If it were possible to cure genetic homosexuality, should we?

[Insomniac]

By genetic homosexuality, I'm distinguishing from same-sex fucking, generally, because Greeks and Romans sucked dick and diddled little boys without a DNA compulsion to do so, but homosexuality has existed in all cultures and races throughout time, so obviously there's something coded into some people.

Assume this cure is not abortions, more like we can identify the genes in embryos and then give the mother a treatment to ungay them by the time they're born.

I use this as an example because I think we'd all agree a disease like cerebral palsy should be eradicated if possible, and I think most of us would even go as far to hermaphrodites and pedophiles. But gays aren't physically impaired, they aren't more likely to hurt someone than anyone else, and yet I know many gays claim they never would have chosen to have been born the way they are.

So although chicks would still kiss and prison rape would go on, would it be ethical to "cure" humanity of queers? If so, would it have been unethical for Hitler's Germany to go about its concept of eugenics in this pre-emptive way?

[Jericho]

Fuck that, I don't need more guys going after chicks I can't get

[tockit]

By genetic homosexuality, I'm distinguishing from same-sex fucking, generally, because Greeks and Romans sucked dick and diddled little boys without a DNA compulsion to do so, but homosexuality has existed in all cultures and races throughout time, so obviously there's something coded into some people.

Assume this cure is not abortions, more like we can identify the genes in embryos and then give the mother a treatment to ungay them by the time they're born.

I use this as an example because I think we'd all agree a disease like cerebral palsy should be eradicated if possible, and I think most of us would even go as far to hermaphrodites and pedophiles. But gays aren't physically impaired, they aren't more likely to hurt someone than anyone else, and yet I know many gays claim they never would have chosen to have been born the way they are.

So although chicks would still kiss and prison rape would go on, would it be ethical to "cure" humanity of queers? If so, would it have been unethical for Hitler's Germany to go about its concept of eugenics in this pre-emptive way?
With this question you pose, you're implying that homosexuality is determined by genetics.

To my knowledge, that's not be proven yet. If we're not sure that genetics cause homosexuality, why would genetics cure it?

[Insomniac]

Fuck that, I don't need more guys going after chicks I can't get

Yeah, but no more lesbians either, so there's more fish in the sea. It evens out.

[Archetype]

Fuck that, I don't need more guys going after chicks I can't get
Related:

Nah, there's homosexual animals and sterile bugs, so it isn't what science says or doesn't say. Some evolutionists have even gone as far as explaining the genetic benefits of random homosexuality, such as benefiting the children of the homo animal's kin as an extra caretaker and protector, or reducing infighting among group oriented animals over dominance.

I wouldn't look to nature to decide what's natural. There's wacky shit like lizards and frogs changing sexes in times of need and hermaphroditism is common in other animals. The point is genetic diversity, right?

[wonderllama]

I'd be interested to see what actual GAY people say to this.

One thing I've noticed about a BUTTLOAD (pun intended) of gay people is that that is how they identify themselves, or rather DEFINE themselves...which I personally find a bit tragic. Sure, it's an element of who they are, but it's not THE definition.

So if we suddenly find a way of 'altering' an unborn child, there's sure to be some cry of discrimination, yet I don't know any parent who would prefer a gay child over a non-gay child. They may said "whatever happens when they get older, I'll support"...but that's not the same thing.

So I'm going to say yes...because there's more chance of THIS happening than discrimination ending.

[WET HOT MESS]

I love homos. They design great clothes.

[Mr. Brown]

I say no since it would cause the population to increase and there's enough fucking people alive as of now.

[hatepoppy]

2 mny fukkng pplz.

[freegood]

I'm sure if the Religious Right had their way, they'd have a pill (or some weaponized gas) to make fucking be as enjoyable as eating vegetables.

[WET HOT MESS]

I don't get it. I love veggies.

[wonderllama]

The wheelchairs taste shit though...

[vasili denisov]

The question would be better re-phrased as: should decisions with regard to any genetic manipulation be left to the state or individual parents?

The state's interest are practical, though they also align with law of some moral foundation. Their interest lies in curing illness and disability. This is not in contradiction with the sanctity of life, since no life would be voided in this case. Arguably, the state has final say in this area, much as the state can override parents who refuse blood or organ transfers because it goes against their religion. I don't think homosexuality can be classed with any debilitating trait; if you wish to argue that straight people fit in better in most communities, then you might as well have the government lighten skin tone or increase height, since tall white people tend to be more successful than short, darker skinned people.

The most that can be argued is that anal sex is a riskier form of sex than vaginal sex, that gay men on average have sex with more men than men have with women, since, on average, the sex drive of men is higher than women's. This, however, deals not with traits that are inherent malignant, but traits that may lead to behaviour that could prove harmful. This opens up the possibility of fiddling with other traits such as preferences for sugar and salt, or fat retention. If the state goes to far in altering those traits, why should it be allowed to alter genetics that affect a predisposition to homosexuality?

If these decisions are left to parents, we are in an entirely different area. Many parents will prefer straight children, just as they'll prefer lighter skinned, bluer eyed, taller, thinner, children.

[wonderllama]

Many parents will prefer straight children, just as they'll prefer lighter skinned, bluer eyed, taller, thinner, children.

True, but that is sort of determined by the parents, the sexuality isn't presumably....or is it???

Point being, outwardly, you pretty much know what you're going to get.

[freegood]

Maybe the government should make it unacceptable for parents to tamper their kids genes even if high society could ostensibly benefit from the ubermensch.

The thing about class warfare is that most people believe where they belong. Overachievers would give up if they knew to the bone they weren't as perfect as those lab babies. Yet the bread and butter of society is imperfect people overachieving at what they do best.

[Satan]

Can we cure being black first? The world does not need anymore taters.

[Bastard]

If there was a cure for homosexuality, how would that affect the movie, music, and television industry? So many people would be out of work.

[Insomniac]

If there was a cure for homosexuality, how would that affect the movie, music, and television industry? So many people would be out of work.

You're joking, but there is an interesting point in it. Like someone else said about fashion designers, a lot of male fashion designers happen to be gay. Does their gayness affect their talent at creating clothing to the extent that without being attracted to men, or maybe more flamboyant/feminine in general, they wouldn't be good at it anymore?

[Bizz]

Professional wrestling?

[gillkonam]

Dude, wasn't this basically the plot to Xmen 3? But seriously, cure genetic structures is a slippery slope. Many gay people say that they feel their sexual preference is an inconvenience because of the stigma involved, but that's social right? Others find their sexual preference to be a gift of human possibility, a rounding of sexual sensitivity that would leave the world a less rich place overall if a cure was found. If parents are going to be able to choose, that's about as close to a Nash equalibrum as I want to dance near when it comes to eugenics, as most parents would find the only logical choice to be going against the rainbow. Plus, without gay men, we wouldn't have any of the wonderful kink that they have championed to extract on the willing of the opposite sex. Feels good man, feels good.

[vasili denisov]

True, but that is sort of determined by the parents, the sexuality isn't presumably....or is it???

Point being, outwardly, you pretty much know what you're going to get.
Except you don't. Parents pass on a jumble of genetic material, with short parents getting very tall kids or two brunettes getting a son or daughter who's blonde or redheaded as someone from a generation past.

[UNC]

Kill the gays

[Pharon]

I don't know any parent who would prefer a gay child over a non-gay child. They may said "whatever happens when they get older, I'll support"...but that's not the same thing.
This pretty much says it all for me. People are pre-wired to want children so that we can pass on our genes to future generations.

[Yelram]

If they do it for Hermaphrodites, they can do it for anyone.

[Archetype]

This pretty much says it all for me. People are pre-wired to want children so that we can pass on our genes to future generations.
We also don't need traditional sexual intercourse to do that anymore.

[Septic_Porpoise]

this makes me think of the gay-bomb. it's a shame that never worked.

[Archangel]

If anything, we should invent something that would make all the vegetarians, metrosexuals, and Abercrombie wearers finally admit their homosexuality.

[redsox39]

While I am sure most Homosexuals would not "want" to be cured, I think that the public scorn and ridicule that most gays have to face...it would be worth fixing it, not unlike a hairlip.

Plus, then we cuold go back to generalizing again. About families, Men, women, sex, and not have to worry about offending or leaving out a small but loud percentage of the population.

[NOTKyle]

The fact that this thread even exists is fucking embarrassing.

Blacks deal with alot of racism, and their skin color is coded in their DNA. Should we fix that too? Hell, while we're at it, let's make sure that little people are average height. Let's take people that are genetically apt to being slightly overweight and make sure they possess the same BMI as the rest of the population.

What the fuck would bigots do with their time when they're all that's left?

[Pharon]

The fact that this thread even exists is fucking embarrassing.

Blacks deal with alot of racism, and their skin color is coded in their DNA. Should we fix that too? Hell, while we're at it, let's make sure that little people are average height. Let's take people that are genetically apt to being slightly overweight and make sure they possess the same BMI as the rest of the population.

What the fuck would bigots do with their time when they're all that's left?
You may want to pick up a dictionary once in awhile, because the most bigoted post in this thread is your own...

[UNC]

Being Black is not a defect. I would think curing gays is along the same line as curing mental retardation.

[NOTKyle]

Being Black is not a defect. I would think curing gays is along the same line as curing mental retardation.

So Pharon just told me in a rep that I sounded close minded in my response to this. Wanting to "cure" anybody that has NOTHING physically "wrong" with them is considered open minded?

Marcus' post above is open minded?

Maybe I don't understand the logic of how wanting people not like yourself to be terminated is considered open minded.

[UNC]

If a man wants to suck cock and get pounded in the ass....it's his right. But he's fucking insane. If a retard wants to eat poop....it's his right. But he's fucking insane.

[NOTKyle]

You only say that because you're an uneducated straight southerner. You drink daily, smoke a pack a day, and sniff pills. How does that make you any more sane than a gay guy having sex with another gay guy?

[Pharon]

So Pharon just told me in a rep that I sounded close minded in my response to this. Wanting to "cure" anybody that has NOTHING physically "wrong" with them is considered open minded?

