Gay question

[Lance]

Actually, this prompted me to contemplate my laundry list of gene manipulation improvements I would like to see parent's implement so as to promote my vision of Utopia.  Those of you planning families, I urge you to use this when you get the chance to pick your kids traits at your local family planning agency at some future point.

Females:
#1)  Positively nudge their tit gene.  No explanation necessary.
#2)  Turn on the bi-curious-but-still-heterosexual gene.  Another no-brainer.
#3)  Turn off the PMS gene.  This is obviously an example of where nature or God went wrong.
#4)  Turn on the reasons-like-a-man gene.   Churchill described Russian actions as "a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma."  He could have easily been talking about women.
#5)  Turn off the every-woman-is-my-sister gene.  Is it really necessary for them to side with their casual aquaintences on every issue no matter how screwy?  
#6)  Turn on the thinks-beer-guts-are-sexy and the likes-to-clean-up-after-a-lazy-slob gene.  Okay, so these two are a little self-serving, but shouldn't I get a perk for putting forth the effort to help you all choose the best future possible for your children?

Males:  
#1)  Turn on their homosexual gene.  This is really Animal's only hope of ever getting laid.
#2)  Severely downtweek their endurance, speed and strength genes.  I could dominate recreational sports leagues until I am 95!
#3)  Turn on their liberal democrat gene and clone a new Bill Clinton every 40 years or so.  An eternity of uninterupted Clinton years!  Think of the entertainment possibilities in this forum alone!

Disclaimer:  This post was made in jest.  The author cannot be held liable if you pursue genetic manipulation for your children and Junior winds up being a four-assed monkey.

[Elfenwolf]

Great question. I only have one child, a daughter almost 17 (and no, hblalr, you can't see her tits) and I hope to have grandchildren some day, so for purely selfish reasons if it was that simple then the answer is yes.

I had a gay cousin and it was obvious from the time he was a little boy he was "different," and watching him grow up with the stigma of being gay, with the rejection from his parents and his peers was sad. I really feel like he couldn't help his sexuality because he was born that way before any of us even realized what sexuality was.

He died from AIDS about five years ago, and up to the very end of his life his Dad couldn't accept him as his son. So yeah, I wouldn't wish his life an anybody. Had he been straight he would have had less conflict and stress and would have lived a happier life.

[FDisk]

Originally posted by Thrawn
No

I know you too well Geoff. You'd genetically modify yourself but not your children?

[Elfenwolf]

Originally posted by Lance
Actually, this prompted me to contemplate my laundry list of gene manipulation improvements I would like to see parent's implement so as to promote my vision of Utopia.  Those of you planning families, I urge you to use this when you get the chance to pick your kids traits at your local family planning agency at some future point.

Females:
#1)  Positively nudge their tit gene.  No explanation necessary.
#2)  Turn on the bi-curious-but-still-heterosexual gene.  Another no-brainer.
#3)  Turn off the PMS gene.  This is obviously an example of where nature or God went wrong.
#4)  Turn on the reasons-like-a-man gene.   Churchill described Russian actions as "a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma."  He could have easily been talking about women.
#5)  Turn off the every-woman-is-my-sister gene.  Is it really necessary for them to side with their casual aquaintences on every issue no matter how screwy?  
#6)  Turn on the thinks-beer-guts-are-sexy and the likes-to-clean-up-after-a-lazy-slob gene.  Okay, so these two are a little self-serving, but shouldn't I get a perk for putting forth the effort to help you all choose the best future possible for your children?

Males:  
#1)  Turn on their homosexual gene.  This is really Animal's only hope of ever getting laid.
#2)  Severely downtweek their endurance, speed and strength genes.  I could dominate recreational sports leagues until I am 95!
#3)  Turn on their liberal democrat gene and clone a new Bill Clinton every 40 years or so.  An eternity of uninterupted Clinton years!  Think of the entertainment possibilities in this forum alone!

Disclaimer:  This post was made in jest.  The author cannot be held liable if you pursue genetic manipulation for your children and Junior winds up being a four-assed monkey.

