Is there a 'gay agenda'?

[gregchang35]

Chrono

 

[laylah]

I hadn't seen it, thanks for posting kenny. My guess is that Amy Kushnir forgot she was being televised when she gave the two strippers a kiss. Ya think?

I don't know.

I really have nothing against those heterosexuals, as long as they stay in their big cities.
I'm all for their equality thingie, but I just wish they wouldn't shove it in our faces like that.

I just don't want to see it; shouldn't they get a room?
I mean, CHILDREN may be watching.
It's disrespectful of my beliefs for her to kiss those men on national TV.
IMO she's violating my parental rights and forcing her disgusting lifestyle down our throats.
I will tell my children about THAT lifestyle if and when I feel they are ready for it.

Of course I have nothing against those people.
Some of my best friends are straight.

lol. Missed this post. Thanks, I needed that!

 

[mwilliamanderson]

I love you guys and gals!

Even though this is an old post I wanted to take the opportunity to say, I came to Pricescope for the diamond knowledge and stayed because of threads like this one. I love the intelligent, thought provoking, compassionate and frequently passionate discussions that take place here! Of course the drool worthy diamond and gem photos ain't too shabby either.

 

[AGBF]

Re: I love you guys and gals!

Even though this is an old post I wanted to take the opportunity to say, I came to Pricescope for the diamond knowledge and stayed because of threads like this one. I love the intelligent, thought provoking, compassionate and frequently passionate discussions that take place here! Of course the drool worthy diamond and gem photos ain't too shabby either.

I'm glad. That's my story, too!

Deb/AGBF

 

[MMtwo]

My Mom would probably fuss about a "gay agenda". She's from another time. She listens to TV preachers with slicked back hair that give me the hebejeebees. She is entitled to her opinion and at 76, I'm not going to try to explain why she's wrong (again...I've tried and we both just end up angry). We have all kinds of bi people in the family but Momma doesnt know..and we're all going to keep it like that. I'm conservative but not socially conservative.

The gay agenda as I understand it: It's some sort of belief that gay relationships and especially marriage threaten the stability of the nuclear family. And that media and constant gay positive images and stories in the media has made a forbidden sin somehow okay in the eyes of society.... IE, good people have been brained washed.

 

[MMtwo]

It's that old paradox again … should intolerance be tolerated?

I argue that not tolerating intolerance is not intolerance.
Not tolerating harming people is morality.

When we tell people what they should and should not think we are wading into dangerous water. Policing thought is a form of oppression and is the opposite of freedom. We can't pick and choose the freedoms that we like and try to put a stop to the idiots we don't. It may work for a while, but eventually the very freedom you appreciate will be taken from you by those who say they know better than you how your life should be lived.

It's how large sodas are banned. It was how the Japanese were set to interment camps during WWII. It is how gay people ended up in a closet to start.

We need to let religious people be religious, hedonists be hedonists, gay people earn their toasters (old Ellen joke) and not try to engineer society to fit our personal agendas. Big Brother society never works.

 

[laylah]

It's that old paradox again … should intolerance be tolerated?

I argue that not tolerating intolerance is not intolerance.
Not tolerating harming people is morality.

When we tell people what they should and should not think we are wading into dangerous water. Policing thought is a form of oppression and is the opposite of freedom. We can't pick and choose the freedoms that we like and try to put a stop to the idiots we don't. It may work for a while, but eventually the very freedom you appreciate will be taken from you by those who say they know better than you how your life should be lived.

It's how large sodas are banned. It was how the Japanese were set to interment camps during WWII. It is how gay people ended up in a closet to start.

We need to let religious people be religious, hedonists be hedonists, gay people earn their toasters (old Ellen joke) and not try to engineer society to fit our personal agendas. Big Brother society never works.

I do appreciate the fact that you intended to make your post a thoughtful one, but I do have to speak up here.