Marcus' post above is open minded?

Maybe I don't understand the logic of how wanting people not like yourself to be terminated is considered open minded.
Calling this topic embarrassing and everyone who's discussing it a bigot is what I was referring to. Bigotry is a stubborn belief in your own opinion and no respect or consideration for anyone else's. I just found it ironic that you were the one to use the term, considering the tone of your post, that's all.

As for "curing" homosexuality -- I was thinking of it more in these terms:

If my wife was pregnant and they did a test to find out that my child was 100% certain to be homosexual, and they could give her a completely harmless pill that would guarantee the baby would turn out to be 100% heterosexual instead, would I want her to take it?

No question.

Are you suggesting that makes me a bigot? This topic has nothing to do with people who are already out of the womb and homosexual. At least not the way I read it.

[NOTKyle]

I think that everyday being gay is more and more accepted by society. I think changing the person your son or daughter was going to become because of the way you view the world is wrong.

I'm aware that most people would do it with the intentions of making life easier on their child, but it's still altering who they would have become, which I view as inherently wrong.

Maybe I came off a little strong, but I still consider it bigotry.

[Pharon]

I think that everyday being gay is more and more accepted by society. I think changing the person your son or daughter was going to become because of the way you view the world is wrong.

I'm aware that most people would do it with the intentions of making life easier on their child, but it's still altering who they would have become, which I view as inherently wrong.

Maybe I came off a little strong, but I still consider it bigotry.
It's discriminatory, not bigoted. There's a difference.

[NOTKyle]

It's discriminatory, not bigoted. There's a difference.

Tomato tomato.

If you could live with yourself knowing that you potentially changed your child's entire future; then more power to you.

[Pharon]

Tomato tomato.

If you could live with yourself knowing that you potentially changed your child's entire future; then more power to you.
I don't see it that way. All you're changing is their sexual preference - not their personality, intelligence, or any other trait.

And you're doing it for genetically predisposed reasons - namely procreation of future generations.

I wouldn't judge you for having your wife NOT take the pill. I don't see why it would be any different in the reverse. It's just a personal preference thing. Like abortion. Should be a decision between the two parties involved and no one else, in my opinion.

[NOTKyle]

I wouldn't judge you for having your wife NOT take the pill. I don't see why it would be any different in the reverse. It's just a personal preference thing. Like abortion. Should be a decision between the two parties involved and no one else, in my opinion.

It's not like I would personally attack you for having the procedure done, but I don't think you're really seeing the big picture here. If this procedure was ever actually brought to fruition, it wouldn't happen quietly. Protesters from around the world would be fire bombing the institutions offering it. I just don't think you're really picking up on the fact that you're essentially saying that straight > gay. That wouldn't go over well with certain sectors of the general public.

[Willam]

This makes it sound like homosexuality is a disease, which, that alone, is absurd. It comes across like you are comparing being gay to being autistic or mentally retarded. Wether it's genetic coding or an individual's choice, we, as a whole, have no right to interfere.

[Da Raider]

All people should be exactly the same.

[Pharon]

I just don't think you're really picking up on the fact that you're essentially saying that straight > gay. That wouldn't go over well with certain sectors of the general public.
Again, it's the difference between bigotry and discrimination. Given the choice, I would rather be straight than homosexual. Does this mean I'm intolerant of homosexuals? Or think I'm "better than" them? No.

I could come up with dozens of things that I'd want to be over something else. So could you. Hell, there are certain women I'm not attracted to and vice versa. Doesn't make one better than the other. It's just a personal preference thing. We all do it.

Granted, I understand your point about how it would play out in the general public. It would be a circus. But most controversial things are.

[Satan]

All people should be exactly the same.They need to come up with a cure for liking the Raiders.

:D

[Willam]

They need to come up with a cure for liking the Raiders.

:D


I thought that was Al Davis.

[IdiotBrain]

I want a pill that ensures my kid won't listen to rap.

[Archangel]

The fact that this thread even exists is fucking embarrassing.

Insomniac likes to provoke and ask uncomfortable questions, for which I love him. I seriously doubt that he is presenting his actual opinion here.

[UNC]

If we can kill a baby in the womb...hard to believe the same people would try to keep this mythical pill from being used. It's okay to kill the baby....but make it not suck cock is just wrong? This liberal logic is fucking insane in itself. We need a pill for that.

and Straight is > than gay.

[NOTKyle]

and Straight is > than gay.

Why?

Give me a reason that doesn't involve CAUSE WHAT GUY WOULDN'T WANT TO LICK TITTIES AMIRIGHT LOL.

[UNC]

Do you think it's alright to fuck animals?

[freegood]

I don't see it that way. All you're changing is their sexual preference - not their personality, intelligence, or any other trait.

And you're doing it for genetically predisposed reasons - namely procreation of future generations.

I wouldn't judge you for having your wife NOT take the pill. I don't see why it would be any different in the reverse. It's just a personal preference thing. Like abortion. Should be a decision between the two parties involved and no one else, in my opinion.

I think sexual preference goes along with personality and behavior. There's been studies that show the brains of gays more similarly wired to the opposite sex than their own sex in problem solving and critical thinking. Also the hormone levels are much different in gays compared to their own.

You're going to have to redo a lot of the underlying plumbing by changing the genes or whatever is responsible for it.

[Pharon]

Stop gaying up this thread with all your technical details.

[UNC]

So if there was a pill to kill a persons love of fucking dogs...that would be wrong?

If your personality points you into a sick and perverse direction....your personality is fucking sick and disturbing and if steps can be taken to cure it...then those steps should be taken.

[Archetype]

Tomato tomato.

If you could live with yourself knowing that you potentially changed your child's entire future; then more power to you.
You mean parenthood?It's not like I would personally attack you for having the procedure done, but I don't think you're really seeing the big picture here. If this procedure was ever actually brought to fruition, it wouldn't happen quietly. Protesters from around the world would be fire bombing the institutions offering it. I just don't think you're really picking up on the fact that you're essentially saying that straight > gay. That wouldn't go over well with certain sectors of the general public.
So we should pander to certain groups, just because they would be loud and obnoxious if we don't?

[Insomniac]

There are a lot of deaf people who are offended that being deaf is considered a disability. They claim they're not missing out on anything by being unable to hear, and almost all are capable of leading lives full of happiness. At the same time, if we could get rid of genetic deafness, I think most people would consider it a success.

And I don't understand the discrimination complaint. People would still be gay, but they would be gay (or bisexual) by their own choice and preference, not biological predilections. Why is this a bad thing?

[NOTKyle]

So we should pander to certain groups, just because they would be loud and obnoxious if we don't?

I don't think we need to "pander" to any group. There are plenty of people that think abortion is wrong, and they just don't get abortions. I happen to think that this "procedure" is wrong, therefore I'm against it.

And Marcus is making me so sad. For real. How is fucking a dog in ANY WAY related to homosexuality? You watch a ton of girl on girl stuff Marcus, right? The one and only difference is that girl on girl doesn't make you feel uncomfortable in your wood paneled house.

[Phil Theehor]

Had to bring the paneling into this, Kyle, didn't you?

[NOTKyle]

I tried to avoid it, but my fingers did the work.

[UNC]

I don't think we need to "pander" to any group. There are plenty of people that think abortion is wrong, and they just don't get abortions. I happen to think that this "procedure" is wrong, therefore I'm against it.

And Marcus is making me so sad. For real. How is fucking a dog in ANY WAY related to homosexuality? You watch a ton of girl on girl stuff Marcus, right? The one and only difference is that girl on girl doesn't make you feel uncomfortable in your wood paneled house.

People are free to kill thier fetus...they should be able to give them a pill


I have no problem with the gays.

[Phil Theehor]

There are a lot of deaf people who are offended that being deaf is considered a disability. They claim they're not missing out on anything by being unable to hear, and almost all are capable of leading lives full of happiness. At the same time, if we could get rid of genetic deafness, I think most people would consider it a success.

And I don't understand the discrimination complaint. People would still be gay, but they would be gay (or bisexual) by their own choice and preference, not biological predilections. Why is this a bad thing?

I think most of who we are is the smelting of biological predilections and how said predilections cause us to react to different situations with the experiences that come from that.

I think if you got rid of the 'gay gene', I don't think you'd have any gays. My understanding is that they don't choose to be gay, they just are. You never chose to dig titties, you just did. (Volition argument ftw).

[Insomniac]

Homosexuality is kind of a 19th century construct. There may be a gay gene, but for thousands of years, most gay behavior was by men who functioned heterosexually in society. Alexander the Great loved women and had children, but also loved and had sex with men. I don't think there was anything genetic to that.

Today, men behave homosexually in prison, though outside of the prison, they're in heterosexual relationships. To a less extreme degree, I think that's true of things like college or theatre where men fooling around with other men is more accepted. Environmental factors matter, is all.

[freegood]

Stop gaying up this thread with all your technical details.

But it's so faaabulous.

[Phil Theehor]

Homosexuality is kind of a 19th century construct. There may be a gay gene, but for thousands of years, most gay behavior was by men who functioned heterosexually in society. Alexander the Great loved women and had children, but also loved and had sex with men. I don't think there was anything genetic to that.

Today, men behave homosexually in prison, though outside of the prison, they're in heterosexual relationships. To a less extreme degree, I think that's true of things like college or theatre where men fooling around with other men is more accepted. Environmental factors matter, is all.

Agreed, culture/environment do play a part. But, for lack of gene, how would you explain homos in extremely anti-gay cultures (like Iran, where they string the cocksuckers up)? I can't imagine that given that kind of penalty, anyone would choose homosexuality were they not hard-wired for it.

[Billy]

I'm just thrown by the fact that Insomniac proposed that somehow more competition from other guys is entirely made up for by now having no lesbians, as if that's not a lose-lose for straight guys

[Insomniac]

I think there's an inherent desire in people for the taboo. While I'm sure some people are naturally and inexorably attracted to prepubescent children, most others probably didn't come out of the womb loving bald pussy. But many do, in spite of terrible hatred of pedophilia and awful extra-judicial punishment if they get caught.

