DKW 86 7,440 Posted December 31, 2006 Share Posted December 31, 2006 Scientifically breeding out Homosexuality. What do you guys think about this? Who would be next? The fat? the too thin? the astmatics? the bald? Do we really want to get into designing people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 I think we are in a world of hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Scientifically breeding out Homosexuality. What do you guys think about this? Who would be next? The fat? the too thin? the astmatics? the bald? Do we really want to get into designing people? Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a biological normal variant and not simply a matter of choice? A cold front may be moving into hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted January 1, 2007 Author Share Posted January 1, 2007 Scientifically breeding out Homosexuality. What do you guys think about this? Who would be next? The fat? the too thin? the astmatics? the bald? Do we really want to get into designing people? Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a biological normal variant and not simply a matter of choice? A cold front may be moving into hell. Al, I know that you are a Lib, but you might try and at least pay attention. No one said anything like that at all. I asked for your opinion on designing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Scientifically breeding out Homosexuality. What do you guys think about this? Who would be next? The fat? the too thin? the astmatics? the bald? Do we really want to get into designing people? Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a biological normal variant and not simply a matter of choice? A cold front may be moving into hell. Al, I know that you are a Lib, but you might try and at least pay attention. No one said anything like that at all. I asked for your opinion on designing people. David, why are you getting testy? I paid attention and read the article that you posted with a link entitled, "Scientifically breeding out homosexuality." How do you "breed out" something that isn't naturally occurring? Here's a quote from the article you posted, By varying the hormone levels, mainly by injecting hormones into the brain, they have had “considerable success†in altering the rams’ sexuality, with some previously gay animals becoming attracted to ewes. The rams displayed homosexual tendencies and following hormone injections became heterosexuals. You asked the questions, "What do you guys think about this? Who would be next? The fat? the too thin? the astmatics? the bald?" As far as I know, people who are asthmatic didn't choose to be that way, but, rather, are that way due to either extrinsic or intrinsic reasons. Likewise, baldness (not shaved) is caused by a genetic predisposition. Body habitus can be attributed in many cases to thyroid or pituitary deficiencies. You asked if we really wanted to get into designing people as if homosexuals were born homosexual like asthmatics, bald people or those with hormone imbalances due to congenital deficiencies. I don't think I was being inattentive whatsoever, even if I am a lib. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,017 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Scientifically breeding out Homosexuality. What do you guys think about this? Who would be next? The fat? the too thin? the astmatics? the bald? Do we really want to get into designing people? Are you suggesting that homosexuality is a biological normal variant and not simply a matter of choice? A cold front may be moving into hell. Al, I know that you are a Lib, but you might try and at least pay attention. No one said anything like that at all. I asked for your opinion on designing people. David, why are you getting testy? I paid attention and read the article that you posted with a link entitled, "Scientifically breeding out homosexuality." How do you "breed out" something that isn't naturally occurring? Here's a quote from the article you posted, By varying the hormone levels, mainly by injecting hormones into the brain, they have had “considerable success†in altering the rams’ sexuality, with some previously gay animals becoming attracted to ewes. The rams displayed homosexual tendencies and following hormone injections became heterosexuals. You asked the questions, "What do you guys think about this? Who would be next? The fat? the too thin? the astmatics? the bald?" As far as I know, people who are asthmatic didn't choose to be that way, but, rather, are that way due to either extrinsic or intrinsic reasons. Likewise, baldness (not shaved) is caused by a genetic predisposition. Body habitus can be attributed in many cases to thyroid or pituitary deficiencies. You asked if we really wanted to get into designing people as if homosexuals were born homosexual like asthmatics, bald people or those with hormone imbalances due to congenital deficiencies. I don't think I was being inattentive whatsoever, even if I am a lib. Stop already with the liberal logic and reason!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Stop already with the liberal logic and reason!!! He posts an article that outlines a research project involving homosexual rams. The article neither states or implies that the rams were made 'gay' through hormone therapy but that they were being made 'straight' by hormone therapy. His link says "Scientifically breeding out homosexuality." He asks "what's next, the fat, the thin, the asthmatics, the bald? Do we really want to get into designing people?" Now he's getting snippy at me based on what he said. I guess that's what I get for following that circular neo-con logic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted January 1, 2007 Author Share Posted January 1, 2007 Wow, you two are in your own little river of denial. I asked what you thought of it and you CANT Intellectually even answer THAT question. I guess even I was surprised at how repressed both of you are. Tex never answers anything on this forum. He usual tactic is to evade any answer that might prove him wrong or embarass him. Always has been. Now Al is doing the same thing. Al, I asked how you felt about designing people and I guess we are just so far over your head that you cant even give an opinion on the subject. Sorry to have misjudged your intellectual level too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted January 1, 2007 Author Share Posted January 1, 2007 Stop already with the liberal logic and reason!!! He posts an article that outlines a research project involving homosexual rams. The article neither states or implies that the rams