The U.S. has a black President, finally, which would never have happened if people didn't "tell people" it was wrong to be racist. Gay Canadians are legally allowed to marry, which would never have happened according to your theory of "Big Brother".

I've been happily married since 2012. As a gay woman, people don't even bat an eye anymore at our coupling. I live in Canada in an area of town that is very conservative. The Premier of our province is a lesbian. My wife sits on the board of directors and as a woman is in a minority. As a lesbian, she is the minority. What did you mean about Ellen and toasters?

No one cares anymore about the fact 2 women are married. No one gasps when our Premier shows up wearing a wedding band and rocking heels. No one cares that your President is a black man, at least no one I know.
No one should care and yes, I'm telling you…politely.

 

[MMtwo]

It's that old paradox again … should intolerance be tolerated?

I argue that not tolerating intolerance is not intolerance.
Not tolerating harming people is morality.

When we tell people what they should and should not think we are wading into dangerous water. Policing thought is a form of oppression and is the opposite of freedom. We can't pick and choose the freedoms that we like and try to put a stop to the idiots we don't. It may work for a while, but eventually the very freedom you appreciate will be taken from you by those who say they know better than you how your life should be lived.

It's how large sodas are banned. It was how the Japanese were set to interment camps during WWII. It is how gay people ended up in a closet to start.

We need to let religious people be religious, hedonists be hedonists, gay people earn their toasters (old Ellen joke) and not try to engineer society to fit our personal agendas. Big Brother society never works.

I do appreciate the fact that you intended to make your post a thoughtful one, but I do have to speak up here.

The U.S. has a black President, finally, which would never have happened if people didn't "tell people" it was wrong to be racist. Gay Canadians are legally allowed to marry, which would never have happened according to your theory of "Big Brother".

I've been happily married since 2012. As a gay woman, people don't even bat an eye anymore at our coupling. I live in Canada in an area of town that is very conservative. The Premier of our province is a lesbian. My wife sits on the board of directors and as a woman is in a minority. As a lesbian, she is the minority. What did you mean about Ellen and toasters?

No one cares anymore about the fact 2 women are married. No one gasps when our Premier shows up wearing a wedding band and rocking heels. No one cares that your President is a black man, at least no one I know.
No one should care and yes, I'm telling you…politely.

*******

I appreciate your response. I have gay married friends and we don't blink at them, either. We drink a good bit of wine tho. I am very happy for your marriage and even in this backwoods State in the US, people don't blink at gay couples (much anyhow). I am glad society mostly accepts people doing their own thing.

How much do you trust me to make your decisions for you? The ones that matter? Would you like me to dictate who you love, or what you should think? Probably not...because that's YOUR job to figure those things out, not mine. You are the expert in you. That was my point.

I would not care to live under Sharia law, but there are some people who think it would be a fine way to live. If they were a majority in your town, what would you do? A nanny state in a place that has Sharia law would probably kill you and your wife.

Laws become a problem when they tell people what to do. I think it is important to protect people from the influence of another group. I stated above, "the very freedom you appreciate will be taken from you by those who say they know better than you how your life should be lived". Again, I am libertarian. I think America looks at Government as a savior and it can't even make a good website.

I am not sure that people were shamed or cajoled into voting for a black president, at least I hope not. I think they thought he was the best man for the job when they voted for him...at least I hope so. Laws were enacted to assure equal rights (including gay rights more recently). It just brought the law into a state of equality. Equality does not take sides, or is not supposed to. I have no issue with laws that enforce equality. I have HUGE issues with laws that decide how I should live and make choices that are mine to make.

Here's about the Ellen episode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode

 

[kenny]

About the toaster oven thing ...
A gay person earning a prize for 'converting' (as if converting was possible ) a quota of straights was satire.

It made fun of a commonly held, and incorrect, belief.
The toaster thing was hilarious ... well ... to those who get it.
It had to be infuriating to those who really do think there IS a gay agenda.