I'm sure the gays of Iran are largely born geared that way. But I'm also sure human beings are just fucked up enough to do stuff because they shouldn't.

[vasili denisov]

If a man wants to suck cock and get pounded in the ass....it's his right. But he's fucking insane. If a retard wants to eat poop....it's his right. But he's fucking insane.
This implies that homsexuality is wrong because in certain instances you find it disgusting; yet in other instances you might find it arousing, say, a sex scene between Eva Angelina and Gianna Lynn. So, the problem lies not with the preference but the expression of the preference is abhorrent. Most of us would be disgusted to watch a woman have sex with Artie Lang. Does that make heterosexuality wrong?

As for the comparison to abortion, you object to abortion, yet argue that if abortion is allowed, this should be allowed. There is law out there which you disagree with, therefore you're fine with more law consistent with this (that the fetus is not an unalterable sanctum). That you have strong passions about an entity that is not sapience, but will soon acquire sapience, or a deeper sentience than any species on earth. This, arguably, is what is found repulsive about humans having sex with animals, the divide in consciousness. You are not a vegetarian; but you are opposed to abortion. You thus acknowledge the divide in consciousness: humanity can kill animals, yet the non-sentient human should never be.
It's just a personal preference thing. Like abortion. Should be a decision between the two parties involved and no one else, in my opinion.
There is a distinction between this and abortion; abortion is an action taking against an entity that can be considered pre-sentient, or not fully sentient. Most abortion debates revolve around this: to what extent can a fetus be considered a living being, close to or equal the life of a fully formed being? The changes made at this stage, however, are not simply rendered on the fetus, but on the fully formed life that it will grow into. Conduct by parents towards their child after it is a living entity is not a private decision; parents are not allowed to deny their children medical care for their child due to religious beliefs, if they are very neglectful parents, the child is taken away by child services, or if the neglect results in death, they face criminal charges. So, this is not a private question equivalent to abortion.

[Candycane]

Why we want or need to "cure" homosexuality? It's not something to even "cure". I'd love to find a "cure" for the common cold, but homosexuality? Seems like an open shut question. Why ?

[Pharon]

There is a distinction between this and abortion; abortion is an action taking against an entity that can be considered pre-sentient, or not fully sentient. Most abortion debates revolve around this: to what extent can a fetus be considered a living being, close to or equal the life of a fully formed being? The changes made at this stage, however, are not simply rendered on the fetus, but on the fully formed life that it will grow into. Conduct by parents towards their child after it is a living entity is not a private decision; parents are not allowed to deny their children medical care for their child due to religious beliefs, if they are very neglectful parents, the child is taken away by child services, or if the neglect results in death, they face criminal charges. So, this is not a private question equivalent to abortion.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. All I meant was that I didn't think the state should have a say in the matter, that it should be a choice for the parents alone -- the same privacy protection I would afford for an abortion decision. Other than that distinction, I did not intend to equivocate the two.

[vasili denisov]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. All I meant was that I didn't think the state should have a say in the matter, that it should be a choice for the parents alone -- the same privacy protection I would afford for an abortion decision. Other than that distinction, I did not intend to equivocate the two.
I don't think I was trying to imply they were equivalent. The point I was trying to get at was that there are conditions under which abortion is considered a private decision - that it is a woman's decision alone, that the fetus is not sentient to be a party to the decision. Genetic altering may be performed on a party that is non-sentient, but its consequences will affect a sentient party, the child that will emerge from the womb. In the case of genetic alterations that avert disease or deformations, such alterations can be defended in the best interests of the child, that all persons take actions in the interest of self-preservation. In the case of homosexuality, however, parents are here making a proxy choice for this future sentient entity without any consent from the party.

[Pharon]

And yet they do it for the same reason - for the best interests of the child.

But I still fail to understand your point - are you saying that a private decision regarding abortion is more "okay" because the fetus does not evolve into a sentient being? Because it's killed in the womb?

[vasili denisov]

And yet they do it for the same reason - for the best interests of the child.
I think there's a thick line between an inherited disease and homosexuality or skin color. In the case of an inherited disease, we can speak of an inherent malignancy and danger to the individual. With homosexuality or skin color, we are now speaking about the best interests of the child through integration with the greater community. This, however, is entirely arbitrary. For a society that has no issue with homosexuality, a so-called "gay gene" would be moot; a light skinned individual might fit in well among a society dominated by light-skinned but be an outcast in a place ranked by who has the darkest skin. You're in effect making changes not according to the needs of the individual, but to accord with the society you live in.

But I still fail to understand your point - are you saying that a private decision regarding abortion is more "okay" because the fetus does not evolve into a sentient being? Because it's killed in the womb?
I dislike the word "okay" because it suggests that one is good, one isn't. I'm saying that at the time of the decision of an abortion, the fetus is considered by many to be non-sentient. Those who are against abortion believe the fetus to be either sentient at the time, or that abortion is wrong due to the future possible sentience of the developed being.

In the case of genetic altering, the issue is not the impact on the non-sentient fetus, but on the future sentient being, that parents are making proxy decisions that this being perhaps would not have made. We can also argue that these decisions are of a far more irrevocable impact than those parents might make which don't constitute neglect. The decision to save money and send a child to a cheaper, lesser school is a proxy decision that may have a long-term impact, but arguably, an intelligent, resourceful child will be able to obtain learning through his own means. Genetic altering, on the other hand, would be irrevocable altering of the individual's being.

[Limp]

I had an abortion once... not because I didn't want a kid, its just the only legal way to kill a baby.

[Satan]

Can we cure fat chicks? Cause that'd be cool.

[smith42687]

No, population control is awesome.

[Aegis]

Destroying all Gap stores will fix the gayz.

[Pharon]

I dislike the word "okay" because it suggests that one is good, one isn't. I'm saying that at the time of the decision of an abortion, the fetus is considered by many to be non-sentient. Those who are against abortion believe the fetus to be either sentient at the time, or that abortion is wrong due to the future possible sentience of the developed being.
I don't see how you can distinguish between the two, though. In both cases (abortion and genetic-altering), you're dealing with the same pre-sentient being. In the former case, you're killing it. In the latter, you're genetically altering it. Let's not use the loaded term "okay" if you prefer, but the fact is that if an abortion is an acceptable option -- that is, killing the fetus -- I fail to see how genetically altering that same fetus is unacceptable, or less acceptable. That's all.

[Archetype]

I don't think we need to "pander" to any group. There are plenty of people that think abortion is wrong, and they just don't get abortions. I happen to think that this "procedure" is wrong, therefore I'm against it.

Wait, changing the genetic chance of being gay, that's bad, but killing the kid before he gets a chance, that's cool?

EDIT:

There is a distinction between this and abortion; abortion is an action taking against an entity that can be considered pre-sentient, or not fully sentient. Most abortion debates revolve around this: to what extent can a fetus be considered a living being, close to or equal the life of a fully formed being? The changes made at this stage, however, are not simply rendered on the fetus, but on the fully formed life that it will grow into.
But in the case of abortion, those changes do go on to affect the fully formed life that it will grow into. It cuts it off. Everything that child experiences, says, or does, is effectively rewritten with a period. The act of genetically changing the fetus, or the embryo, has more complicated changes, but ultimately the majority of the being's existence will remain. It's the difference between discrimination of characteristic, and discrimination of life; the latter contains the former.

Because I hate you Pharon.

[Mustard]

No.

Popeye said, "I am what I am, and that's all that I am." Homosexuals say the same. They are what they are, and they will be what they will be.

What's with the "need" to "cure" them anyway? Fucks sake... if that isn't the height of arrogance then I don't know what is. Eleven people should be ashamed of themselves.

[Archetype]

No.

Popeye said, "I am what I am, and that's all that I am." Homosexuals say the same. They are what they are, and they will be what they will be.

What's with the "need" to "cure" them anyway? Fucks sake... if that isn't the height of arrogance then I don't know what is. Eleven people should be ashamed of themselves.
You ever wonder what's in that spinach? Steroids. Popeye is a hypocrite.

[Mustard]

I feel so... betrayed.

[wonderllama]

Someone said earlier (sorry, previous page) that gays are accepted in society just as mentally retarded people and black people...or something like that.

Acceptance isn't the issue. It's not up to someone to "accept" a black person for the simple fact, they are not black because of a genetic defect. I think it's clear that a mentally retarded person is that way because of a genetic defect and therefore the need for society to accept them is greater because they are different BEYOND what is usual/normal/natural/standard.

You walk down the street and see a black guy...he's black. The End.
You walk down the street and see a drooling guy in a wheelchair and you think..."poor bugger", and maybe you open the door for him or whatever, he's accepted no question. Would he choose to be that way? Is he suffering hardship or having a tough time of it cos of his genetic defect? Yes he is.

So, what about a gay person.
I personally believe that the norm for sexuality is being heterosexual, it makes sense. The species needs to breed to survive and go on, but that does not mean I think that gay people are any different to me, they are just not hardwired to breed. I see them no differently to the black guy I mentioned earlier.

I walk down the street and see a gay person...he's gay. The End.

The ONE difference I see is that it is, and again, this is in my mind, it is CLEARLY either a defect (which has a negative connotation associated with it) or abnormality (simply meaning it is not the regular HETEROSEXUALITY).

This isn't a matter of discrimination, I just think it is extremely hard for someone to argue that genetically, the right way for people to go is to be homosexual. If it was correct, it's a species killer!

I know a few gay people, some are happy, some say that they would not choose to be gay if they had the choice. But there may be some black people who say the same thing, and probably every mentally retarded person who would choose NOT to be...

I don't think this poll is about changing an existing gay person to straight, but more about correcting a perceived shift from the norm which will affect the person in every way for the rest of their life, before they are born.

To claim that this thread or what I'm saying is bigoted I think is a bit rich.

[BeeRand]

I don't have the verbosity to spend much time in the philosophy section, so I'll make this one quick.

Under no circumstances. If you're religious, rationalize it by admitting that God created us all and in turn created homosexuals (so they must be a part of his plan). By attempting to circumvent his will, you're probably upsetting him.

