on the topic of gay rights

people have been saying "those rights aren't the same as THESE rights!" and they always list different (wrong) reasons why. let me list them for you:

1. a woman's place is in the kitchen! god made her the servant to adam, and that's where she'll remain! women don't know what they want or how to go about doing it, they need a man to show them the way.
2. black people aren't the same as white people. they're inherently different. they can't possibly be as intelligent! just look at their culture in africa! black people have no right to vote, because they can't learn to read.
3. gays shouldn't be allowed to marry! homosexuality is a myth! nobody could possibly be gay, it just doesn't make sense! man on man love is just wrong.

starting to see a trend here? X group is not worth as much as we are, here are some reasons why that i just pulled out of my ass. it's all based around misconceptions and misunderstanding. people didn't understand that women are just as smart as men, because they weren't educated or empowered like men. blacks weren't seen as anything but work mules because that's all they had been for the previous 200 or so years. queers are seen as some abomination because certain people can't understand how somebody could be attracted to the same sex, because those certain people either a) are simply obfuscated by the idea and refuse to consider it lest they make them "gay" (circular logic) or b) are secretly homosexual and don't want to come to terms with it because they're the same as group A. gay is seen as a derogatory term because people become vicious towards things they don't understand.

"women's rights are in no way similar to monkey slave rights. flag me i'll love it."
"black rights in the same category as women's rights? o noz!"

it's the same tried and proven untrue train of xenophobia. nobody wants to accept differences. whether or not homosexuality is natural or learned, it needs to be accepted. gays aren't out to ruin your family. they are a minority that is being beset upon by a group who is afraid of them unjustly. just like women, just like blacks, just like scots. who one person decides to have sex with is of no cause for concern. fighting for gay rights does not make you gay, it means you give a shit about the ability got another person to live the way THEY WANT, which is what america is all about.

"life, love, and the pursuit of happiness." The American Dream. But only if what you consider 'life,' 'love,' and 'happiness' to be within the firmly held traditions of the majority of other Americans.

in twenty years we'll all look back on this, laugh uncomfortably and quickly change the subject.

Well said, very succinct. For all of you Godfearing people out there who do hate gays, take a little ride with me. So God creates human beings in his image and sets them upon the earth. Genetically, we are just like God. Well what if genetically, we were also gay? That would speak a lot about God. As it turns out we are gay by genetics. Some can socially learn this trait but most are born with it. Where is the proof, you ask? After much daunting scientific study there is hard evidence that completely backs up these claims.

Take any straight family at random and any gay family at random, the children have both been taught by each family what their values are (let's say for argument the straight family teaches their children that men should attract women and the gays teach respectively). Examine the outcome of the sexual preference of their children: the parents' sexual preference and teachings had no effect on the child. There are exactly the same ratio of straight:gay children from equally hetero and homosexual parentage. No child is more or less likely to be gay from having gay parents or straight parents.

By the same token, the children with gay parents are much more likely to be tolerant (and by that I don't mean to 'tolerate' but live and let live) and children born in straight households are much more likely to be less educated on how gays function and more likely to hate them.

So it looks like being gay is genetic but hating gays is socially taught. That's right, all of you religious and gay-hater fanatics out there are all socially taught drones following what someone else told you without questioning it. Meanwhile your God is kicking back and churning out more gays at the exact same rate as he always has.

"But Trevlac, prove it's genetic! Let's see some genetic evidence. It's not like there's a gay gene."

So guess who the inventor of the gay gene is? Yo' momma.

No, that's not a white trash joke, it's fact. In women, there exists two X chromosomes (if you just learned something, stop reading right now and go kill yourself). So you automatically think they're the exact same right? Well, no. That's completely wrong. Your dad may determine what sex you're born with but your mom determines who you have sex with.

In women, one of their X chromosomes are mostly inactivated during methylation and is rarely used. Now in each strand of DNA the X chromosome which is inactivated is completely random. So it's a 50% shot at which one isn't making certain proteins, but when they studied women who had homosexual boys, they found that there's one X chromosome which is always inactive. What does this mean? It means they've isolated a gay gene. A gene which is always present in gays that is not present in straights.

The interesting suggestion of this set of facts is that it tells us one other thing: we don't know why women can be gay. "Whaaaat? But ...but...lesbians are hot..'n you said your mom makes you gay...and and...baaaawwwwwww!"
Shut the fuck up little Timmy and let me finish goddam.