Unlike with many religions, there is no central authority or holy text directing gays to proselytize.
You are born gay.
Nobody knows why.
Nobody knows why some people are born straight either.
Things just are.

What we DO do is work to reduce homophobia and discrimination in laws and culture.
That reduces suicide and makes it safer for the many closeted gays to come out.

That's not converting.
That's liberating.

 

[ksinger]

About the toaster oven thing ...
A gay person earning a prize for 'converting' (as if converting was possible ) a quota of straights was satire.

It made fun of a commonly held, and incorrect, belief.
The toaster thing was hilarious ... well ... to those who get it.
It had to be infuriating to those who really do think there IS a gay agenda.

Unlike with many religions, there is no central authority or holy text directing gays to proselytize.
You are born gay.
Nobody knows why.
Nobody knows why some people are born straight either.
Things just are.

What we DO do is work to reduce homophobia and discrimination in laws and culture.
That reduces suicide and makes it safer for the many closeted gays to come out.

That's not converting.
That's liberating.

Kenny, I'm on your side on gay marriage and reducing institutionalized discrimination, I swear I am. But you simply cannot be serious when you say no one knows why people are born straight. Please tell me that was TIC.

 

[kenny]

... you simply cannot be serious when you say no one knows why people are born straight. Please tell me that was TIC.

Actually let me look behind the curtain.
We humans are arrogant.
We can't abide with unanswered questions.

Broken thinking: All questions are answerable.
We think, if you can come up with a question there MUST be an answer ... (not being okay with unanswered question has created zillions religions throughout the ages, BTW)

The answer, "We don't know." is not acceptable to billions of people especially when answer the questions of their four-year old.

Applying the why-question to things like 'why' people are gay or straight is very common but actually futile.

If you must operate in the common paradigm of 'there must be answers to any question that anyone can imagine up' then as good an 'answer' as any would be, straights exist because reproduction ensures the survival of the species.

But it is not nature or the universe that is offering this 'answer' to the question, and nature does not shive a git about preserving species, as any extinct animal or plant will tell you.
It is pea-brained humans appeasing themselves by using reproduction to fill the vacuum that the 'Why are people straight?' question created.

Reproduction could only serve as an answer if you buy into the idea that there is some higher purpose to everything.
I don't.
Stuff just happens.

I think it's best to live a life making as few assumptions as possible.
This is Occam's razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
SNIP: Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

IOW the bottom line is, asking the why-question about people being straight or gay is ultimately broken thinking.
Things just are.

 

[MMtwo]

About the toaster oven thing ...
A gay person earning a prize for 'converting' (as if converting was possible ) a quota of straights was satire.

It made fun of a commonly held, and incorrect, belief.
The toaster thing was hilarious ... well ... to those who get it.
It had to be infuriating to those who really do think there IS a gay agenda.

Unlike with many religions, there is no central authority or holy text directing gays to proselytize.
You are born gay.
Nobody knows why.
Nobody knows why some people are born straight either.
Things just are.

What we DO do is work to reduce homophobia and discrimination in laws and culture.
That reduces suicide and makes it safer for the many closeted gays to come out.

That's not converting.
That's liberating.

Kenny... I firmly and resolutely agree with you. The only agenda gay people have is living a life equal to non-gay people. End of story. My mom does not get that and will not and she is 76 and she probably never will. I will have to have a talk with her before my wedding because I have same sex couples coming and she needs to know she needs to keep her opinions to herself. She doesn't know how many family members are gay. We keep her in the dark because it's easier than fighting her. She has issues and I am not about to get into it with her.

The toaster was a joke made at the expense of everyone who was so upset by gay people and couples. As if anyone would turn a friend gay to get a free toaster (back in the 90's, banks gave away stuff like that to get friends to bring their friends). I remembered the episode. I thought it was AWESOME.

 

[ksinger]

... you simply cannot be serious when you say no one knows why people are born straight. Please tell me that was TIC.