were made 'gay' through hormone therapy but that they were being made 'straight' by hormone therapy. Al, the article also DOESNT address Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny So why arent you talking about them too? I mean your posts are talking about something that isnt in the article and has ZERO to do with the question I asked. I never made ANY statement on homosexuality. I asked about designing people. You are the one OBSESSED with the homosexuality part. His link says "Scientifically breeding out homosexuality." He asks "what's next, the fat, the thin, the asthmatics, the bald? Do we really want to get into designing people?" Now he's getting snippy at me based on what he said. I guess that's what I get for following that circular neo-con logic! No, that is what you get for being like Tex and NEVER ANSWERING A DIRECT QUESTION. I know what I asked about I started the thread and so far you have made three or four posts and have so far not answered the question as yet. Way to go Libs! I guess it all depends on "what the definition of question or opinion is!" or maybe You just "need to read my lips! Tex and Al have never had an intellectual discussion that they actually had to use their brains to form sentences on." They just read the talking popints and let the Dems do their hard ole thinking stuff for them. Man, all these posts and Al and Tex still havent answered the original question in this post. Could it be that the topic strikes too close to home? I simply asked what you thought about designing people. That is what the Liberal activists in the article are complaining about. If you read closer, the article actually states that homosexuality is NOT genetic, it is a hormonal mistake relating to the Mother. Correct the hormonal mistake and do away with these flawed people. The article NEVER says that homosexuality is GENETIC. I never questioned whether homosexuality was hormonal mistake or a choice. It was the people who do the research saying that they obviously believe that homosexuality is caused by a hormonal mistake. Lets go with that. IF being homosexual, being fat, being too thin, being bald, etc can be 'corrected' by simple hormonal manipulation, is that not "DESIGNING PEOPLE?" What is your opinion on that? My opinion: It might sound good at first, but ultimately it sets you up for a class society where you have the children of folks that can afford to manipulate their hormones and those that cant. You will eventually have a two class society for children IMHO. Taken FWIW, gene therapy, which will be even more expensive will be offered for an even lower numbered, more wealthy part of the population. Then you will have normal, maybe they will be 'organic' children. Then youwill have the 'hormonally "corrected"' children, then you will have the 'genetically selected' and then even the 'genetically perfected' children. We could easily have 2-3-4 classes of children in a generation or two. The hormonal manipulation, to me is the slippery slope toward what the Third Reich was reaching for, a master class, not race maybe, but still the same idea. Start with hormone therapy. Watch as the next generation of parents want/demand even better engineered kids. They then demand gene therapy/manipulation and next thing you know, we have set up a two, maybe three class system based on prenatal care availability. Sounds like heaven to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,017 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Wow, you two are in your own little river of denial. I asked what you thought of it and you CANT Intellectually even answer THAT question. I guess even I was surprised at how repressed both of you are. Tex never answers anything on this forum. He usual tactic is to evade any answer that might prove him wrong or embarass him. Always has been. Now Al is doing the same thing. Al, I asked how you felt about designing people and I guess we are just so far over your head that you cant even give an opinion on the subject. Sorry to have misjudged your intellectual level too. David wouldn't know an answer if it bit him in the ass. Happy New Year, brother! WDE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted January 1, 2007 Author Share Posted January 1, 2007 Wow, you two are in your own little river of denial. I asked what you thought of it and you CANT Intellectually even answer THAT question. I guess even I was surprised at how repressed both of you are. Tex never answers anything on this forum. He usual tactic is to evade any answer that might prove him wrong or embarass him. Always has been. Now Al is doing the same thing. Al, I asked how you felt about designing people and I guess we are just so far over your head that you cant even give an opinion on the subject. Sorry to have misjudged your intellectual level too. David wouldn't know an answer if it bit him in the ass. Happy New Year, brother! WDE! No one on this forum would recognize an actual answer from you, they are so rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,017 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Wow, you two are in your own little river of denial. I asked what you thought of it and you CANT Intellectually even answer THAT question. I guess even I was surprised at how repressed both of you are. Tex never answers anything on this forum. He usual tactic is to evade any answer that might prove him wrong or embarass him. Always has been. Now Al is doing the same thing. Al, I asked how you felt about designing people and I guess we are just so far over your head that you cant even give an opinion on the subject. Sorry to have misjudged your intellectual level too. David wouldn't know an answer if it bit him in the ass. Happy New Year, brother! WDE! No one on this forum would recognize an actual answer from you, they are so rare. David, when you don't even understand the meaning of an article YOU post, how can you recognize that Tiger Al's question to you was valid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted January 1, 2007 Author Share Posted January 1, 2007 Wow, you two are in your own little river of denial. I asked what you thought of it and you CANT Intellectually even answer THAT question. I guess even I was surprised at how repressed both of you are. Tex never answers anything on this forum. He usual tactic is to evade any answer that might prove him wrong or embarass him. Always has been. Now Al is doing the same thing. Al, I asked how you felt about designing people and I guess we are just so far over your head that you cant even give an opinion on the subject. Sorry to have misjudged your intellectual level too. David wouldn't know an answer if it bit him in the ass. Happy New Year, brother! WDE! No one on this forum would recognize an actual answer from you, they are so rare. David, when you don't even understand the meaning of an article YOU post, how can you recognize that Tiger Al's question to you was valid? Tex, I do know what question I asked. It was on the topic title. "What do you think about this?" Why is this sssooo hard for Libs? (not that I ever expected an answer from either of you two anyway.