Is it possible to 'breed' a homosexual?

[astro]

*Originally posted by heptapod *
**So it would be impossible to create a master race of atomic homosexuals to further my dreams of total domination of planet earth and all women coming to me because I’m the only straight man left? **

But who will be the master prototype atomic homosexual your army of atomic powered homosexuals will be based on? Who will be the template? Oh sure we’ve got our fair share of fabulous homosexuals but do any qualify as having enough energy to be considered nuclear. Well, Esprix is high energy… for awhile… but he is easily distracted by shiny objects and tends to lose interest and energy if bored which happens often. Who will you use? Who is up to the task? Anthracite? Nah… she’s coal powered.

Who will be your gamma ray gay?

[bibliophage]

Off to Great Debates

bibliophage
moderator GQ

[Poonther]

SURE IT IS:

According to “Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex *but were afraid to ask.”
If a woman is impregnated during a Barbra Streisand song or movie and the child is a boy, then that boy will be gay!

Works the same way with lesbians except they are conceived during Xena episodes.
I was the product of the first case.

[Esprix]

Well, since nobody knows why some people turn out gay, then the answer to the OP is that, no, you can’t “breed” a homosexual.

Anything else?

Esprix

[SFCanadian]

Let’s see - Dominant father makes you a catcher, and a dominant mother makes you a pitcher…

Wait, I want to come up with a theory on why Gay people are Gay too!!!

OK, if you’re a Gay man who likes to catch and pitch it means that your mother and father were both dominant… No, wait… It means your mother and father were distant… No, wait, it means you’re angry at your mother and identify with your father… Wait… lemme try again…

If you’re a Gay man and you like to pitch, it means you’re mad at your father, but if you start to catch, it means you’re getting over being mad at dad…

And if you’re a Gay man and you like to catch, it means you had a distant mother and a domineering father…

Doesn’t sound right… Lemme try again…

I saw an article in the paper once (so it must be right) that pitchers are actually angry at their third cousins on their father’s side named Oedepus, and had step-mothers who forced them to wear feather boas as children…

And catchers who had an aunt named June and an uncle named Ward are actually close enough to their mothers to make a fabulous crepe-suzette on the third Friday of every leap year… As long as they make sure they never get angry at their fathers… Cuz then they’ll forget how to cook, and will want to go around pitching to show their anger…

I’d sure like to see a cite for “there are so few cases of homosexual boys raised by two men”… What does “so few” mean? Does it mean some researcher could only find “a few”? Does it mean that there are mainly straight boys raised by two men?

Wouldn’t those straight boys be angry at their father who pitches and end up becoming a pitcher too some day? Or if they got mad at the father who catches, they would become a catcher too?

If you’re a researcher with a biased agenda, then you’ll write ridiculous claptrap and it will be published in a book or shown on a television program and called a theory because some publisher or producer with an agenda decided it fits what he’s trying to “prove”…

And then people who still believe Gay people are divided into “catchers” and “pitchers” will quote it as truth…

Geeez.

[ssj_man2k]

Why would you try to stop a gay person from being born? In my opinion, they are alot nicer than normal people, and generally better looking too. And it is a fact that they are smarter. So technically, would not a gay man be superior to a regular man?

[istara]

Could we start breeding nice gay men instead of arrogant, abusive w***kers?

And could we start breeding nice lesbians instead of horrible, nasty bitches?

Once they isolate the genes for those features at least…

[Michael_Ellis]

*Originally posted by ssj_man2k *
In my opinion, they are alot nicer than normal people, and generally better looking too. And it is a fact that they are smarter.

Yeppers, them homosexuals is clever people, yessiree Billy Bob. Wanna go get drunk and race our pickup trucks?
**

So technically, would not a gay man be superior to a regular man? **

No.

[Michael_Ellis]

Originally posted by istara *
Could we start breeding nice gay men instead of arrogant, abusive wkers?

And could we start breeding nice lesbians instead of horrible, nasty bitches?
**

Quite a few :rolleyes:.

[vanilla]

Isn’t it dangerous to give testosterone to someone who doesn’t need it?
Kids, don’t mess with testosterone…

[Hamish]

In response to the OP, we rarely breed in capitivity :rolleyes:.

Gods. I don’t know where to begin with this one. It all scares me. The idea of human experimentation, gay people once again being thought of animals that can be bred into or out of the species. Or the idea that a few years down the road, we’ll have sexual-orientation-selection clinics.

Or the idea that if we can be “cured,” we will be. Dump some testosterone on a foetus, alter a gene, and voila, no homosexuality. Less variety to the human race. Eliminate us through eugenics.

I mean, in spite of the title of the OP, that is what we’re talking about, isn’t it? Not “breeding homosexuals” but “not breeding homosexuals.”