Actually let me look behind the curtain.
We humans are arrogant.
We can't abide with unanswered questions.

Broken thinking: All questions are answerable.
We think, if you can come up with a question there MUST be an answer ... (not being okay with unanswered question has created zillions religions throughout the ages, BTW)

The answer, "We don't know." is not acceptable to billions of people especially when answer the questions of their four-year old.

Applying the why-question to things like 'why' people are gay or straight is very common but actually futile.

If you must operate in the common paradigm of 'there must be answers to any question that anyone can imagine up' then as good an 'answer' as any would be, straights exist because reproduction ensures the survival of the species.

But it is not nature or the universe that is offering this 'answer' to the question, and nature does not shive a git about preserving species, as any extinct animal or plant will tell you.
It is pea-brained humans appeasing themselves by using reproduction to fill the vacuum that the 'Why are people straight?' question created.

Reproduction could only serve as an answer if you buy into the idea that there is some higher purpose to everything.
I don't.
Stuff just happens.

I think it's best to live a life making as few assumptions as possible.
This is Occam's razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
SNIP: Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

IOW the bottom line is, asking the why-question about people being straight or gay is ultimately broken thinking.
Things just are.

First of all, I did not posit or even mention the question, YOU did. And yes, we're arrogant to the point of denying what is right in front of our noses.

Second, it's not pea-brained at all to say, once an organism is going, the only imperative of that organism is to keep going - to make more organisms, because that is what DNA DOES, simple as that. That absolutely does NOT require "buying into the idea that there is some higher purpose to everything." I say that as about 99.9% atheist. And it fits Occam perfectly. It's simple, and fits the observed reality. The problem is not asking the question, but denying that very simple and non-laden answer. Next.

The norm on this planet and across every species on it (short of amoebas, etc), is there are 2 sexes carrying half of what it takes to make a single. Period. I'm not "filling a vacuum" to say that. It just IS, as you say. Heterosexual is the norm, homosexual is the outlier, an unremarkable human variation, or it should be. If heterosexual was not the norm, we would not be discussing this question because as a species we simply would not have reproduced enough at the dawn of our species to overcome being eaten by sabretoothed tigers. You may attach whatever loaded emotional baggage you desire to that FACT, or not. But fact it most certainly is. The one here not accepting that and wanting a different answer in the form of none at all, appears to be you. Not entirely sure why...

 

[kenny]

... you simply cannot be serious when you say no one knows why people are born straight. Please tell me that was TIC.

Actually let me look behind the curtain.
We humans are arrogant.
We can't abide with unanswered questions.

Broken thinking: All questions are answerable.
We think, if you can come up with a question there MUST be an answer ... (not being okay with unanswered question has created zillions religions throughout the ages, BTW)

The answer, "We don't know." is not acceptable to billions of people especially when answer the questions of their four-year old.

Applying the why-question to things like 'why' people are gay or straight is very common but actually futile.

If you must operate in the common paradigm of 'there must be answers to any question that anyone can imagine up' then as good an 'answer' as any would be, straights exist because reproduction ensures the survival of the species.

But it is not nature or the universe that is offering this 'answer' to the question, and nature does not shive a git about preserving species, as any extinct animal or plant will tell you.
It is pea-brained humans appeasing themselves by using reproduction to fill the vacuum that the 'Why are people straight?' question created.

Reproduction could only serve as an answer if you buy into the idea that there is some higher purpose to everything.
I don't.
Stuff just happens.

I think it's best to live a life making as few assumptions as possible.
This is Occam's razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
SNIP: Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

IOW the bottom line is, asking the why-question about people being straight or gay is ultimately broken thinking.
Things just are.

First of all, I did not posit or even mention the question, YOU did. And yes, we're arrogant to the point of denying what is right in front of our noses.