If you're not religious, then I would argue that there exists a balance in nature in which we all play a part. Others have already mentioned terms such as "population control". And I guess that argument could be made. But on a more existential level, our existence and purpose in this world transcends the tangible. Meaning that reproduction, believe it or not, is not the meaning of life. I don't think that you can argue homosexuality is a defect based upon the lack of reproductive capability. Homosexual couples comprise a large percentage of adoptive parents. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who can not or choose not to have children of their own. To dilute our existence down to making babies essentially makes us rabbits.

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that everything happens for a reason and everything has meaning. Also, how is this not a discussion on eugenics, a universally despicable concept.

[Insomniac]

I don't understand your problem. There are many terrible diseases we all agree we should try to cure, which goes against the balance of nature just as much.

And there are certain behavioral conditions maladjusted to the modern world. Bezerkers were fantastic for 10th century Vikings, probably not so much for modern Scandinavians. So what's the matter with molding them in the womb instead of in schools, drugs, prisons?

With gays, well, let's go about it this way. Would it be wrong to identify transgendered people in the womb and alter men born as women early enough that they're born as actual women, as opposed to waiting for essentially cosmetic surgery later on? If so, why would it be wrong to "fix" their mental state instead of changing their chromosomes?

With gays, why not fix the biological attraction to the same sex, as I assume most people would be in favor of fixing biological attraction to prepubescence? You're not being discriminatory, you're fixing a problem. Then if some kid likes other boys, it's because he wants to, not because he has to. Free will.

Eugenics is only a universally despicable concept if you go about it by killing some, forcing sterilization on others, and making the rest breed. Leave people alone while they're alive and making alterations before they're even people, and who can complain?

If hermaphrodites, the transgendered, rapists, pedophiles, etc., could be cured of their genetic abnormalities, why not gays?

[vasili denisov]

I don't see how you can distinguish between the two, though. In both cases (abortion and genetic-altering), you're dealing with the same pre-sentient being. In the former case, you're killing it. In the latter, you're genetically altering it. Let's not use the loaded term "okay" if you prefer, but the fact is that if an abortion is an acceptable option -- that is, killing the fetus -- I fail to see how genetically altering that same fetus is unacceptable, or less acceptable. That's all.

But in the case of abortion, those changes do go on to affect the fully formed life that it will grow into. It cuts it off. Everything that child experiences, says, or does, is effectively rewritten with a period. The act of genetically changing the fetus, or the embryo, has more complicated changes, but ultimately the majority of the being's existence will remain. It's the difference between discrimination of characteristic, and discrimination of life; the latter contains the former.

I think I was lacking in clarity in my previous answer. I'll try and divide the argument against such genetic modification into two categories, those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice.

Pro-life:

This is a significantly easier argument. You believe in the fetus as having rights, or that the future sentient being the fetus will become should be taken into consideration, therefore taking the life of this fetus is an abrogation of these rights. Only measures which involve the security of that life, or which protect the fetus of that which is inherently harmful are allowed (such as genetic mending to avoid disease or deformity), anything else is an abrogation of the rights of the fetus.

Pro-choice:

Here, we are trying to prove why such genetic tampering is not a private matter like abortion. In the context of abortion, being pro-choice requires that the fetus be considered strictly and only as a fetus, not in the context of future life. In the context of a pro-choice perspective, if a woman who is raped has an abortion, she is terminating a fetus, not as a fully formed life that will one day develop. In some contexts, a fetus may be terminated in consideration of the life the fully formed life may lead, whether it suffer from severe illness or that the mother will be unable to provide for it; these, however, are the mother's considerations of what the future life will endure. This future life must remain a hypothesis, as the fetus cannot be considered in terms of this potential life, because then we are in the pro-life section.

The problem with using the pro-choice position as a basis for altering such a thing as a gay gene is that you're entire action is based on the life that this fully formed entity will have. It is in anticipation of developments later in the child's life, since sexual orientation is not an issue in childhood, whereas a mother who aborts because she feels she cannot provide for her child is concerned with the child's immediate needs, being able to provide food and shelter from the outset. So, if we decide that the pro-choice position gives us a basis for this action, we end up at a philosophical knot: abortion is a legal possibility because the future life is a vague, hypothetical possibility, yet this is to provide justification for an action taken entirely due to the late-term practical qualities, such as social integration and prejudice, of this future life.

[wonderllama]

The problem with that pro-choice position is that it makes an assumption that pro-choice is automatically the opposite of pro-life...which for me it is not.

Pro-choice for me isn't about "Oh my, my VISA bill is too big, I can't afford the baby, abortion time"...I don't think anyone who is pro-choice thinks of it like that. They think of it in terms of when faced with a situation whereby having the baby would be dangerous, medically problematic or whatever, that the option is there to terminate rather than to perpetuate the suffering or danger.

[Mustard]

If hermaphrodites, the transgendered, rapists, pedophiles, etc., could be cured of their genetic abnormalities, why not gays?
Did you seriously just equally compare criminal, destructive, and non-consensual behavior like rape and child molestation with homosexuality?

Congratulations. You're a fucking idiot.

[Insomniac]

Well I could compare scat to homosexuality. Would that be any more flattering?

The point is not moral equivalence. Don't get self-righteous about that. The point is that some people are born rapists or pedophiles, although most rape and child molestation is not committed by these people. These are sexual aberrations. What's your objection to removing the genetic aspect of these behaviors, other than shrill political correctness?

[Mustard]

You say that some people are born rapists or pedophiles... thats a bold claim. Do you know for a certain fact that certain people have a genetic pre-disposition to rape or pedophilia?

You know what, it doesn't even fucking matter. If all of it, even homosexuality, has concrete roots in human genetics; being pre-disposed to being a rapist, a pedo, an alcoholic, a homosexual... then I suppose we shouldn't question their genetics, instead we should question their judgment? So then are some people pre-disposed to being criminals as well? Oh, but maybe just white collar criminals, and not out-and-out child rapists or thieves.

Would you care to know what your argument and a sive have in common?

[Insomniac]

You say that some people are born rapists or pedophiles... thats a bold claim. Do you know for a certain fact that certain people have a genetic pre-disposition to rape or pedophilia?

You know what, it doesn't even fucking matter. If all of it, even homosexuality, has concrete roots in human genetics; being pre-disposed to being a rapist, a pedo, an alcoholic, a homosexual... then I suppose we shouldn't question their genetics, instead we should question their judgment? So then are some people pre-disposed to being criminals as well? Oh, but maybe just white collar criminals, and not out-and-out child rapists or thieves.

Would you care to know what your argument and a sive have in common?

We know that the brains of pedophiles function differently from that of other people, and they exist basically everywhere, too. I don't know why this is a problem for you. If people are born gay, obviously there's a lot of other fetishes that might have biological sources. Someone who rapes a girl because he's drunk or has the hots for her probably just committed rape. But a serial rapist almost certainly commits his crimes out of an insatiable desire for power and domination expressed by forcible sex. That's the programming that's a problem.

A person who is born with the wrong genes could grow up to be a serial killer if he's abused in a certain way, but probably won't be that dangerous otherwise. He may not be a fantastic person, but environmental factors have to combine with the substance it's working on release that ugliness inside him. If we could remove that predisposition to antisocial personality disorder, he might still grow up to kill someone, but not because of a mental disease. You see, we can't ever entirely control the environment a person is born into, but it may be within our power one day to control how the person is born.

Genetics are important. Environment is, too. And so is judgment, but the power of judgment depends on how strict a materialist you are, I think.

Alcoholism is another very good example I hadn't thought of. Some people are just drunks. Some alcoholics never drink. But for those who do, it's difficult if not impossible to stop, yeah? Why not take the genetic part out of it? If you could and didn't, wouldn't that be irresponsible for a person who almost certainly is going to grow up and experience alcohol?

Arch is right, as usual I'm not being entirely honest here, but you're not convincing me of anything.

[Archetype]

What possible use would pedophilia have? I mean, tumors have "caused" it, so there's obviously something there that's inactive, in at least some people who don't normally associate with it. Why oh why would this have developed? I can understand if homosexuality is caused by genetics, it would basically be a reverse, but pedophilia? I don't get it.

[freegood]

But in the case of abortion, those changes do go on to affect the fully formed life that it will grow into. It cuts it off. Everything that child experiences, says, or does, is effectively rewritten with a period. The act of genetically changing the fetus, or the embryo, has more complicated changes, but ultimately the majority of the being's existence will remain. It's the difference between discrimination of characteristic, and discrimination of life; the latter contains the former.


I would take a stricter view that the original life as it were is over. It'd be like taking a shell, gutting and pruning some of its innards, and putting the shell back together good as new. It's deliberately being made to be a different animal, so the original is dead.

So it does carry aspects of abortion. GM would be the next step in tailoring birth control. As the next step, there's a higher progression of risks.

I don't see how you can distinguish between the two, though. In both cases (abortion and genetic-altering), you're dealing with the same pre-sentient being. In the former case, you're killing it. In the latter, you're genetically altering it. Let's not use the loaded term "okay" if you prefer, but the fact is that if an abortion is an acceptable option -- that is, killing the fetus -- I fail to see how genetically altering that same fetus is unacceptable, or less acceptable. That's all.

I think gene altering has worse consequences, and if anything, it's patients serve as individual lab subjects.

For now at least, genetic altering would carry more risk for the mother than flat out aborting.

And let's consider the error rates for in vitro fertilization. Ten or so embryos are harvested. Around 3 are implanted, and one usually makes it. A consistent and hardcore pro-lifer would take that as more death versus around one death from abortion. To top it off, embryo tampering for GM is probably the safer route compared to wholesale manipulation with fetuses.

With gene tampering, results will always vary. Is it still considered abortion if the effects from tampering causes it? What if the frankencells causes damage to the mother?

But maybe that's a requirement for the ubermensch...the ability to deliver itself by tearing through the pregnant mother's abdomen.

[Mustard]

Arch is right, as usual I'm not being entirely honest here, but you're not convincing me of anything.
Brother, understand that I am not trying to convince you of jack and shit. Yet that is... continue reading.

