ozoneocean
I'm not casting aspersions or accusing anybody of anything, but sexualising the ordinary (and strange) behaviour of little kids in an adult way makes the arguments of paedophiles that much stronger, which I don't think is that good an idea. I would contend that even if a child does play with its genitals, it's not because it has any sexual urges, it's simply for the feel of the stimulation of those pleasurable nerves. Ewww, anyway, that's quite enough of that.

I never said anything about the kids masubrating for other reasons. in fact I can agree that it's just because they think it feels nice.

and I doubt that it would make the "arugement" of the pedophiles' side that stronger.

because even if the kids did feel sexual urges, they're still not mature and devloped well enough to UNDERSTAND why competely. so they can't really fully consent to something they can't understand, can they? No, of course not. They need time to devlop and to have expernice as to get a better understanding of who they are before they can jump into any actual sexual activity.
which I would think would just make the mere idea of what pedophiles even do to kids that MUCH WORSE!

But yeah, enough of this.. this is getting off topic somewhat. =\

Thankyou for saying we're moronic.

I promise you, from earliest stages ever, I have been heterosexual. And... you saying that stuff that happens in early childhood not counting? Please. you can see personalities in kids from very very early stages, that stick to adulthood. Why not gender preferences?
When I was 6, I had a *very* clear crush on a boy in my class. lasted for 6 months. I did not have crushes on every random person ever. It was a serious 'crush' too, not just a ... 'liking' like i felt for my friends. I'd always want to stand next to him in line so we had to hold hands etc. I remember how I felt. And that stuff continued until now. Before I was 6, I was hugely attracted to boys in my class, would worry obsessively about them if they got hurt or whatever. That's still a sign that I like someone, when I worry about them. I'm not talking about stuff from when you're 3 years old when you say you're going to marry your 22 year old cousin or whatever because you like them and that's what you think you do with people you like. I know I seriously thought that I was in 'love' with boys. WAY before puberty. And lots of gay people claim that they did similar things with the same sex.

I said the conversation was turning moronic, not the conversants ;)
I'm going to have to disagree with you Tundra, that's perception and memory of events long past (from postprepubescent adulthood at that). I stand by what I said about imitation, extrapolation, curiosity, and the boundless capacity for emotional attachments of which children are notoriously capable.

Heh, I was a born hat lover since I was 12 months old. My mum tells me that I used to crawl around with a red bucket on my head. That was the obvious indication of the start of it.
...right :)

I'm not saying that sexual preference isn't set until puberty, I'm saying that it doesn't manifest until then- in an adult way. Really Ian, whatever your eventual path in life it's not unusual for children only to be interested in members of their own sex, that's a pretty common experience and you can therefore infer very little from it. We had girls and boys "only" clubs for a reason, and depending on your sex the other was usually infected with germs and probably a bit evil, or at least too stupid and boring to associate with. :)

ozoneocean
I said the conversation was turning moronic, not the conversants ;)
I'm going to have to disagree with you Tundra, that's perception and memory of events long past (from postprepubescent adulthood at that). I stand by what I said about imitation, extrapolation, curiosity, and the boundless capacity for emotional attachments of which children are notoriously capable.

Heh, I was a born hat lover since I was 12 months old. My mum tells me that I used to crawl around with a red bucket on my head. That was the obvious indication of the start of it.
...right :)

Ooookay. What about stuff like me totally totally loving dollhouses, and I'm now a dollhouse miniaturist? Or, story telling age 3, and I'm now a writer? (it continued and progressed through my life, it's not as if i'm saying 'oh, when i was two i pretended to be a plane once and now i'm a pilot') Or being very sensitive to people's emotions, and I still am? Or making singing noises before I could talk (I have footage!) and then walking around constantly singing to myself, and now still totally totally loving to sing? Stuff is revealed as a child that continues on into adulthood. It works with sexuality too. Not even just your preferred gender, but also your attitudes to it. All the other girls wanted to play kiss chasey. I didn't. I still am hung up on like, making sure i'm emotionally ready with a guy, that sort of thing. And i promise you, my crushes on guys *were* crushes, and even if you're not talking about before age 7 say, I still was having very VERY strong crushes before puberty. On guys. And no i'm not confusing them with the sort of like that kids have for everyone that they think is cool.

Um yeah Tundra... I'm going to stop discussing this with you now. I'm sure you believe very much in what you say, but it's just getting a bit too much about generalising from personal perception and reminiscence. Nice talking with you though :)

I was drawing on your claim about liking hats.

And yeah, I don't particularly want to talk about this topic with you either right now.

OK, what?

No seriously, what?

Are they actually considering this? Are they seriously considering this...this...ROBBING OF FREE WILL?!!

Am I the only one who read V for Vendetta recently?

Do they have any idea what this could do?