Second, it's not pea-brained at all to say, once an organism is going, the only imperative of that organism is to keep going - to make more organisms, because that is what DNA DOES, simple as that. That absolutely does NOT require "buying into the idea that there is some higher purpose to everything." I say that as about 99.9% atheist. And it fits Occam perfectly. It's simple, and fits the observed reality. The problem is not asking the question, but denying that very simple and non-laden answer. Next.

The norm on this planet and across every species on it (short of amoebas, etc), is there are 2 sexes carrying half of what it takes to make a single. Period. I'm not "filling a vacuum" to say that. It just IS, as you say. Heterosexual is the norm, homosexual is the outlier, an unremarkable human variation, or it should be. If heterosexual was not the norm, we would not be discussing this question because as a species we simply would not have reproduced enough at the dawn of our species to overcome being eaten by sabretoothed tigers. You may attach whatever loaded emotional baggage you desire to that FACT, or not. But fact it most certainly is. The one here not accepting that and wanting a different answer in the form of none at all, appears to be you. Not entirely sure why...

Okay.

 

[HopeDream]

As a biologist I have to conscientiously correct this statement:
"The norm on this planet and across every species on it (short of amoebas, etc), is there are 2 sexes carrying half of what it takes to make a single. Period."

Erm...not quite, although generally yes.

1) Two Genders, though popular, is not a set standard.

Humans (and probably other animals) show variability in the number of sex chromosomes they carry. Most humans are xx or xy, but some have other variations: 46xx (standard female), 46xy ( standard male), 47xxy (Klinefelter syndrome), 45xo (Turner's syndrome), 47xyy, 47xxx, 48xxyy, 46xx/xy mosaic, etc. Quite literally people vary.

Sometimes humans are even chimeras and have more than one set of chromosomes present in the body http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)#Humans either from an absorbed twin, or as an evenly distributed mosaic throughout the body.

Side-blotched lizards have 3 male and and 2 female genders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-blotched_lizard

Many fish and other animals go through hormonal changes that switch them from one gender to the other part way through life: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/22/7-gender-bending-animals/ These animals can both be fathers and mothers

Snails, sea stars, worms and some fish also live their lives as hermaphrodites and simple pair up with any partner to reproduce http://animals.pawnation.com/list-hermaphrodite-animals-2829.html

2)Reproduction can occurs with 1, 2, 3, or more parents depending on the species

Critters and other living things swap DNA in all kinds of crazy ways. Plants hybridize regularly with different species, and you can have plants that are all one gender and pollinate each other, plants with male and female flowers on separate trees and pollinate each other , and plants with male and female flowers on the same tree that either self-pollinate or pollinate each other.

Some critters produce young through parthenogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis - a "virgin birth" if you will. The off spring can be either half clones or full clones, and go on to mix DNA in couples in the next generation. Certain Snakes, Sharks, fish, birds, and Lizards have all been shown to do this naturally. In the lab we have induced parthenogenesis in rabbits and even in human embryos!

Some critters produce young with genetic contributions from multiple parents:

Marmosets sometimes live in polyandrous groups where more than one male participates in rearing the offspring of a given female. Furthermore, multiple males may copulate with said female. Now, here's where the genetic bit may come in. Tetragametic chimerism is a form of genetic mosaicism acquired in utero. Two eggs are released, two separate sperm fertilize each, and then the eggs fuse. If the two sperm originate from two different fathers, technically there are three parents. "This is particularly true for the marmoset. Recent research shows most marmosets are chimeras, sharing DNA with their fraternal twins. 95% of Marmoset fraternal twins trade blood through chorionic fusions, making them hematopoietic chimeras." (stolen from reddit , but still accurate)http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/science/27marm.html?_r=0

Some ants have 3 genders and the ant colonies arise from 3 parents. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020183

In fact, 2-3% Human conceptions are fertilized by more than one sperm and are generally non-viable http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3699153/ Theoretically it could have conception with two sperm from different individuals.

The world is a weird and wonderful place!