On a side note, what are you, a fucking encyclopedia? Where do you come up with all of these unsubstantiated ideas? I would be fascinated if they were 100% accurate without exception, because I am certain that isn't the case.

Now, the only thing I am trying to do here, besides attempt to explain to the forum why equating rape and pedophilia with homosexuality is a fucking idiotic thing to do, is I'm trying to figure out where your guise of "trying to help the gays" is coming from along with where it fits into all of this. Is it control or what?

You want convincing? Ok, Let me hit you with some knowledge man... the gays, or at least by extension the two I've known personally that I have been comfortable enough to discuss a similar subject with who also speak for other gay people (apparently they have a hive mind OMG THEY NEED A CURE!!!) well guess what, they don't want a "cure". They don't consider themselves "diseased". They are people, like everybody else, who are attracted to the same sex. They may or may not like brocolli. They like candles and drive SUVs and live in houses made of wood and brick. Do you get it yet?

Seriously, get off the high horse. Your righteous cause for wanting to help them is falling on the deafest of ears.

[nothingman]

If you knew that your unborn male child was going to be a constant womanizer and that it would effect every relationship that he will ever have; i.e. divorce, broken homes, possible unwanted pregnancies, and std's, would you do anything to change him in the womb?

[Yelram]

I think I was lacking in clarity in my previous answer. I'll try and divide the argument against such genetic modification into two categories, those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice.

Pro-life:

This is a significantly easier argument. You believe in the fetus as having rights, or that the future sentient being the fetus will become should be taken into consideration, therefore taking the life of this fetus is an abrogation of these rights. Only measures which involve the security of that life, or which protect the fetus of that which is inherently harmful are allowed (such as genetic mending to avoid disease or deformity), anything else is an abrogation of the rights of the fetus.

Pro-choice:

Here, we are trying to prove why such genetic tampering is not a private matter like abortion. In the context of abortion, being pro-choice requires that the fetus be considered strictly and only as a fetus, not in the context of future life. In the context of a pro-choice perspective, if a woman who is raped has an abortion, she is terminating a fetus, not as a fully formed life that will one day develop. In some contexts, a fetus may be terminated in consideration of the life the fully formed life may lead, whether it suffer from severe illness or that the mother will be unable to provide for it; these, however, are the mother's considerations of what the future life will endure. This future life must remain a hypothesis, as the fetus cannot be considered in terms of this potential life, because then we are in the pro-life section.

The problem with using the pro-choice position as a basis for altering such a thing as a gay gene is that you're entire action is based on the life that this fully formed entity will have. It is in anticipation of developments later in the child's life, since sexual orientation is not an issue in childhood, whereas a mother who aborts because she feels she cannot provide for her child is concerned with the child's immediate needs, being able to provide food and shelter from the outset. So, if we decide that the pro-choice position gives us a basis for this action, we end up at a philosophical knot: abortion is a legal possibility because the future life is a vague, hypothetical possibility, yet this is to provide justification for an action taken entirely due to the late-term practical qualities, such as social integration and prejudice, of this future life.

You are like a fucking logic vacuum, I read your posts, and I think, wow, did you really need that many words? Here is why even considering your position negates rational logic. In your position (which I realize might not be your own) it is okay to ABORT the "gay gene" baby, but "fixing" the "gay gene" would be "altering the future individual"? I mean, what kind of ridiculous rationalizing is this? What if this was down syndrome? Or hermaphrodism? Would you still be the champion of "individuality"? I'd call that child abuse. If homosexuality is linked to genetics, it is a defect, plain and simple. The correct operation of the human reproductive system is to produce children. If your child cant do that, be it physically, or hormonally, they are not a complete human being in the natural sense, and you are giving them the ability later to have a family, and children, which most people would see as a positive effect. See, this question is what will force pro-life people to abort children, and pro-choice people, to argue against abortion, it just shows how relative any "absolute" position is. Rush Limbaugh actually brought this up several years ago, because some liberal group was trying to make it illegal to abort a baby on the grounds of a "gay gene". But for convenience, or gender, its okay...

[BeeRand]

Well I could compare scat to homosexuality. Would that be any more flattering?

The point is not moral equivalence. Don't get self-righteous about that. The point is that some people are born rapists or pedophiles, although most rape and child molestation is not committed by these people. These are sexual aberrations. What's your objection to removing the genetic aspect of these behaviors, other than shrill political correctness?

That's the flaw in you trying to compare the genetic link to criminal behavior and homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a sexual aberration. And I think that's the central thesis of this thread. Do you or do you not believe that homosexuality is a defect? Homosexuals don't see it as a defect whereas many child molesters openly admit they are sick and need help.

And that is the reason why this premise becomes all the more ridiculous. If the entire homosexual community (or vast majority) believe they are not afflicted by some sort of genetic defect, who are we to impose our own world view upon them? A bunch of elitist, close-minded jerks. The homosexual community is large enough to have a relevant voice.

[Yelram]

That's the flaw in you trying to compare the genetic link to criminal behavior and homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a sexual aberration. And I think that's the central thesis of this thread. Do you or do you not believe that homosexuality is a defect? Homosexuals don't see it as a defect whereas many child molesters openly admit they are sick and need help.

And that is the reason why this premise becomes all the more ridiculous. If the entire homosexual community (or vast majority) believe they are not afflicted by some sort of genetic defect, who are we to impose our own world view upon them? A bunch of elitist, close-minded jerks. The homosexual community is large enough to have a relevant voice.

So a genetic defect that people are comfortable with shouldnt be corrected? Because of the "political" consequences of such an action? You can keep repeating that homosexuality is NOT a sexual aberration as much as you want, it doesnt change the fact that MALES DONT HAVE VAGINAS, and WOMEN DONT HAVE PENIS'. I'm sure many homosexuals DO see it as a defect, i'm sure there are many suicides a year by homosexuals that dont want to be what they are. Actually, there are studies that show a 6 times greater rate of suicide among homosexuals. If suddenly, schizophrenia became a lobby, and got the ADA to take it off the list of disorders, and then started demanding rights for the people living in their heads, would you say, "well, being Schizophrenic isnt a disorder, its a different way of life". Quit being such a close minded, bigoted jerk, voices in your head deserve rights TOO.

[Willam]

Being extremely tall (over 7') isn't "normal" either. Should we go ahead and wipe out the NBA???

How about albinos, especially the black albinos? That's just not the way nature intended it. Shall we kill all of them as well?

Of course, with all the problems Stephen Hawking has, the world would certainly be a better place if he had just been aborted.

And once we wipe out all these terrible homosexually diseased people, who's next? The colorblind? Those people that are attracted to different races (heaven forbid)?

EDIT: Holy crap, how could I forget midgets??? Nature certainly didn't plan on those monstrosities!!!

[Archangel]

Khmer Rouge ftw.

[WigglingWii]

This is a stupid stupid stupid poll.

[Pharon]

You're not being discriminatory, you're fixing a problem.
I disagree. You're ABSOLUTELY being discriminatory. That concept is, however, quite different from bigotry. Anyone who has a preference for one thing over another is practicing discrimination. It's not the loaded term that most people think.

Eleven people should be ashamed of themselves.
This is a stupid stupid stupid poll.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that neither of you bothered to read all of the opposing opinion posts in this thread. Ignorance can be forgiven. Bigotry cannot. Correct the former lest you be accused of the latter.

[Limp]

Pharon, get the fuck off of your high horse.

[Limp]

And by high horse I mean my horse cock.

[Pharon]

Did you bite through your leash again and escape from OT?

[Limp]

neigh...

[BeeRand]

So a genetic defect that people are comfortable with shouldnt be corrected? Because of the "political" consequences of such an action? You can keep repeating that homosexuality is NOT a sexual aberration as much as you want, it doesnt change the fact that MALES DONT HAVE VAGINAS, and WOMEN DONT HAVE PENIS'. I'm sure many homosexuals DO see it as a defect, i'm sure there are many suicides a year by homosexuals that dont want to be what they are. Actually, there are studies that show a 6 times greater rate of suicide among homosexuals. If suddenly, schizophrenia became a lobby, and got the ADA to take it off the list of disorders, and then started demanding rights for the people living in their heads, would you say, "well, being Schizophrenic isnt a disorder, its a different way of life". Quit being such a close minded, bigoted jerk, voices in your head deserve rights TOO.

The suicide rate amongst homosexuals (as well as their self perception) probably has a lot more to do with the way in which they are treated then anything else. It has nothing to do with the argument regarding whether or not homosexuality is a genetic defect.

Schizophrenia is detrimental to the individual as well as society and therefore is not a relevant comparison to homosexuality. Mental illness which makes it impossible for the afflicted to live in society without supervision is not an appropriate analogy to homosexual behavior. Your posts are riddled with fallacy.

[taters]

I wasnt aware it was a disease.


I am wondering, would it be kosher to make a thread asking "If it were possible to cure (fill in the blank-adherence to religion, whiteness, tallness, shortness, blackness, lefthandedness etc) should we?"

[vasili denisov]

You are like a fucking logic vacuum, I read your posts, and I think, wow, did you really need that many words? Here is why even considering your position negates rational logic. In your position (which I realize might not be your own) it is okay to ABORT the "gay gene" baby, but "fixing" the "gay gene" would be "altering the future individual"?
No, I'm arguing that using the premise that abortion as a private decision is a poor basis for the privacy of the decision to genetically alter a child.

I mean, what kind of ridiculous rationalizing is this? What if this was down syndrome? Or hermaphrodism? Would you still be the champion of "individuality"? I'd call that child abuse. If homosexuality is linked to genetics, it is a defect, plain and simple. The correct operation of the human reproductive system is to produce children. If your child cant do that, be it physically, or hormonally, they are not a complete human being in the natural sense, and you are giving them the ability later to have a family, and children, which most people would see as a positive effect.
Taking this argument to a logical end, any genes which might cause a psychological disinclination to have children among heterosexuals can be considered a defect. You're also employing terms loosely here. There are traits, which are simply the result of sets of genes switched one way or another, and results that are the aftereffect of genetic damage or defects, such as low immunodeficiency or mental retardation.

