needless work and hit the beach. The gay gene is #501.
Fri, 2009-07-24 10:50
#7
Having isolated this gene, I wonder if a cure will be far behind. I used to attend Christian pride events. Have to admit I liked the music, but the rest of the programming was tedious repetitive and a bit derivative.
Some of the fringe groups had the most OUTLANDISH outfits though. Quite flamboyant! Check out this old dude in one of their "parades"...
There's a darker side to these parades though. As a non BDSM person, I don't like my tax dollers suppporting THIS...
Really, would you want these people teaching in our grade schools?
Fri, 2009-07-24 13:10
#8
As the only person who is not a genetic scientist in this thread, I don't understand why the possible existence of a "gay gene" is "nonsense" and "foolish". I thought genes dictated inborn traits, and I thought there was close to consensus of sexuality being bred in the bone.
Fri, 2009-07-24 13:29
#9
This was great! Thank you
Fri, 2009-07-24 13:31
#10
People are extra wary about scientific inquiry that could end up enthroning prejudice and oppression, as it has historically, so even valid contemporary research about any biological bases of gender differences, sexual orientation, intelligence and race are examined critically, and sometimes a bit sloppily. Especially when it's great material for jokes about gayness.
Fri, 2009-07-24 13:31
#11
Hopefully when they isolate the gay gene Christians will shut the fuck up about how being gay is a life-style choice. 
Fri, 2009-07-24 13:41
#12
I admit I am little informed of this debate (so please don't jump down my throat), but if there isn't an element of choice, how does one account for bisexuality and for people who have alternated in their life between exclusive gay/lesbian sexual interest and exclusive heterosexuality? I know quite a few and I wouldn't call them "denying their true nature" in either of these conditions. I understand that the notion of "choice" is used by anti-gay forces to "justify" their war against gays and lesbians, but do we need to exclude that possibility of choice of one's partner(s) for purely tactical reasons and merely claim nature's calling?
Fri, 2009-07-24 13:43
#13
Hopefully when they isolate the gay gene Christians will shut the fuck up about how being gay is a life-style choice.
...or they will finally become pro-choice if someone claims to be able to test for such a gene
Fri, 2009-07-24 13:44
#14
I was just about to ask something along the same lines, If being gay were a choice, what would be wrong with that? I get the notion that in order to bring the larger part of the population around to being at least gay-tolerant, homosexuality had to be pathologized, so everyone could say, Poor them, obv. they're not in their right minds, they're just born that way. The whole question at this point seems patronizing, and there's probably a consensus, rightly or wrongly, and probably based on nothing but argument, that it's an inborn trait.
Fri, 2009-07-24 13:51
#15
RP, I can understand straight people being scared of there being an element of choice, esp. in the case of lesbianism in this patriarchal world, just as I can understand their coming down harder on gays and lesbians acknowledged to be making such a choice. A number of my female friends have had long, passionate, heterosexual lives and became lesbians midway through their life. Are we really to believe that they were they in denial of their true nature all along or kept away from it by a homophobic world (that's certainly a major influence), or that this dastardly gene finally emerged... or could they have actually compared women and men and chosen?
It is my understanding that there is no consensus among the gay/lesbian/bicommunity, so I can see the use for some quality research.
Fri, 2009-07-24 14:02
#16
martin, I think what your questions really show is the ridiculousness nature of such "research" and how there will never be a one-size-fits all answer to such a complex question as human sexuality. It reminds of the "nature vs nurture" debate, when true answers lie in a complex grey area. Obviously some scientists of a certain bent would like a finalized cookie-cutter answer based on "fact", however I don't think such a thing is possible.
ETA: poor Maysie...we are no fun and all seriousness now!
Fri, 2009-07-24 14:04
#17
Well, I am speaking in the context of those who would deny the naturalness of homosexuality, asserting that people choose to be gay and can therefore, with the correct counselling and scripture study, choose not to be gay.
I think sexuality is often, but not always, hardwired, whether that results in straight, gay, or bisexuality. And.. I believe that denying this furthers the pathologizing of homosexuality as a mental or moral disorder.
I know that there are those who have changed streams mid way- in fact I have two cousins, sisters, both gay. One was definitely gay from childhood. The other went through a bad marriage, left her husband. Subsequently fell in love with a woman, and has been with women ever since. I know of far fewer men who have changed streams. Those I know who have been with women have not been ready to face the social stigma of coming out as a gay man in an unwelcoming society.
Really, it shouldn't matter, but as long as there are those who would send children to de-gaying camp, or to psychiatrists for being gay, I will support my gay friends' assertion that their sexuality is not a choice any more than mine is.
Fri, 2009-07-24 14:21
#18
Interestingly, the notion that one could actually choose a religion (rather than Obey the Call) freaks conservatives even more.