 

[ksinger]

As a biologist I have to conscientiously correct this statement:
"The norm on this planet and across every species on it (short of amoebas, etc), is there are 2 sexes carrying half of what it takes to make a single. Period."

Erm...not quite, although generally yes.

1) Two Genders, though popular, is not a set standard.

Humans (and probably other animals) show variability in the number of sex chromosomes they carry. Most humans are xx or xy, but some have other variations: 46xx (standard female), 46xy ( standard male), 47xxy (Klinefelter syndrome), 45xo (Turner's syndrome), 47xyy, 47xxx, 48xxyy, 46xx/xy mosaic, etc. Quite literally people vary.

Sometimes humans are even chimeras and have more than one set of chromosomes present in the body http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)#Humans either from an absorbed twin, or as an evenly distributed mosaic throughout the body.

Side-blotched lizards have 3 male and and 2 female genders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-blotched_lizard

Many fish and other animals go through hormonal changes that switch them from one gender to the other part way through life: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/22/7-gender-bending-animals/ These animals can both be fathers and mothers

Snails, sea stars, worms and some fish also live their lives as hermaphrodites and simple pair up with any partner to reproduce http://animals.pawnation.com/list-hermaphrodite-animals-2829.html

2)Reproduction can occurs with 1, 2, 3, or more parents depending on the species

Critters and other living things swap DNA in all kinds of crazy ways. Plants hybridize regularly with different species, and you can have plants that are all one gender and pollinate each other, plants with male and female flowers on separate trees and pollinate each other , and plants with male and female flowers on the same tree that either self-pollinate or pollinate each other.

Some critters produce young through parthenogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis - a "virgin birth" if you will. The off spring can be either half clones or full clones, and go on to mix DNA in couples in the next generation. Certain Snakes, Sharks, fish, birds, and Lizards have all been shown to do this naturally. In the lab we have induced parthenogenesis in rabbits and even in human embryos!

Some critters produce young with genetic contributions from multiple parents:

Marmosets sometimes live in polyandrous groups where more than one male participates in rearing the offspring of a given female. Furthermore, multiple males may copulate with said female. Now, here's where the genetic bit may come in. Tetragametic chimerism is a form of genetic mosaicism acquired in utero. Two eggs are released, two separate sperm fertilize each, and then the eggs fuse. If the two sperm originate from two different fathers, technically there are three parents. "This is particularly true for the marmoset. Recent research shows most marmosets are chimeras, sharing DNA with their fraternal twins. 95% of Marmoset fraternal twins trade blood through chorionic fusions, making them hematopoietic chimeras." (stolen from reddit , but still accurate)http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/science/27marm.html?_r=0

Some ants have 3 genders and the ant colonies arise from 3 parents. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020183

In fact, 2-3% Human conceptions are fertilized by more than one sperm and are generally non-viable http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3699153/ Theoretically it could have conception with two sperm from different individuals.

The world is a weird and wonderful place!

LOL! In the interest of brevity and making a point, I edited out the part about where I hedged my bet and said "unless someone here comes in and says there is some obscure organism that needs the input of 3 different parents to form offspring." Guess you showed me. Interesting stuff. But as you admit, "in general"...and certainly for humans I do think it's safe to say that short of some pretty spectacular technological interventions, we are not going to produce offspring (that we'd wish to keep anyway) from 2 females or 2 males.

Since, in the words of Lazarus Long, "A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes.", in the human case, I'd say that's as good a reason as any for why most people are heterosexual.

 

[HopeDream]

Ksinger: Agreed!

 

[HopeDream]

Although... now that I think about it.....

Recent advances in fertility treatments are allowing for three parent children http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-parent_baby

Here's how it works:
Mama #1 would love to have children, but her eggs are too fragile, or she caries a mitochondrial disease like muscular dystrophy. Mama#1 provides the nucleus (egg yolk) and the child will have half her DNA.