See, this question is what will force pro-life people to abort children, and pro-choice people, to argue against abortion, it just shows how relative any "absolute" position is. Rush Limbaugh actually brought this up several years ago, because some liberal group was trying to make it illegal to abort a baby on the grounds of a "gay gene". But for convenience, or gender, its okay...
I'm not entirely sure where you get this point that it will lead to result to this inconsistency. I've argued there is a difference between state intervention in genetic manipulation, which would correct genes that inherently cause harm, such as those to lead to sickle cell disorder. On the other hand, personal intervention for cosmetic arbitrary reason should be barred. You can avoid the employment of cosmetic abortion, abortion of children of arbitrary cosmetic traits, by barring the disclosure of a child's gene information to the parents.

[Septic_Porpoise]

those poor homosexuals. science says what they do is wrong. religion says what they do is wrong. they are forced to turn to the media and pop culture to find acceptance.

and before anyone starts the "but blahblahblah percentage of animals display homosexual behavior!" there have also been documented cases of animal necrophilia and rape.

[Insomniac]

Being extremely tall (over 7') isn't "normal" either. Should we go ahead and wipe out the NBA???

How about albinos, especially the black albinos? That's just not the way nature intended it. Shall we kill all of them as well?

Of course, with all the problems Stephen Hawking has, the world would certainly be a better place if he had just been aborted.

And once we wipe out all these terrible homosexually diseased people, who's next? The colorblind? Those people that are attracted to different races (heaven forbid)?

EDIT: Holy crap, how could I forget midgets??? Nature certainly didn't plan on those monstrosities!!!

You make excellent points, although I bet Stephen Hawking wouldn't mind it if he could have lived his entire life without cerebral palsy and albinos would kind of enjoy going out in the sun.

Remember, we're not talking about preemptive abortions; we're talking about alterations while in the womb. If you could give Hawking a pill now to be able to stand and talk, I'm sure he'd take it, so why not give fetuses the pill beforehand?

[Insomniac]

That's the flaw in you trying to compare the genetic link to criminal behavior and homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a sexual aberration. And I think that's the central thesis of this thread. Do you or do you not believe that homosexuality is a defect? Homosexuals don't see it as a defect whereas many child molesters openly admit they are sick and need help.

And that is the reason why this premise becomes all the more ridiculous. If the entire homosexual community (or vast majority) believe they are not afflicted by some sort of genetic defect, who are we to impose our own world view upon them? A bunch of elitist, close-minded jerks. The homosexual community is large enough to have a relevant voice.

I think it's fairly obvious homosexuality is a sexual aberration. If you biologically can't be attracted to the opposite sex, that's sort of a problem for you, like being infertile. And if we could make sure a fetus was fertile, would that not be a good thing for it? Later, as an adult, the person could have a procedure to render themselves infertile, if they liked. I go back to the transgendered comparison. If it would be okay to alter the sex of a transgendered person in the womb (as many do later in life), why wouldn't it be okay to align their mental gender to the body, instead?

And again, there will still be gay people in a world without a gay gene, and a gay community. But it would be made of people who wanted to fuck the same gender, and weren't compelled to. This is very pro-choice. We want people to have more choice in their sexual desire.

This is why I argue it's not discriminatory. We're not at all discouraging the behavior except for obviously unhealthy stuff like unprotected sex with multiple partners, that already applies to everyone anyway. But we're eradicating the biological defect in a compassionate way.

[Archetype]

I think it's fairly obvious homosexuality is a sexual aberration. If you biologically can't be attracted to the opposite sex, that's sort of a problem for you, like being infertile. And if we could make sure a fetus was fertile, would that not be a good thing for it? Later, as an adult, the person could have a procedure to render themselves infertile, if they liked.

There will still be gay people in a world without a gay gene, and a gay community. But it would be made of people who wanted to fuck the same gender, and weren't compelled to. This is very pro-choice. We want people to have more choice in their sexual desire.
But then does that mean you'd propose something similar for the opposite sex attraction? If gay is genetically determined, then straight would be too, and if you remove one disposition, you drastically reduce the other so that it just becomes a fringe thing.

[UNC]

For hundreds of years Gays have been laughed at and oppressed. Who are we to come along and change that now?

[wonderllama]

I think a lot of the passion in this thread is coming from people thinking that the suggestion is to alter the sexual orientation of people they know, see or are...which is quite different to what is being asked.

Which actually makes William's post 'NOT' excellent points.

If someone is going to be tall when they get older, there's no negative to that other than perhaps they can't get long enough pants. Albino? Well, I'm sure they'd love to not squint all day and stand in the Sun, same with Stephen Hawking...

I don't think anyone is talking about aborting fetuses, they're talking about 'correcting' or 'adjusting' the gene which causes the resultant issue. Be if albinism, homosexuality or motor neuron disease.

[Septic_Porpoise]

really all that this would do would give those poor homosexuals the ability to choose what they want to be, instead of having to do it because of genetics. you people arguing against it are assholes for wanting to keep our brothers and sisters enslaved by their dna.

[Insomniac]

But then does that mean you'd propose something similar for the opposite sex attraction? If gay is genetically determined, then straight would be too, and if you remove one disposition, you drastically reduce the other so that it just becomes a fringe thing.

I'm not convinced that it is, but if there was a "homophobic gene" that prevented a person from ever being attracted to the opposite sex, sure, I'd be cool with removing that disposition.

[Archetype]

those poor homosexuals. science says what they do is wrong. religion says what they do is wrong. they are forced to turn to the media and pop culture to find acceptance.
No it doesn't.

[UNC]

Yes. Science says it is natural for males to mate.

[Archetype]

Bonobos regularly perform male to male sexual acts and it's a necessary function of their "society."

[Septic_Porpoise]

No it doesn't.

how many offspring per lifetime do homosexuals birth again? what is the purpose of sex in regards to animals?

[UNC]

And science says that males mating is a necessary function of human society

[Insomniac]

how many offspring per lifetime do homosexuals birth again? what is the purpose of sex in regards to animals?

http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=510263&postcount=5

[UNC]

Science also backs eating ones young from time to time and eating poop.

Humans are evolving backwards, it seems.

[Archetype]

Evolution isn't linear, it's heterogeneous. Where the hell is mototwo when you need him?

[UNC]

Being smart is hard.

[Septic_Porpoise]

i understand that there are animals that engage in homosexual activity regularly, but that doesn't mean anything to be honest. there are tribes of humans that wear bee mitts to become men and birds that have engaged in acts of gay necrophilia (that was an awesome vid btw). simply because behavior has been observed and it has attained a degree of acceptance and normality doesn't mean it is productive or beneficial to the animals.

so giraffes lick each other's balls and have gay orgies, bonobos dick fight and human males like to make young boys suck them off until they're older in certain regions. these are not scientific reasons why gay sex is acceptable.

[Pox]

There is also no scientific reason why it is "wrong," which is your lame argument.

[Archetype]

I never said "bonobos have gay sex, therefore it's acceptable." I said it's a part of their societal function, ie. it does serve a positive purpose. While the bonobos are not the absolute picture of a peaceful egalitarian society, the act of male-male sexual activity is a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation. It reduces violence and violent behavior, outside of hunting, which is apparently often quite brutal. But again, the male-male/female-female bonding allows for a very common sharing of the meat.

(Oddly enough, female-female sexual activity actually increases female agression, in an indirect way, since it allows females to group and "protect" themselves from the males, there's a case where a group of females descended upon a male that had provoked violence, and beat him senseless for about 30 minutes, until they left and the male was nowhere to be seen save for his hair, never to be seen again.)

[Septic_Porpoise]

There is also no scientific reason why it is "wrong," which is your lame argument.

ah. the ol' "durdurdur" argumentative method. very appropriate.

I never said "bonobos have gay sex, therefore it's acceptable." I said it's a part of their societal function, ie. it does serve a positive purpose. While the bonobos are not the absolute picture of a peaceful egalitarian society, the act of male-male sexual activity is a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation. It reduces violence and violent behavior, outside of hunting, which is apparently often quite brutal. But again, the male-male/female-female bonding allows for a very common sharing of the meat.

(Oddly enough, female-female sexual activity actually increases female agression, in an indirect way, since it allows females to group and "protect" themselves from the males, there's a case where a group of females descended upon a male that had provoked violence, and beat him senseless for about 30 minutes, until they left and the male was nowhere to be seen save for his hair, never to be seen again.)

whereas i can agree with you on that it may have a positive purpose, i wouldn't go so far as to say it is obviously the most effective means. now, i have no idea about how a bonobobobob is wired or it's genetic predisposition, but just because this is how the species is currently working doesn't mean it is the best way. there may have been a better working alternative than ball licking, but the non-ball lickers may have died off due to starvation or some other fluke. or maybe ball-licking really is the way to go and mankind will soon be doing it. evolution isn't an a to b path, and they may be in the middle of a genetic pot hole.

to sum up that non-sense, something existing isn't proof that it is good or efficient. the fact that their population has been drastically reduced by mostly non-ball licking species could also be a sign that they're not anything to set a standard by.

[Archetype]

ah. the ol' "durdurdur" argumentative method. very appropriate.



whereas i can agree with you on that it may have a positive purpose, i wouldn't go so far as to say it is obviously the most effective means. now, i have no idea about how a bonobobobob is wired or it's genetic predisposition, but just because this is how the species is currently working doesn't mean it is the best way. there may have been a better working alternative than ball licking, but the non-ball lickers may have died off due to starvation or some other fluke. or maybe ball-licking really is the way to go and mankind will soon be doing it. evolution isn't an a to b path, and they may be in the middle of a genetic pot hole.

to sum up that non-sense, something existing isn't proof that it is good or efficient.

Yeah, it is.

the fact that their population has been drastically reduced by mostly non-ball licking species could also be a sign that they're not anything to set a standard by.
Their drastically reduced numbers are because of poachers and recent wars in the area, not because of sexual activity, so that point isn't valid.