LOL great ideas, Lance- I'm with you on this one. It's too bad you have to add your disclaimer....maybe some of us need manipulation of our humor gene.

[Sox62]

How about disabling the "MA strategy general" gene?

[fd ski]

Gunthr, i was just practicing my Keanu Reeves quotes


Here is a follow up question:

Let's say we're 100 years from now, and whole society is "modifying" their children to be cuter/healthier/smarter ( and you know they will, easiest option out always wins out )

Now, you're going to have a baby. If you do not go with the flow, it is 99.99% guaranteed that it will :
- be ugly by the standard norm ( which is generically modified perfection )
- be less inteligent, hince less capable of holding a job or even getting one.
- generaly sentenced for a life of inferiority in every sence.

What then ?

[midnight Target]

Some of the most successful people in the world can attribute their success to the difficulties they had to overcome. Your kid may do better if you give him the short-bad eyesight-nerd gene.

[Udie]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Some of the most successful people in the world can attribute their success to the difficulties they had to overcome. Your kid may do better if you give him the short-bad eyesight-nerd gene.

yup!  how do you learn otherwise?

[texace]

In any case...I don't believe being "gay" is atributed to genes. It's a matter of personal choice. Honestly...there is nothing set in stone on whether or not someone is gay or lesbian...it's a matter of choice on the person. I know someone who was straight until she was assaulted by someone in 6th grade. She developed a fear of males and leaned toward being bi. One of her friends forced herself on her, and she offered no resistance. In another case...she was already engaged to another female who was attempting to get permission to take her to Utah for obvious reasons.

See? There's not nessecarily a "gene" that says you're gay, just a matter of choice. That could be brought on by fear, rebellion, curiosity, etc. You don't know.

BTW...the person in question is my fiancée... I basically stepped in and saved her...but that's another story...

[N1kPaz]

homosexuality = insanity

You gotta be crazy to be turned on by another man's hairy azz..

thank god for women (excluding my ex wife of course) !!!!!

[Maverick]

Not taking a position in either way on the question at the start of the thread. I do have another question about it.

On the basis of natural selection and evolution, isn't homosexuality a genetic dead end? I suppose you could argue that in practicing strictly as a homosexual you wouldn't be passing on your genes. This is, of course, without the reliance of scientific practices for artificial insemination etc. to remedy the situation in regards to a natural conception.

Again I am not taking a position on right vs wrong or whatever, this thought just occured to me as I started reading the thread.

[hblair]

So what you're saying Maverick is that you believe either natural selection or homosexuality being passed thru genes has to be incorrect? And you are also saying that all the bums replying above are all full of crap? Do I understand you correctly? What a lame post!!

>

Interesting thought though. (I just said it was interesting, didn't give my opinion)

[Gunthr]

Here is a follow up question:

Let's say we're 100 years from now, and whole society is "modifying" their children to be cuter/healthier/smarter ( and you know they will, easiest option out always wins out )

Now, you're going to have a baby. If you do not go with the flow, it is 99.99% guaranteed that it will :
- be ugly by the standard norm ( which is generically modified perfection )
- be less inteligent, hince less capable of holding a job or even getting one.
- generaly sentenced for a life of inferiority in every sence.

What then ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a different set of parameters.

It isn't set in stone that  human bio-ethics will proceed to that conclusion, though I'll grant you the temptation would be strong in some sectors to "engineer" human beings if the technology will allow it. ( One problem that would be created all over the world for example, is that manipulating genes that way would trash the concept that "all men are created equal") Wars have been fought over for less.

Beyond the ethics of it, it could really be hazardous to the human species to short circuit what is thought of as "evolution" by changing  genes around.  Who knows?

[SirLoin]

What about isolating the racist redneck gene?..

[AKSWulfe]

You aren't a racist if you don't like gays.

You can be labelled a "bigot", but as far as I know, being gay doesn't make you part of a gay race.

And if it does, why don't they all go start their own gay lil' island where they can all be accepted and love each other?

I don't see why anyone should be told, or forced, to accept gays.

It's definitely not normal, seems some people think it should be... for whatever reason.
-SW