Mama #2 Is a kind woman who is providing eggs. The nucleus of her eggs is removed, but her cytoplasm (egg white) and cell wall (egg shell) are kept and the child will have her mitochondria (cell power source).

Daddy #1 Makes the usual contribution and the child will have half his DNA.

Some of these children are alive and well todayhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/magazine/the-brave-new-world-of-three-parent-ivf.html, and the UK is looking in to legalizing this as a common practice next year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...abies-could-be-born-in-Britain-next-year.html

Apparently about 1 in 200 babies in the UK is born with a mitochondrial disease, so this could help a lot of people have much healthier children if they know such diseases run in their families.

And in Canada for completely different and generally social reasons, we're starting to allow 3 parents on a birth certificate to keep up with changing social norms http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...ee-parents-named-on-birth-certificate-in-b-c/

(Note that neither of theses have any bearing on the prevalence of who humans find attractive, I just think it's cool science)

 

[laylah]

Although... now that I think about it.....

Recent advances in fertility treatments are allowing for three parent children http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-parent_baby

Here's how it works:
Mama #1 would love to have children, but her eggs are too fragile, or she caries a mitochondrial disease like muscular dystrophy. Mama#1 provides the nucleus (egg yolk) and the child will have half her DNA.

Mama #2 Is a kind woman who is providing eggs. The nucleus of her eggs is removed, but her cytoplasm (egg white) and cell wall (egg shell) are kept and the child will have her mitochondria (cell power source).

Daddy #1 Makes the usual contribution and the child will have half his DNA.

Some of these children are alive and well todayhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/magazine/the-brave-new-world-of-three-parent-ivf.html, and the UK is looking in to legalizing this as a common practice next year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...abies-could-be-born-in-Britain-next-year.html

Apparently about 1 in 200 babies in the UK is born with a mitochondrial disease, so this could help a lot of people have much healthier children if they know such diseases run in their families.

And in Canada for completely different and generally social reasons, we're starting to allow 3 parents on a birth certificate to keep up with changing social norms http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...ee-parents-named-on-birth-certificate-in-b-c/

(Note that neither of theses have any bearing on the prevalence of who humans find attractive, I just think it's cool science)

Wow!! Now that is truly amazing. Thanks so much for explaining it in terms that are easily understood. My son is always sending me Scientific reports to read and mull over, but I have given up on some of it because of all the gobble-dee-goop (technical term) I have to dig through to get to the interesting parts. It is wonderful that we can eradicate some diseases that way. Neurological issues are of particular interest in our family tree. (Strokes in the younger people - not the elderly, although that's also an issue).

Thanks for sharing, it gives me hope.

ETA: Thanks for the Ellen link about coming out - and the toaster (I can't remember who linked it - but it was funny as **** and as it happens, I do remember it now)…I hate when that happens! - and I'm the healthy one lol

 

[laylah]

... you simply cannot be serious when you say no one knows why people are born straight. Please tell me that was TIC.

Actually let me look behind the curtain.
We humans are arrogant.
We can't abide with unanswered questions.

Broken thinking: All questions are answerable.
We think, if you can come up with a question there MUST be an answer ... (not being okay with unanswered question has created zillions religions throughout the ages, BTW)

The answer, "We don't know." is not acceptable to billions of people especially when answer the questions of their four-year old.

Applying the why-question to things like 'why' people are gay or straight is very common but actually futile.

If you must operate in the common paradigm of 'there must be answers to any question that anyone can imagine up' then as good an 'answer' as any would be, straights exist because reproduction ensures the survival of the species.

But it is not nature or the universe that is offering this 'answer' to the question, and nature does not shive a git about preserving species, as any extinct animal or plant will tell you.
It is pea-brained humans appeasing themselves by using reproduction to fill the vacuum that the 'Why are people straight?' question created.

Reproduction could only serve as an answer if you buy into the idea that there is some higher purpose to everything.
I don't.
Stuff just happens.