Your dad's sperm is either going to have one X or one Y when it hits your mom's egg which is guaranteed to have one X. (Of which, it may be the gay X). If you make a boy and it's XY (but gayXY) then you know which X chromosome was inactive and therefore can isolate it. However, in women it doesn't really matter. When your dad gives you the X chromosome, regardless of which version of your mom's you get, it's still XX with one of them inactive! Every woman on earth has that same genetic setup.

Ironically, it's socially accepted more so in women for them to be gay than men and yet we have no scientific evidence as of yet to prove that they are gay by genetics as well.

Okay little Timmy, what did we learn about gays?
"Don't disc--dismi-dixrimanate!"

Source:
Live Science - Mom's Genetics Could Produce Gay Sons

woah! i have been informed!

technically though, not ALL women necessarily have two XX chromosomes, with one being inactive. there's a well-documented phenomenon in which a woman can be born with three X's or XX and a Y. it's called triple-X syndrome.

basically, it makes women more beautiful.

it's so common that 5 to 10 girls with it are born with it in the US each day. 1 in 1,000 currently have it. it's not considered a disability, either, though they may have a slightly higher risk for learning deficiencies or language difficulties.

triple-X syndrome = all the hot, stupid chicks you know.

don't believe me? sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome#Symptoms

I never knew they were able to isolate the gene for homosexuality. Did they discover whether or not it was a dominant or recessive gene? Actually, Thinking about it I believe it would have to be a recessive gene. In order for a recessive gene to be expressed, it has to be a homozygous trait, basically that means that you would have been given the trait from both sides of your parents. homosexuality would have to be a ressecive trait assuming it fights for domination with heterosexuality and since...let's say 80% of the world is heterosexual, heterosexuality would have to be dominant

considering that heterosexuality is a dominant trait, this would mean that both mom and dad would be homosexual heterozygous, meaning they carry the gene of homosexuality, but don't express it because heterosexuality would dominate over homosexuality. Let's consider the ratio of having a gay baby using a Punnet square:

Let H = heterosexual gene
Let h = homosexual gene

through the use of a punnet square, we find the following combinations of the two genes:

HH
Hh
hH
hh

As you can see, it's only a 25% chance for you to have a homosexual homozygous child and therefore being flat out flamboyant, but you have a 50% chance that your child will carry the homosexual gene and therefore continue on the trait.


I also wonder if homosexuality is a mutation in the DNA...

Ordin wrote:woah! i have been informed!

technically though, not ALL women necessarily have two XX chromosomes, with one being inactive. there's a well-documented phenomenon in which a woman can be born with three X's or XX and a Y. it's called triple-X syndrome.

basically, it makes women more beautiful.

it's so common that 5 to 10 girls with it are born with it in the US each day. 1 in 1,000 currently have it. it's not considered a disability, either, though they may have a slightly higher risk for learning deficiencies or language difficulties.

triple-X syndrome = all the hot, stupid chicks you know.

don't believe me? sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome#Symptoms

Yeah I thought of that during the article too but it doesn't require that the mother only have two X chromosomes. Only that 1 is inactive and the male child receives it. There's an even less chance from mutated genes, (i.e. Superwoman Syndrome) than "normal" people.

Daius wrote:I never knew they were able to isolate the gene for homosexuality. Did they discover whether or not it was a dominant or recessive gene? Actually, Thinking about it I believe it would have to be a recessive gene. In order for a recessive gene to be expressed, it has to be a homozygous trait, basically that means that you would have been given the trait from both sides of your parents. homosexuality would have to be a ressecive trait assuming it fights for domination with heterosexuality and since...let's say 80% of the world is heterosexual, heterosexuality would have to be dominant

considering that heterosexuality is a dominant trait, this would mean that both mom and dad would be homosexual heterozygous, meaning they carry the gene of homosexuality, but don't express it because heterosexuality would dominate over homosexuality. Let's consider the ratio of having a gay baby using a Punnet square:

Let H = heterosexual gene
Let h = homosexual gene

through the use of a punnet square, we find the following combinations of the two genes:

HH
Hh
hH
hh

As you can see, it's only a 25% chance for you to have a homosexual homozygous child and therefore being flat out flamboyant, but you have a 50% chance that your child will carry the homosexual gene and therefore continue on the trait.