If they go ahead with this, people are gonna be pissed. There'll be protests, riots, the whole nine yards.

Then, someone will do something stupid, and then the s*** will really fit the fan.

I'm not gay myself, but I can tell that this could evolve into full out war.

No.

This cannot happen.

No effing way.

Someone has to stop this before it starts.

And I really hope its stopped soon.

...damn my apocalyptic thought process.

ZeroVX, you're overreacting. It's just an option, not a mandatory thing.

OK, I might be overreacting, but I still say this is bad.

I mean, if they can mess with sexual preference, what else could they mess with?

Religion? Gender superiority?

Could they turn us into a bunch of walking robots?

What pisses me off more is the fact that they could spend the time and money on something more important.

Like, I don't know, how about GLOBAL WARMING?!!

Seeing how "religion" and "gender superiority" (whatever that means) aren't regulated by genes/hormones, I don't see how that could be worked.

And I'm not really sure how much work geneticists can do in the field of global warming, so yelling at them to "do something else" is kinda pointless. :)

...............OK. Maybe I'm a bit misinformed too.

Lets just chalk it up to this:The scientists are stupidheads for trying this. The end.

Oh, and by "gender superiority", I was referring to the believe over which is "better":boys or girls.

But I suppose that couldn't be determined by genetics.

Or could it?

........yeah, now I'm just looking for an argument.

They developed this for breeding of animals because some have been turning out gay lately. They don't even know if it would work on humans.

still, it's an pretty good discussion on the "what if" factor.

What if it could work on humans? Then what?

ZeroVX brings up an good point that I didn't think of-- that whole thing on the genders' position in the world.
The reason why there's such an diverse amount of people? the fact that there's men who isn't exactly the sterotypical man...loves to be an home-stay dad, is in touch with his feelings, etc....even though those men aren't gay. (yes, they do exist)...
And then there's the women who has the traits of men, even though they don't always look butch...

all that can easily be abbrited to hormones and genetics affecting the way they are. like the women with traits and personality that's usually found in the sterotypical male, They have this extra chromosome in thier DNA. chromosomes are usually used to dermine whenever an person will be male or female...
But in some cases, even though the person didn't turn out to be male by having the extra Y chromosome, it can make them more iclined towards maleness.
So an woman with the extra Y chromonsome might be more prone to thinking like an male sometimes.... and they proably wouldn't understand other women at times despite being an woman.
So even if they were straight and all that, they may preffer to do more Male-oriented things than doing things that's usually done for women.

So imagine if an father didn't want his sons to end up being one of those touchy-feely "weak" men , whenever they be straight or gay... He could just ask for some way to keep the chromones at an even balance instead of having extras.
the same could be done for women too.

so in some countries using this techology, they might try to "breed" thier women to be passive, doing whatever the males asked them to do.

Then they'd say it was justfied snice women and men has to be a certain way or else.

Seeing how "gender" is a social construct, everything that you just hypothesized is impossible.

... And incredibly generalizing on assigning certain traits to either sex.

Maybe these scientists should be studying cancer and AIDS instead

My point exactly. They're wasting valuble time and money on a "problem" that isn't even a problem in the first place!

It's so incredibly ridiculous, it's disgusting.

Vagabond
Seeing how "gender" is a social construct, everything that you just hypothesized is impossible.

... And incredibly generalizing on assigning certain traits to either sex.

Well, it's not what I think as an whole. it's what society itself thinks of the genders and what not.

notice how I kept on metioning sterotypes.... sterotypes that the majority of people seem to apply to genders of the people out there, whenever they realize it or not.

like people will react to you differntly than they would normally if you were an different gender than the gender you are.

I've contructed social expertments online with me pretending to be an male, and then talking to them as myself on different accounts, before.
and it was intersting how the many same people I kept on talking to reacted differently depending on which was talking.. me or my male character.

They react differently because of the peviced gender sterotypes they have learned ever snice from birth.

Even when they don't realize it, a lot of humans tend to feel that males has to be an certain way... and not share any traits with women at all. The same goes the way around for women.

i found this interesting...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220526.500-letters--gay-evolution.html

Someone
IF homosexuality is an inherited trait, why do genes for it survive? Because these genes may make women more likely to reproduce.

Andrea Camperio-Ciani's team at the University of Padua, Italy, asked 98 gay and 100 straight men to fill in questionnaires about their families. They found mothers and aunts had more children if related to a gay rather than a straight man. Mothers of gay men averaged 2.7 babies, compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. Aunts on the mother's side had 2 babies compared with 1.5 for maternal aunts of straight men (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004).
We think of a gene for male homosexuality, but it may be a gene for attraction to men

The team suggests that gene variations on the X chromosome make women more likely to have more children, and men more likely to be gay. "We think of a gene for male homosexuality, but it might really be a gene for sexual attraction to men," says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at Stanford University and a writer on sexuality.