I think it's best to live a life making as few assumptions as possible.
This is Occam's razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
SNIP: Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

IOW the bottom line is, asking the why-question about people being straight or gay is ultimately broken thinking.
Things just are.

Excellent read Kenny - it really does put things into an interesting light. I do enjoy your perspective on things and I have to agree with you…things just are.

 

[kenny]

... you simply cannot be serious when you say no one knows why people are born straight. Please tell me that was TIC.

Actually let me look behind the curtain.
We humans are arrogant.
We can't abide with unanswered questions.

Broken thinking: All questions are answerable.
We think, if you can come up with a question there MUST be an answer ... (not being okay with unanswered question has created zillions religions throughout the ages, BTW)

The answer, "We don't know." is not acceptable to billions of people especially when answer the questions of their four-year old.

Applying the why-question to things like 'why' people are gay or straight is very common but actually futile.

If you must operate in the common paradigm of 'there must be answers to any question that anyone can imagine up' then as good an 'answer' as any would be, straights exist because reproduction ensures the survival of the species.

But it is not nature or the universe that is offering this 'answer' to the question, and nature does not shive a git about preserving species, as any extinct animal or plant will tell you.
It is pea-brained humans appeasing themselves by using reproduction to fill the vacuum that the 'Why are people straight?' question created.

Reproduction could only serve as an answer if you buy into the idea that there is some higher purpose to everything.
I don't.
Stuff just happens.

I think it's best to live a life making as few assumptions as possible.
This is Occam's razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
SNIP: Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

IOW the bottom line is, asking the why-question about people being straight or gay is ultimately broken thinking.
Things just are.

Excellent read Kenny - it really does put things into an interesting light. I do enjoy your perspective on things and I have to agree with you…things just are.

Thank you, but this means you are a nutcase too.

 

[laylah]

lol! Yep, if the shoe fits.

 

[GliderPoss]

Nothing to add. I just wanted to say the cartoon with the gay steamroller made me laugh out loud!

DITTO! Priceless....

I dont think there is a "gay" agenda as such, certainly no more than feminism, religious and whatever else that people want to be noticed, & accepted/treated with respect. No a huge fan of being being lectured on the subject personally. I am straight and you are gay. Whoop de do as far as I'm concerned....

I'm not sure why you feel you've been lectured on the subject. Saying 'whoop de do' to gay rights and discussion of them is really offensive, though. Being gay puts you physically in the risk of hate crimes, puts you in line for discrimination and sexual harassment at work or in public places, prevents you from getting married in many states--the discussion is an important one. You're privileged to enjoy the benefits that come with having a sexual orientation that is socially accepted, and you're irritated to just hear discussions about basic human rights that LGBT people can't share? My goodness; I guess I just rarely encounter people that are so openly homophobic as to be irritated by a conversation about LGBT rights.

WHOA! I think you may have taken this entirely the wrong way, Indylady. When I read this, what came to mind is that HotPozzum meant "whoop de do" in the sense that it shouldn't make a difference what sexual orientation you are, and that we (as humans) should all be treated with the same amount of respect. In other words, there shouldn't have to be an "agenda". If I am wrong here, HotPozzum, please do correct me.

Furthermore, I think it's extremely rude and hypocritical to just outright call someone homophobic (or racist/bigoted/insert hate word here) -- especially when posts may be interpreted differently from what is intended. I mean, what if someone called you a hateful "B" because they misunderstood your tone? I don't think you'd like it, as I know I would not. What you have done is spread hate without any clarification whatsoever... isn't that the same thing we are trying to eliminate in our world?

That said, I do think there is a gay agenda, just as there are other "agendas" mentioned above.

Wowsers, I only just got back to this thread to find I've been torn to pieces! If any of you interpreted my comments as insulting I am truely morified What I have bolded above is what I meant - I don't see you as you just as your sexuality. I see you as a fellow human being who deserves respect.