Fri, 2009-07-24 14:28
#19
Back to the tone of this thread, with some breaking news:
Scientists have just identified the impotency gene. Apparently it is recessive.
Fri, 2009-07-24 14:31
#20
How bout this: Scientists have discovered the filthy rich gene: Apparently it's inherited.
Fri, 2009-07-24 14:31
#21
Ha!...too funny unionist.
Fri, 2009-07-24 14:42
#22
Maysie
I'm really glad this thread has returned to the "Friday levity" atmosphere in which it was started.
Good ones, Unionist and RP!
oldgoat if you troll again with that disgusting BDSM imagery you're banned, mister!
P.S. The BDSM gene is....dominant.
...sorry, I just had to....
Fri, 2009-07-24 14:49
#23
Teenagers long ago discovered designer genes.
Fri, 2009-07-24 23:17
#24
I admit I am little informed of this debate (so please don't jump down my throat), but if there isn't an element of choice, how does one account for bisexuality and for people who have alternated in their life between exclusive gay/lesbian sexual interest and exclusive heterosexuality? I know quite a few and I wouldn't call them "denying their true nature" in either of these conditions. I understand that the notion of "choice" is used by anti-gay forces to "justify" their war against gays and lesbians, but do we need to exclude that possibility of choice of one's partner(s) for purely tactical reasons and merely claim nature's calling?
It doesn't really matter to the Christian right. Priests (are supposed to) renounce sex for life. So, whether you are born gay or not you can still choose not to act on your desires. I really just don't get how adults can still be so superstitious.
Fri, 2009-07-24 23:47
#25
And I imagine that the people and organizations who would forcibly "reprogram" a gay or lesbian would go ahead and try to do so even if one convinced them that a person is "hard-wired" in her sexual option. Their kind of approach actually seems to correspond more closely to a mechanistic paradigm. Good reason to defend choice and advocate for a hands-off-my-sex-choices political philosophy as long as no one else gets hurt.
Sun, 2009-07-26 20:47
#26
Maysie
[serious drift]
martin to answer your question about choice vs "born that way" you'd have to look at various sectors in the LGBTQ community, where this "debate" flares up from time to time.
Some queers are adamant that they were "born that way" and I will not challenge that, as this is a group of people talking about their experiences. However, these are often the same people who think that if the straight community accepts that LGBTQ people are "born that way" that this will lead to acceptance. I find this reasoning flawed, even as I respect that someone's experience of their queerness is that they were "born that way".
Sadly, in my opinion, the "born that way" crowd has gone to the extreme of supporting the research into finding "the gay gene".
....
Certainly nobody has ever been "taught" to be queer. Everyone is socially conditioned to be straight. In fact, the social instruction, formal and informal into teaching us gender roles and (hetero)sexual orientation is pretty extensive. Amazing that hasn't been studied yet. (That's a joke)
I'm on the choice side of the debate, if pushed. I guess that much is obvious. But if anyone really asks me directly I will say that the question is flawed. One doesn't go searcing for "causes" of realities that are non-problematized, which for me means the entire question is begging itself. Why ask about the "causes" of homosexuality (or bisexuality, or being transgender) if such states of being aren't problematized.
And to be clear, the mainstream world makes these experiences problematic, not that being queer in any way is problematic. I just want to be clear about that.
As I said, if heterosexuality is studied with such a degree of scrutiny of "causes" then I can get on board with the question. Otherwise it's highly problematic.
[/serious drift]
Now, more gene jokes please!
Mon, 2009-07-27 04:27
#27
So two genomes were talking in a bar and one said to the other, did you just split up too or did you choose your X chomosone? Y said the other. Sorry.
Mon, 2009-07-27 06:51
#28
Maysie
Oh Erik. That was so, so bad.
Thank you.
Tue, 2009-07-28 02:00
#29
Ya, that was pretty bad wasn't it? Well I've always been of the school of thought that even bad jokes are better than none at times. Some might disagree with me there. :)
Tue, 2009-07-28 08:16
#30
Having isolated this gene, I wonder if a cure will be far behind. I used to attend Christian pride events. Have to admit I liked the music, but the rest of the programming was tedious repetitive and a bit derivative.
Some of the fringe groups had the most OUTLANDISH outfits though. Quite flamboyant! Check out this old dude in one of their "parades"...
There's a darker side to these parades though. As a non BDSM person, I don't like my tax dollers suppporting THIS...
Really, would you want these people teaching in our grade schools?
I love watching Christian videos with bondage and whippings. Christians in dresses and loin cloths make me tingle.
Tue, 2009-07-28 08:37
#31
Thanks for letting the gen(i)e out of the bottle.