By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Drugs that may prevent unborn babies becoming lesbian

superchunk on 20 August 2010

1. This proves people are born gay and its not a choice.

2. This is utterly ridiculas as they have no clue what the 'gay gene' may or may not be, so they have no idea if a fetus is potentially going to be gay and thus can't determine if some other drug is having any affect on that.



Around the Network
NiKKoM on 20 August 2010

And why do we want to stop hot girls kissing eachother?



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

sapphi_snake on 20 August 2010
NiKKoM said:

And why do we want to stop hot girls kissing eachother?

Not all lesbians are hot. Actually some guys are hotter than some lesbians.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

highwaystar101 on 20 August 2010
SciFiBoy2.0 said:
highwaystar101 said:

*Sigh* It's not about being gay, it's about preventative treatment. Dr New wants to create this drug so that children don't have to be afflicted with some of the complicastions that come from congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

I don't think it's about "curing" lesbianism at all, it's about reducing a side effect from the condition. It wont make them 100% heterosexual.

I know the advent of "engineering" humans is scary, but we already tamper with life to this extent with things like hormone replacement therapy.

Whilst I support their campaign for equal rights and support their plight, I feel that sometimes LGBT groups can go a little overboard without fully understanding the situation (mind you, that could be said of any campaign group really (sorry if I have offended anyone)).

so, its just removing a potentionaly harmful thing then? and the link to orientation is an unfortunate coincidence?

I dont really know enough about this tbh, but that seems to be what youre saying yes?

No, it's not an unfortunate coincidence, it's a symptom of the condition being cured. A child born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia will likely be a lesbian, but given this treatment their orientation potential will return to be more "normal" (towards that of the general population).

It is removing harmful things, but the harmful things includes a much higher tendency towards becoming homosexual.



Coca-Cola on 20 August 2010
highwaystar101 said:

*Sigh* It's not about being gay, it's about preventative treatment. Dr New wants to create this drug so that children don't have to be afflicted with some of the complicastions that come from congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

I don't think it's about "curing" lesbianism at all, it's about reducing a side effect from the condition. It wont make them 100% heterosexual.

I know the advent of "engineering" humans is scary, but we already tamper with life to this extent with things like hormone replacement therapy.

Whilst I support their campaign for equal rights and support their plight, I feel that sometimes LGBT groups can go a little overboard without fully understanding the situation (mind you, that could be said of any campaign group really (sorry if I have offended anyone)).

This.

It's not about curing lesbianism and does not prove anything about people born gay - I still believe we are created in the image of our environment

having said that, this is very interesting.  What if we can altar sexual orientation?  Now that would be a topic to discuss.  I'm afraid that most anti-abortion people will be for it and Right to choose people will be against it.  Ironic isn't it?   Seriously, if people believe we can abort little babies, why shouldn't we be able to altar sexual orientation before they are born - hypocrites.  And for Anti-abortionists, if it's immoral to mess with fetus then why would you favor altaring sexual orientation?  You hyporcrites.



Around the Network
HernanDroid on 20 August 2010

Hey, i m gay and i liked this research.

 

I m not sure how it proves we are gay because of genetics, but it cleans the way for many things we are criticised for.

Unfortunately, i think the human engeneer is almost impossible to stop, let's wait for better ending than the "Neon Genesis Evangelion" one.



You may find a mirror trying to find the other side of the world

primogen18 on 20 August 2010
highwaystar101 said:
SciFiBoy2.0 said:
highwaystar101 said:

*Sigh* It's not about being gay, it's about preventative treatment. Dr New wants to create this drug so that children don't have to be afflicted with some of the complicastions that come from congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

I don't think it's about "curing" lesbianism at all, it's about reducing a side effect from the condition. It wont make them 100% heterosexual.

I know the advent of "engineering" humans is scary, but we already tamper with life to this extent with things like hormone replacement therapy.