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,017 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Wow, you two are in your own little river of denial. I asked what you thought of it and you CANT Intellectually even answer THAT question. I guess even I was surprised at how repressed both of you are. Tex never answers anything on this forum. He usual tactic is to evade any answer that might prove him wrong or embarass him. Always has been. Now Al is doing the same thing. Al, I asked how you felt about designing people and I guess we are just so far over your head that you cant even give an opinion on the subject. Sorry to have misjudged your intellectual level too. David wouldn't know an answer if it bit him in the ass. Happy New Year, brother! WDE! No one on this forum would recognize an actual answer from you, they are so rare. David, when you don't even understand the meaning of an article YOU post, how can you recognize that Tiger Al's question to you was valid? Tex, I do know what question I asked. It was on the topic title. "What do you think about this?" Why is this sssooo hard for Libs? ( nopt that I ever expected an answer from either of you two anyway.) Why does Al's question scare you so much? Is homosexuality biologically determined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted January 1, 2007 Author Share Posted January 1, 2007 Wow, you two are in your own little river of denial. I asked what you thought of it and you CANT Intellectually even answer THAT question. I guess even I was surprised at how repressed both of you are. Tex never answers anything on this forum. He usual tactic is to evade any answer that might prove him wrong or embarass him. Always has been. Now Al is doing the same thing. Al, I asked how you felt about designing people and I guess we are just so far over your head that you cant even give an opinion on the subject. Sorry to have misjudged your intellectual level too. David wouldn't know an answer if it bit him in the ass. Happy New Year, brother! WDE! No one on this forum would recognize an actual answer from you, they are so rare. David, when you don't even understand the meaning of an article YOU post, how can you recognize that Tiger Al's question to you was valid? Tex, I do know what question I asked. It was on the topic title. "What do you think about this?" Why is this sssooo hard for Libs? ( nopt that I ever expected an answer from either of you two anyway.) Why does Al's question scare you so much? Is homosexuality biologically determined? Why cant you or Al answer the question for this thread? As for me, I answered it above 2-3 times already. I am not debating that in this, my thread. I asked about what your opinion is on designing people. As for my opinion on homosexuality, I do not think it is genetic. The researchers dont think it is genetic. They say it is a hormonal problem. They are the ones doing research. They should know what they are talking about. I will defer to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,017 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Wow, you two are in your own little river of denial. I asked what you thought of it and you CANT Intellectually even answer THAT question. I guess even I was surprised at how repressed both of you are. Tex never answers anything on this forum. He usual tactic is to evade any answer that might prove him wrong or embarass him. Always has been. Now Al is doing the same thing. Al, I asked how you felt about designing people and I guess we are just so far over your head that you cant even give an opinion on the subject. Sorry to have misjudged your intellectual level too. David wouldn't know an answer if it bit him in the ass. Happy New Year, brother! WDE! No one on this forum would recognize an actual answer from you, they are so rare. David, when you don't even understand the meaning of an article YOU post, how can you recognize that Tiger Al's question to you was valid? Tex, I do know what question I asked. It was on the topic title. "What do you think about this?" Why is this sssooo hard for Libs? ( nopt that I ever expected an answer from either of you two anyway.) Why does Al's question scare you so much? Is homosexuality biologically determined? Why cant you or Al answer the question for this thread? As for me, I answered it above 2-3 times already. I am not debating that in this, my thread. I asked about what your opinion is on designing people. As for my opinion on homosexuality, I do not think it is genetic. The researchers dont think it is genetic. They say it is a hormonal problem. They are the ones doing research. They should know what they are talking about. I will defer to them. You entitled the link this: Scientifically breeding out Homosexuality. "Breeding" involveds genetics. No, I don't believe in "breeding" or "designing" humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted January 1, 2007 Author Share Posted January 1, 2007 Actually, as cited in the article, the breeding only includes hormonal manipulation, whether on the males to get them to bread the females or to the females to insure their offspring are heterosexual. There is no gentics involvement at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,345 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 If there are ways to breed out certain genetic defects, then we should consider this. No more cancer, CF, CP, and many other devastating diseases. Unfortunately, you'll have folks try to breed bigger breast sizes for their daughters and bigger penises for their sons. Like everything good, there will always be a dark side. But in this case, the good could outweigh the bad significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Actually, as cited in the article, the breeding only includes hormonal manipulation, whether on the males to get them to bread the females or to the females to insure their offspring are heterosexual. There is no gentics involvement at all. If genetics aren't involved then how does one 'breed' anything out, scientifically or otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.