I also wonder if homosexuality is a mutation in the DNA...

It's nice to know that you understand Punnet Squares but your logic is a bit shortsighted. There is not a 1 in 4 chance of being gay because it is not a dominant or recessive gene. We're not talking white tailed rabbits and gray tailed rabbits here or anything part of the evolutionary process; this is simply inheriting a certain X chromosome from your mother (and your mother only). Not only do you have to contend with her 50% chance reduction (1 of 2 is inactive) but your father's (X or Y) 50% reduction on top of that but this isn't a cut and dry 25% (different from the 25% you came up with). You can't just take the whole chromosome into account because there are more than one gene on the X chromosome that determines if the resulting offspring becomes gay. The average ratio from several studies are that 9.56% of men are homosexual and 4.75% of women are homosexual.[0]

There is, however, a 1 in 4 chance to be neurologically transgendered. When scientists turned to studying brain patterns in gay men they found that most (we're talking just enough short of "all" to warrant the word "most" instead) men had female brain growth and thinking patterns.[1]

While we don't know what causes women to be gay, we have noticed genetic differences such as certain digits of their hands being shorter than others.[2] Our biggest problem here is the overabundance of biased motherfucking scientists and small ass sample sizes goddammit.[3]

But no matter where we look, no matter in what country or culture, the ratio is the same: Approximately 8-10% in males (a 2% deviation) and 3-4% in females (a 1% deviation). With this many different social cultures spread out over various time periods (the samples were taken at different times) it's very clear that homosexuality is genetic.[4]

So using those numbers and we know that there are approximately 7.4 billion people now on this planet, we can deduce that 300million women and 750million men are gay. For a grand total of 1.05BILLION gay people. That's 1 in 7 people in the world.[5]

Let me ask this question: How can one in seven people be an abomination against God? Or let me better rephrase this: How can we deny one in seven people the right to live how everyone else lives; exactly as they want.

Sources:
[0] Indiana University Kinsey Reports - Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
[1] , [2] Bruce L. Gerig (Epistle) - Born Gay?
[3] Kristof, p. A19
[4] Results of national population-based samples - Sell, Wells, and Wypij (USA, UK, France)
[5] ~50% of the population is male. (7.5bil / 2) * 0.1 = 750mil. ~50% of the population is female. (7.5bil / 2) * 0.04 = 300mil.

We're not talking white tailed rabbits and gray tailed rabbits here or anything part of the evolutionary process; this is simply inheriting a certain X chromosome from your mother (and your mother only).

Point noted. I over simplified it and that was the only way i could think about it. The next question I have on my mind is if this has been written in the genetic code since the beginning of humans as far back as Homo Erectus perhaps. This genetic code had to have come from somewhere wouldn't it? I mean this can't be a new thing so it must have been in our code for a long time. Not to mention that it is on the X chromosome from the mother as well.

From some reading I'm doing, it looks like homosexuality can be dated back possibly as far or even farther than the 1800's. Apparently there was a book written in 1836 called Eros: Die Männerliebe der Griechen: Ihre Beziehunger zur Geschichte, Erziehung, Literatur und Gesetzgebung aller Zeiten (Eros: The Male Love of the Greeks: Its Relationship to the History, Education, Literature and Legislation of All Ages) by a man named Heinrich Hoessli.

Reference:
http://rictornorton.co.uk/earlygay.htm

Interesting question; if it one day becomes possible for people to determine if their offspring will be gay through genetic testing, is it ethical to screen kids for it and perform abortions?

By what Davis has said it may be possible to already screen for it.

Toothpick wrote:Interesting question; if it one day becomes possible for people to determine if their offspring will be gay through genetic testing, is it ethical to screen kids for it and perform abortions?

That's one of the things that gene researchers are fearing for right now. I'm absolutely terrified myself, because abortion is the perversion of natural selection into "human selection" and what we think is good for us is almost always wrong. Nature took hundreds of millions of years to make us what we are, if we think we can understand and judge that then we are wrong.

I just KNOW anti-gay parents are going to kill a bunch of potentially gay children.

Weeeeeeeeel, I don't know. Most anti-gays are also anti-abortion as well. They probably won't get tested either, since they tend to be low-income. Most people who favor abortion rights are in the pro-gay camp.

I think it's a scary possibility, but I can't see myself as being frightened enough by it to tke away reproductive choice.