Whilst I support their campaign for equal rights and support their plight, I feel that sometimes LGBT groups can go a little overboard without fully understanding the situation (mind you, that could be said of any campaign group really (sorry if I have offended anyone)).

so, its just removing a potentionaly harmful thing then? and the link to orientation is an unfortunate coincidence?

I dont really know enough about this tbh, but that seems to be what youre saying yes?

No, it's not an unfortunate coincidence, it's a symptom of the condition. A child born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia will likely be a lesbian, but given this treatment their orientation potential will return to be more "normal" (towards that of the general population).

It is removing a harmful thing, but the harmful things includes a much higher tendency towards becoming homosexual.

Your last statement really kills your entire post...



highwaystar101 on 20 August 2010
primogen18 said:
highwaystar101 said:
SciFiBoy2.0 said:
highwaystar101 said:

*Sigh* It's not about being gay, it's about preventative treatment. Dr New wants to create this drug so that children don't have to be afflicted with some of the complicastions that come from congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

I don't think it's about "curing" lesbianism at all, it's about reducing a side effect from the condition. It wont make them 100% heterosexual.

I know the advent of "engineering" humans is scary, but we already tamper with life to this extent with things like hormone replacement therapy.

Whilst I support their campaign for equal rights and support their plight, I feel that sometimes LGBT groups can go a little overboard without fully understanding the situation (mind you, that could be said of any campaign group really (sorry if I have offended anyone)).

so, its just removing a potentionaly harmful thing then? and the link to orientation is an unfortunate coincidence?

I dont really know enough about this tbh, but that seems to be what youre saying yes?

No, it's not an unfortunate coincidence, it's a symptom of the condition. A child born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia will likely be a lesbian, but given this treatment their orientation potential will return to be more "normal" (towards that of the general population).

It is removing a harmful thing, but the harmful things includes a much higher tendency towards becoming homosexual.

Your last statement really kills your entire post...

Why? Homosexuality under regular conditions is a perfectly fine thing, not harmful at all. But when it comes as part of a condition which affects  person's sexuality in such a manner as CAH it is a harmful thing to their well being.

Basically the homosexuality in CAH isn't really natural, it's a symptom of the condition, and therefore different from regular homosexuality. It's not the same.



zaMy on 20 August 2010

whats wrong with lesbians?



primogen18 on 24 August 2010
highwaystar101 said:
primogen18 said:
highwaystar101 said:
SciFiBoy2.0 said:
highwaystar101 said:

*Sigh* It's not about being gay, it's about preventative treatment. Dr New wants to create this drug so that children don't have to be afflicted with some of the complicastions that come from congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

I don't think it's about "curing" lesbianism at all, it's about reducing a side effect from the condition. It wont make them 100% heterosexual.

I know the advent of "engineering" humans is scary, but we already tamper with life to this extent with things like hormone replacement therapy.

Whilst I support their campaign for equal rights and support their plight, I feel that sometimes LGBT groups can go a little overboard without fully understanding the situation (mind you, that could be said of any campaign group really (sorry if I have offended anyone)).

so, its just removing a potentionaly harmful thing then? and the link to orientation is an unfortunate coincidence?

I dont really know enough about this tbh, but that seems to be what youre saying yes?

No, it's not an unfortunate coincidence, it's a symptom of the condition. A child born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia will likely be a lesbian, but given this treatment their orientation potential will return to be more "normal" (towards that of the general population).

It is removing a harmful thing, but the harmful things includes a much higher tendency towards becoming homosexual.

Your last statement really kills your entire post...

Why? Homosexuality under regular conditions is a perfectly fine thing, not harmful at all. But when it comes as part of a condition which affects  person's sexuality in such a manner as CAH it is a harmful thing to their well being.

Basically the homosexuality in CAH isn't really natural, it's a symptom of the condition, and therefore different from regular homosexuality. It's not the same.


Ah ok, I see what you mean now.

Also, sorry for the extreme quote tree.