I've exhausted my precious few braincells and attention span quota this morning by diving into a stupid science vs religion drama over at www.thecicak.com. Derek, it might be your cup of tea. :) You'll know which article I'm talking about.
Anyway, my little rant over there has left me thinking (not something I do very much on Fridays in particular).
1. Do you think that it's a good thing for scientists to try to identify the "gay gene"?
2. If there were such a thing as an identifiable "Ugly Gene" (can you tell I'm avoiding using THE obvious trait), would you scan/test for it in your unborn child?
Please feel free to not answer either.
On another note, the grumpiness factor is aggravated by the fact that my fringe currently looks like the Japanese Prime Minister's.
NOT the look I was going for. Sigh. Haircut tomorrow.
10 comments:
1. no - it's not like it's a disease, you know. and there are SO many illnesses out there requiring the research dollars.
2. i don't think i would want to test for ANY genes in my unborn child... what if i didn't like the results??!
the scientist had better not be giving you a pixie cut tomorrow...
hehe, snowdrop, you're right. those money should go for bird flu research! :P
ahchiou! sorry...i'm down with flu now...
and so what if those genes are known/identified. what would you do to a child/baby unborn.
1. no
2. no
*shudders* these 2 Qs remind me so much of the movie Gattaca. too much selective breeding leads to trouble.
oh, and you've been tagged. =D
You have a site and I never knew! I always loved the cow pic you have.
Paul
Gay gene? Wah! So Gattaca! I read an article long ago (when they first cracked the human Genome). There was some discussion that companies or institutions like The Army might test for it under the standard medical exam and use it to exclude people from jobs etc.
1. I don't know. Let's say they do find it. On one hand it may eliminate discrimination and shut the fuckers who keep saying "it's a lifestyle choice". On the other it may be seen as a kind of disease. On the third hand less people would be confused about their sexuality...they could go for a simple cotton swab test and come out knowing what they are...or aren't.
2. Gee tough choice lol! There's no gene to identify "ugly" anyway so that's moot. Gay gene I wouldn't bother. I'd definitely want a gay baby. So fabulous!
No, and no. Like snowdrop said, the research money could be used in other more beneficial research. Like AIDS, Parkinson's Disease, NF...diseases that are more pressing.
Besides, being gay is not a disease. Imagine an alternate universe where heterosexuality is the minority and a scientific research has determined that it's genetic. Now I would like to see the expressions on those homophobics' faces for being the persecuted one for a change!
As for the second question, I'm all for genetic research to aid medical advances, *not* human vanity.
Har har.. yes! Your hair looks like his. Now that you mentioned it. Biow and I had a good laugh about that yesterday.
thanks all for your responses to the questions.
bertha (welcome back!), that's exactly what i said to the dumbass who wrote the article. no one's ever felt the need to look for a hetero gene, having never had to justify their right to exist.
sadly, the desperate need for justification does motivate a segment of the gay community to support the efforts to find a genetic explanation. so misguided and short-sighted.
as for the "ugly" gene, i'd be lying if i said i wouldn't be very tempted to scan for it. that's just human nature. and if i were short sighted, yes, i'd probably scan for it.
BUT... what would we do if the scan was positive. Exactly.
It's what i wonder everytime a well-meaning mother-to-be says "I've scanned for Down's syndrome". Be it a vanity thing, or a genuine concern for medical complications, are you prepared to follow through with whatever decision you make with the knowledge?
Better not to know.
On another note... snowie, not say you had any inclination to shag me after that fabulous cut osso.
wingedman - oh i know who would benefit from that cotton swab test!! you think he'll like the results? Jeeeezzzzzz..... Bleurk.
savante - welcome doc! slowlah you. can't blame you though, i've blocked the URL of my blog from my profile. a supposedly private blog mah.
ame - grrrr....but i look fabulous now. :)
Hey Spotty
Thanks for the link. Though it's actually http://cicak.com.
Yes, I was pretty riled up reading it. No wonder, as it was written by someone who's like, 21?
Though I am glad the readers and especially those who left comments are much more understanding and open-minded.
For the questions: Yes and no.
1. Though I think there is no specific gene actually. We are a culmination of genes, biochemistry/hormones, environment, etc.
Anything that increases knowlegde of science is good, though I agree that the money could be better spent in more important areas.
2. Designer babies? Call me a cynic but wouldn't that lead to a new kind of discrimination ala Gattaca. Though it is happening already, to a certain extent.
Post a Comment