[vasili denisov]

those poor homosexuals. science says what they do is wrong. religion says what they do is wrong. they are forced to turn to the media and pop culture to find acceptance.

A religion can have a code which prohibits certain activities thereby condemning them as wrong. Science can't mandate any behaviour as right or wrong. Various religions have advocated at various times, massacres, genital mutilation, and the persecution of scientists and philosophers, so it might be asked, why should anyone follow their creeds blindly here?
I think a lot of the passion in this thread is coming from people thinking that the suggestion is to alter the sexual orientation of people they know, see or are...which is quite different to what is being asked.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that arguments are now centering on changing existing individuals. I think, the distinction, as before, is between those genes that are inherently harmful, such as those that might cause a collapse in immunodeficiency or a damaged spine, and those that carry no inherent harm, such as eye color, height, and homosexuality. I've yet to seen it proved in this thread that homosexuality is somehow inherently harmful, that it causes damage to the inheritor's life or those in contact with the inheritor.
I think it's fairly obvious homosexuality is a sexual aberration. If you biologically can't be attracted to the opposite sex, that's sort of a problem for you, like being infertile. And if we could make sure a fetus was fertile, would that not be a good thing for it?

You're speaking of two different things with regard to fertility and sexual orientation. Infertility is linked to physical dysfunction in the reproductive systems. Treating sexual orientation in this context would be equivalent to treating shyness.

You also emphasize reproduction as a primary aspect of human life; I question whether it's necessary that every person in a society be able to reproduce. There is more than sufficient population on the planet, we in fact, dominate the planet, so the possibility of extinction is not a problem. In terms of traits we laud in others, arguably, we now have contempt for those who reproduce a great deal. There is an association between someone who has eight kids with the Jerry Springer show. Were we still a non-technological agrarian society, having many children would be of great importance to us.

Now, our emphasis tends to be on long term organization and planning, so we laud those who are able to effect great works in that area. Isaac Newton, who was either chronically shy, devoted to his work, or functionally autistic, had no kids; he certainly brought greater benefit to our world than the octomom. Similarly, a young soldier who through some brave action helped halt some fascist killing machine but ended up dead without leaving behind children, is given more monuments than the matron of a hillbilly brood.

[wonderllama]

I don't know where you're getting the idea that arguments are now centering on changing existing individuals. I think, the distinction, as before, is between those genes that are inherently harmful, such as those that might cause a collapse in immunodeficiency or a damaged spine, and those that carry no inherent harm, such as eye color, height, and homosexuality. I've yet to seen it proved in this thread that homosexuality is somehow inherently harmful, that it causes damage to the inheritor's life or those in contact with the inheritor.



Oh I agree, I don't think anyone is out to prove that it IS harmful or causes damage because I don't believe it does.

What I am suggesting in my posts is that homosexuality is probably a result of a defective gene, given that when it comes to sexuality, the basic function is to breed...and as such, if the potential to correct or alter that gene arose, it could be selected.

[Pharon]

I've yet to seen it proved in this thread that homosexuality is somehow inherently harmful, that it causes damage to the inheritor's life or those in contact with the inheritor.
What about this?

In an analysis of 25 past studies on sexual orientation and mental health, UK researchers found that across the studies, gay, lesbian and bisexual adults were at least 50% more likely than heterosexuals to have a history of depression or an anxiety disorder.

They also have similarly elevated risk of alcohol problems or other forms of substance abuse, and were more than twice as likely as heterosexuals to have attempted suicide at some point in their lives.

The findings, published in the journal BMC Psychiatry, strengthen evidence from smaller studies that gay, lesbian and bisexual people have a relatively higher rate of mental health problems.

http://www.health24.com/news/Depression/1-903,47941.asp
Granted, homosexuality by itself is not a mental health disorder, but if it leads to an increased risk of these disorders, isn't it -- in effect -- the same thing?

I mean, if there was a mutated gene that had nothing to do with homosexuality at all but led to these same disorders, you would classify it the way you would mental retardation, cerebral palsy, or any other number of things that WOULD be okay to alter genetically in a pre-sentient fetus, in your opinion. Unless I'm missing something.

So what's the difference?

[Septic_Porpoise]

Yeah, it is.

something existing is not proof that it is good or efficient. plenty of passable things exist that could easily be improved upon, and which are honestly quite bad at what they do.


Their drastically reduced numbers are because of poachers and recent wars in the area, not because of sexual activity, so that point isn't valid.

i don't see why not. good and desirable traits make a species survive and thrive. if something is getting killed off by another species to a point where it's entire population is in jeopardy, then obviously it isn't working properly. if ball-licking was that beneficial, then it would somehow give animals an evolutionary edge and make man less likely to kill them off. maybe NOT licking balls would increase their population by making man not as likely to kill them for being gay.

A religion can have a code which prohibits certain activities thereby condemning them as wrong. Science can't mandate any behaviour as right or wrong. Various religions have advocated at various times, massacres, genital mutilation, and the persecution of scientists and philosophers, so it might be asked, why should anyone follow their creeds blindly here?

various religions have also advocated helping the poor and needy, and creating a good and workable society. but no one ever mentions that. religion is always the bad guy.

and my ass science can't mandate an action as right or wrong. if something is counter productive to a species survival, it is a bad trait. survival of the fittest is a cruel and honest perspective. if something doesn't work, then what does work will surpass it and kill off the things that don't. and those things will then be killed off by something better when it comes along.

homosexuality is basically a bad trait, because it is counter productive to a species survival. what beneficial role does men licking balls have for mankind? to be honest, it has a very negative role because of the widespread problems it causes. if instead of licking balls it caused men to have a higher attraction to fat and ugly chicks and be able to put up with annoying bitches, then THAT would be a beneficial effect. all licking balls is is a waste of sperm for the entire species.

and yes, science is also involved in looking at species that failed and gathering any information about them. but guess what? they're failed species. they had bad traits and lost at the game of life.

[Phil Theehor]

What about this?


Granted, homosexuality by itself is not a mental health disorder, but if it leads to an increased risk of these disorders, isn't it -- in effect -- the same thing?

I mean, if there was a mutated gene that had nothing to do with homosexuality at all but led to these same disorders, you would classify it the way you would mental retardation, cerebral palsy, or any other number of things that WOULD be okay to alter genetically in a pre-sentient fetus, in your opinion. Unless I'm missing something.

So what's the difference?

Might you have your causes backwards? I don't know, but it seems as though the traumas of growing up gay (the doubts, lack of acceptance, et al, not merely being gay by itself) could lead to anxiety and depression. I don't think we know enough to surmise that they come in the same genetic bundle.

[vasili denisov]

What about this?


Granted, homosexuality by itself is not a mental health disorder, but if it leads to an increased risk of these disorders, isn't it -- in effect -- the same thing?
Well, first you may have correlation here, you don't have causality. It's also unclear whether gay men and women are suffering from greater depression because of how society treats them then the gene itself. If it's society's treatment, I don't see why the burden falls on gay men and women change. If irish, blacks, or italians faced prejudice in the past, it's not their duty to have mixed-race children that will be less "ethnic", but on society to reform itself.

Even if we have depression accompanying homosexuality, that's not the same as the genes I think the state should have license to alter. These would be genes inherently harmful. A collapsed immunodeficiency system, in and of itself, is a liability. We can't speak of homosexuality in the same terms. There are possible correlations between high intelligence and depression; high intelligence is universally regarded as a coveted trait. That it might be accompanied by depression hasn't incited anyone to propose genetic fixes to lower it.

I mean, if there was a mutated gene that had nothing to do with homosexuality at all but led to these same disorders, you would classify it the way you would mental retardation, cerebral palsy, or any other number of things that WOULD be okay to alter genetically in a pre-sentient fetus, in your opinion. Unless I'm missing something.

So what's the difference?
I think, again, the distinction is a very, very thick line. The first class consists of genetic defects or genes that lead to inherently harmful physical characteristics. There's none of this inherent harm in homosexuality. The liabilities cited that could be associated with homosexuality arguably also correlate with high intelligence or an artistic temperament.

[Pharon]

Might you have your causes backwards? I don't know, but it seems as though the traumas of growing up gay (the doubts, lack of acceptance, et al, not merely being gay by itself) could lead to anxiety and depression. I don't think we know enough to surmise that they come in the same genetic bundle.
How is what I said being backwards? All I meant was that there is a correlation -- the same as what you just mentioned.

[Septic_Porpoise]

Might you have your causes backwards? I don't know, but it seems as though the traumas of growing up gay (the doubts, lack of acceptance, et al, not merely being gay by itself) could lead to anxiety and depression. I don't think we know enough to surmise that they come in the same genetic bundle.

why is it okay for what if's to be given in defense of the gay, but it is not acceptable to attack them with them?

[Pharon]

Well, first you may have correlation here, you don't have causality. It's also unclear whether gay men and women are suffering from greater depression because of how society treats them then the gene itself. If it's society's treatment, I don't see why the burden falls on gay men and women change. If irish, blacks, or italians faced prejudice in the past, it's not their duty to have mixed-race children that will be less "ethnic", but on society to reform itself.
Yes, I see your point, and I didn't mean to imply there was causality -- simply that there was a link (correlation, if you will) to a potential greater risk.

And while it's noble of you to suggest society change instead, my point is that it doesn't matter if the risk is inherent or external -- only that the risk is greater. And if you have the choice to 100% safely eliminate that risk in your own offspring before they are born, I see no problem with that.

[vasili denisov]

various religions have also advocated helping the poor and needy, and creating a good and workable society. but no one ever mentions that. religion is always the bad guy.
Religions have done good; however, you argued that religious creeds are infalliable guides, and they're nothing of the kind.

and my ass science can't mandate an action as right or wrong. if something is counter productive to a species survival, it is a bad trait. survival of the fittest is a cruel and honest perspective. if something doesn't work, then what does work will surpass it and kill off the things that don't. and those things will then be killed off by something better when it comes along.
This is utterly and completely wrong. There is no such thing as a bad trait; there are adaptations, suited to a particular context, will prolong survival and allow for perpetuation of that trait. That does not imply that one trait is better than another. We value vision and intelligence. Yet there are animals who have developed vision and whose eyes have ceased to function because they inhabit dark places where such vision is pointless. Our intelligence has allowed us to dominate the planet, yet the one being which shares our space and may outlast us is non-sentient bacteria.