But the "maternal effect" could at most account for only 14 per cent of the prevalence of male homosexuality, the Italian team cautions. "Our findings, if confirmed, are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality."

maybe the "gay gene" is more of a side effect of evolution?
maybe it was "turned on" to create a woman that is more prone to have more children and if turned on for men it would make them attracted to men.

this study was done 11 years ago, so maybe it was refuted. too lazy to look up current studies on this.

Women can't be born with a Y chromosome. It's impossible. Besides, diversity won't be going down. You can artificially change your child's gender but they're still in pretty even groups.

Atom Apple
Women can't be born with a Y chromosome. It's impossible. Besides, diversity won't be going down. You can artificially change your child's gender but they're still in pretty even groups.

it's the same idea as having estrogen and testosterone in both sexes.

i think they are saying:
it's an inherent trait passed down from the mother. if a girl gets that trait then they are prone to having more babies, if that trait is passed down to a boy they are prone towards bieng gay.

like how blue eyes is passed down from the parent. the mother can still be a carrier for expressed genes down the line.

Just let 'em be gay. Why can't anyone be cool with that, nowadays?

I don't think you're getting that this is for animal breeding, not humans.

Atom Apple
I don't think you're getting that this is for animal breeding, not humans.

ummm...no, they studied humans. And humans are animals too.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220526.500-letters--gay-evolution.html

Someone
The team suggests that gene variations on the X chromosome make women more likely to have more children, and men more likely to be gay. "We think of a gene for male homosexuality, but it might really be a gene for sexual attraction to men," says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at Stanford University and a writer on sexuality.

They found mothers and aunts had more children if related to a gay rather than a straight man. Mothers of gay men averaged 2.7 babies, compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men.

Not the study, the actual ability to change sexuality.

Heterosexuality should be cured.

In order to control the population.

Atom Apple
Not the study, the actual ability to change sexuality.

i have no idea what you're talking about

forum
"Curing" Homosexuality using Hormones and Genetics. »

Reply:

It troubles me when science begins to "cure" personality traits.

They will be happy when the tax base is totally chemically altered into happy little bags of meat danceing under the sun and skipping around like teletubbies through a mundane existence of buying stuff...and paying taxes.
I think that is the real goal.

Life will go like this...
BIRTH - CONSUME - OBEY - CONSUME - CONFORM - CONSUME - ACCEPT - CONSUME - RESPECT - CONSUME - BREED - CONSUME - DIE.
:spin:

Or are we there allready?

To respond to the person on the first page, in a rather recent incident (which neither involved my impregenating a girl or something else foolish of that sort), my mother actually said "Couldn't you just be gay?".
So I don't get flamed I think I'll make this quite clear, I am not gay, nor am I straight. I admire people for their spirits, their minds, and their eyes, I have no interest in the body as a general. I'm not bisexual, I just don't give a damn about the body.

Alright, onto the main purpose of this post.
My father inlightened me (as he is want to do) on a very interesting scientific study preformed on rats. They were kept in a rather large containment area, as a large group. Some of the rats were marked, the study showed that the marked rats tended to stay together and keep eachother healthy and safe. As the rats began to populate, the rats slowly started turning gay (to keep from over populating the small ecosystem). It was a natural response for the rats to keep the population down. The gay rats were not killed by the other rats or the humans. But, as the population grew, deseases and physical problems also grew, so no matter how many non-populating rats there were, the scientists just couldn't keep up with the rapidly growing and advancing deseases. Eventually ALL the rats died from a desease that the human scientists couldn't find a cure for.

Homosexuality, in such a large amount may be proof that humans are over populating and the human gene (not a specific one, but the one nature chooses to make something stop), might be coming in as a reactint to keep the population down. The biggest event in this study was the fact that a greater population means a greater chance of desease. Has anyone noticed that every year a new virus or new desease is coming out? Cancer claims more and more lives, perhaps we're destined to become like the rats? Over populate and eventually be wiped out completely by a desease that moves just to fast for us to keep up. How frightened do you think all those people voting for ever procreation might feel if they understood that scientifically, the more people, the higher the chance of desease? Human technology can't save them forever. Though it may still not happen for many centuries, I believe the end of human reign is coming. Whether some spontaniously mutate to adapt and survive or whether the power will fall to another species is all for time to decide.

My father bent free will strongly into me. Despite my mothers desire for me to be christian, for the most part she did too. I have many ideas, and many more opinions.

Well, that has been my two cents, was my attention to this thread undesired?

......

Wow....that's....a rather depressing way to revive a thread.

Nevertheless, you bring up an interesting point. However, we aren't rats, we're people. As such, I don't think that being gay is a genetic thing that just activates when the planet starts to over-populate. It's a subconcious choice.

Still a good point though.