Why is the onus on us to prove our right to exist? We pose no danger to society. Most of the arguments against us are religious, and those shouldn’t matter in societies with a separation of Church and State.

I’m very scared now.

[astro]

*Originally posted by Hamish *
**
Why is the onus on us to prove our right to exist? We pose no danger to society. Most of the arguments against us are religious, and those shouldn’t matter in societies with a separation of Church and State.

I’m very scared now. **

You should be because the danger is not so much religious coercion as the much more fundamental decision of a pregnant mother as the whether she is willing produce a child that is much less likely to give her grandchildren. In this scenario if the mother has acceptable and affordable means at her disposal to increase the probability of a heterosexual child she (assuming the fetus is identified as being pre-disposed to being gay) is likely to use it. Forget about the church that’s what you need to fear.

[pizzabrat]

The assumption that hormonal influences that produce opposite-gendered behaviors in certain animals will have a similar affect on humans is unwarranted. The assumption that what our society calls “being a homosexual” equates to such behaviors strikes me as indefensible.

I’m so glad someone finally said this. Seems like many people still have only a schoolyard understanding of homosexuality.

You should be because the danger is not so much religious coercion as the much more fundamental decision of a pregnant mother as the whether she is willing produce a child that is much less likely to give her grandchildren. In this scenario if the mother has acceptable and affordable means at her disposal to increase the probability of a heterosexual child she (assuming the fetus is identified as being pre-disposed to being gay) is likely to use it. Forget about the church that’s what you need to fear.

I don’t see why anyone should fear at all. What’s the big deal if people decide to eliminate homosexuality in their fetuses? Sure it would be hugely insulting, but it’s no big secret that many people have a problem with gays. As long as they’re not hurting anyone who already exists, what’s the harm? If they want to live in Hitleresque utopia of ultraconformity, let them lie in their own grave. We’ll all be dead by then anyway (hopefully).

[andros]

If only we could breed someone names istara who didn’t post rude, insulting, assholish tripe.

[astro]

*Originally posted by pizzabrat *I don’t see why anyone should fear at all. What’s the big deal if people decide to eliminate homosexuality in their fetuses? Sure it would be hugely insulting, but it’s no big secret that many people have a problem with gays. As long as they’re not hurting anyone who already exists, what’s the harm? If they want to live in Hitleresque utopia of ultraconformity, let them lie in their own grave. We’ll all be dead by then anyway (hopefully). **

Your need to fear slippery slopes. Who’s next? Plain looking people. Fat people? People of average intelligence? Short people? Un-athletic people? Nearsighted people? There are a lot more choices in the Eugenics Shop than simply gender identification. Babies are a HUGE investment of time, energy and resources. Many mothers (not entirely unreasonably) want their babies to be as perfect and successful as possible (however perfection and success are defined by that mother) and if science allows, will take whatever steps necessary to achieve them.

[Hamish]

*Originally posted by pizzabrat *
I don’t see why anyone should fear at all. What’s the big deal if people decide to eliminate homosexuality in their fetuses? **

Or a predisposition to be unathletic?

Or a tendency towards lucid dreams?

Or left-handedness?

Or black skin?

Does that answer your question?

It seems to me that someone already thought this idea up. But I’ll avoid discussing that further, for fear of invoking Godwin’s Law.

[matt_mcl]

Apologies, that last post was from me, not Hamish, who tells me that he may be along to post something else in this thread later.

[ssj_man2k]

I think it would be good if we could eliminate things like near-sightedness. Face it, it’s a defect. I’m farsighted, and i hate it. I wish i could have had my genes altered to get rid of it.

But altering stuff that isn’t a defect (skin color, sexual orientation, eye color, etc.) So it should probably be outlawed to change such things.

what i think would be even weirder, kids wouldn’t be saying “i look like…”, they would be saying, “my mom chose me to look like…”

[ssj_man2k]

I also wanted to say about influencing how someone acts. For example, if a guy acts girly, it doesn’t mean that he’s gay. Or if a girl acts manly, it doesn’t mean that she’s a lesbian.

[Sterra]

Now, if this is actually true, could it not be possible (and I’m not trying to be facist here) to counter this effect by giving testosterone directly to the foetus (if this is at all possible) or to the mother (if this would result in an increased amount for the child). Granted it’s impossible to determine if a child is homosexual wehn its developing, but is it possible to give a developing child more of either hormone to determine a sexuality?

Actually its probably not possible. The developing sexuality probably has more to do with the foetus’s ability to absorb testosterone than the mothers production of testosterone.

Personally I am not worried about eugenics. People who try to eliminate their own “defects” tend to die off. There will probably never be a way to eliminate a defect without eliminating the benifits that have made that gene selected for. Eliminating left-handedness probably leaves you with no-handedness. I can see a law that only allows adults to tamper with their own genes happening.