That the perpetuation of a trait necessarily implies that it is a "good" trait is from Spencerism, Herbert Spencer's survival of the fittest doctrine which distorted Darwin's ideas, and has long been repudiated.

[Phil Theehor]

Oh, to be young and retarded...

homosexuality is basically a bad trait, because it is counter productive to a species survival. what beneficial role does men licking balls have for mankind? to be honest, it has a very negative role because of the widespread problems it causes. if instead of licking balls it caused men to have a higher attraction to fat and ugly chicks and be able to put up with annoying bitches, then THAT would be a beneficial effect. all licking balls is is a waste of sperm for the entire species.

Kid, none of us know why you lick balls. Perhaps you like the taste. Not everything we do helps ensure our survival or the propagation the species. The average member here probably averages two hours per day of masturbation and video games-- neither of which will help you pass on your DNA.

And making the argument that science (nature, actually, is probably what you mean) hates homos is silly. Let me ask you this: could an evolutionary trend towards more homos actually be protecting the planet? The human species has already achieved a population density that necessitates genetic engineering in farming. There are so many of us that if all farming was organic, we wouldn't have enough food. Couldn't a big ‘ol wave of fabulous actually be protecting our species from starvation?

Look, I don't think that's actually the case. But we have reached the point where eating, fighting, fucking and staying out of the rain aren’t the only useful abilities. So, to say that because they do not breed, they are wrong by nature is silly.

[Phil Theehor]

How is what I said being backwards? All I meant was that there is a correlation -- the same as what you just mentioned.

Gotcha. I misread you. Thought you were implying that gay gene = emo gene. My bad.

[Septic_Porpoise]

Religions have done good; however, you argued that religious creeds are infalliable guides, and they're nothing of the kind.

show me where i said that religious creeds are infalliable and i'll bite my tongue. but i didn't, so i'll keep typing up nonsense.

This is utterly and completely wrong. There is no such thing as a bad trait; there are adaptations, suited to a particular context, will prolong survival and allow for perpetuation of that trait. That does not imply that one trait is better than another. We value vision and intelligence. Yet there are animals who have developed vision and whose eyes have ceased to function because they inhabit dark places where such vision is pointless. Our intelligence has allowed us to dominate the planet, yet the one being which shares our space and may outlast us is non-sentient bacteria.

That the perpetuation of a trait necessarily implies that it is a "good" trait is from Spencerism, Herbert Spencer's survival of the fittest doctrine which distorted Darwin's ideas, and has long been repudiated.

my bad. i guess something being shitty and dying off is just as good a species that survives.



Oh, to be young and retarded...



Kid, none of us know why you lick balls. Perhaps you like the taste. Not everything we do helps ensure our survival or the propagation the species. The average member here probably averages two hours per day of masturbation and video games-- neither of which will help you pass on your DNA.

And making the argument that science (nature, actually, is probably what you mean) hates homos is silly. Let me ask you this: could an evolutionary trend towards more homos actually be protecting the planet? The human species has already achieved a population density that necessitates genetic engineering in farming. There are so many of us that if all farming was organic, we wouldn't have enough food. Couldn't a big ‘ol wave of fabulous actually be protecting our species from starvation?

Look, I don't think that's actually the case. But we have reached the point where eating, fighting, fucking and staying out of the rain aren’t the only useful abilities. So, to say that because they do not breed, they are wrong by nature is silly.


i actually know guys that have gotten laid due to video games, and basically the same with causes related to masturbation. so yes, they have in fact helped men spread their dna. are they the most desired traits to have to propagate a species? not even close. but they do pan out sometimes.

species don't care about the planet. they care about their survival. ecosystems are balanced around the lives and deaths of the creatures involved, but that doesn't have anything to do with caring. the closest you could say that they get to caring would be that they are balanced. things work, they thrive.

but nothing has ever existed that has the environmental impact of man. we're juggernauts. if a pack of hyenas or herd of buffalo reached the size of man, this planet would be wrecked. they won't, because they don't have the capacity to overcome obstacles like man does. animals are also mostly limited by their habitat's borders, which man is not. man by nature has no borders, and so the possibility of space exploration is not out of the question.

and yeah, i guess that i did say that science hates gays, which is inaccurate. it just doesn't like them really. hate is a strong word.

[Insomniac]

You're speaking of two different things with regard to fertility and sexual orientation. Infertility is linked to physical dysfunction in the reproductive systems. Treating sexual orientation in this context would be equivalent to treating shyness.

You also emphasize reproduction as a primary aspect of human life; I question whether it's necessary that every person in a society be able to reproduce. There is more than sufficient population on the planet, we in fact, dominate the planet, so the possibility of extinction is not a problem. In terms of traits we laud in others, arguably, we now have contempt for those who reproduce a great deal. There is an association between someone who has eight kids with the Jerry Springer show. Were we still a non-technological agrarian society, having many children would be of great importance to us.

Now, our emphasis tends to be on long term organization and planning, so we laud those who are able to effect great works in that area. Isaac Newton, who was either chronically shy, devoted to his work, or functionally autistic, had no kids; he certainly brought greater benefit to our world than the octomom. Similarly, a young soldier who through some brave action helped halt some fascist killing machine but ended up dead without leaving behind children, is given more monuments than the matron of a hillbilly brood.

I'll agree with this. Fertility isn't the most important thing in life. Isaac Newton gave us ideas despite not having children. Maybe if he'd had kids running around, he would have been distracted from more heavenly things. In fact, Nikolai Tesla claimed he himself was able to be so inventive because he was completely celibate. But I think it's important that he chose to be celibate rather than being born infertile.

Autism, Asperger's, because Stephen Hawking is such a good example, cerebral palsy. This may force a person to concentrate on ideas that benefit humanity. Out of those weakenesses, the species can benefit. And in a world that was truly overpopulated, perhaps it would be in the best interests of the state to randomly choose a certain percentage of the population and gayify them. I'm not opposed to that on a societal level. But you would definitely admit if they did this, it would be quite a limitation to people and intentionally crippling people with things like autism in the hopes they're produce something worthwhile would be extremely unethical. But if we can identify and prevent it, then the difference is about the same as pushing someone over of a cliff and refusing to take the hand of someone holding on.

To make it clear, it's my opinion (not a fact, I'm not a scientist) from looking at things like the Kinsey report and more so from historical cultures, most people are born neither straight nor gay, but sexual and the life forced on them and the choices they make shape the direction of that sexuality. It doesn't make orientation a conscious choice ("Today I'm gonna be a furry!"), but if you're genetically limited, perhaps we ought to remove that limitation unless it's inherently dangerous or whatever. The capacity to be afraid of things like snakes is healthy, but if we could nip phobias and obsessive compulsions in the biological bud, that would be a good thing for the individuals.

[freegood]

The argument of Stephen Hawking with legs seems hindsight-ish to me. Stephen Hawking would be one of the inferior stock. He'd never exist far enough to prove his genius.

Heck, if you eliminated alcoholism, neuroticism and depression, we'd have 1/10th of the best writers left.

Yes, I see your point, and I didn't mean to imply there was causality -- simply that there was a link (correlation, if you will) to a potential greater risk.


What about this?


Granted, homosexuality by itself is not a mental health disorder, but if it leads to an increased risk of these disorders, isn't it -- in effect -- the same thing?

I mean, if there was a mutated gene that had nothing to do with homosexuality at all but led to these same disorders, you would classify it the way you would mental retardation, cerebral palsy, or any other number of things that WOULD be okay to alter genetically in a pre-sentient fetus, in your opinion. Unless I'm missing something.

So what's the difference?

The article you provided states homosexuals face overt and subtle discrimination from even liberal societies. The likely link and cause is cultural homophobia.

So the defect is culturally derived and not physically derived like the other examples you provided. Simply put, you place a straight guy, gay man, and a cripple in a desert island, all with similar survival experience, most likely the cripple will be the first to bite it. Heck, in this circumstance it would suck harder for the straight dude.


being clever with the puns

[Yelram]

A religion can have a code which prohibits certain activities thereby condemning them as wrong. Science can't mandate any behaviour as right or wrong. Various religions have advocated at various times, massacres, genital mutilation, and the persecution of scientists and philosophers, so it might be asked, why should anyone follow their creeds blindly here?


You're speaking of two different things with regard to fertility and sexual orientation. Infertility is linked to physical dysfunction in the reproductive systems. Treating sexual orientation in this context would be equivalent to treating shyness.

You also emphasize reproduction as a primary aspect of human life; I question whether it's necessary that every person in a society be able to reproduce. There is more than sufficient population on the planet, we in fact, dominate the planet, so the possibility of extinction is not a problem. In terms of traits we laud in others, arguably, we now have contempt for those who reproduce a great deal. There is an association between someone who has eight kids with the Jerry Springer show. Were we still a non-technological agrarian society, having many children would be of great importance to us.

Now, our emphasis tends to be on long term organization and planning, so we laud those who are able to effect great works in that area. Isaac Newton, who was either chronically shy, devoted to his work, or functionally autistic, had no kids; he certainly brought greater benefit to our world than the octomom. Similarly, a young soldier who through some brave action helped halt some fascist killing machine but ended up dead without leaving behind children, is given more monuments than the matron of a hillbilly brood.

Come on now, that is hardly relevant . Science has laws, not morals. Males, working with females, and having sexual relations, produces offspring. This is how the system is supposed to work. Is it possible for us as humans to stimulate our organs with improper stimulus? Of course. Would a genetic predisposition to do so endanger ones ability to correctly reproduce? yes. So what did all your silly "People who dont reproduce can be better for society" argument amount to?

[freegood]

~6.8 billion people and counting....

[vasili denisov]

my bad. i guess something being shitty and dying off is just as good a species that survives.

You've missed the point. The traits that keep a species from dying off are not constant. A space rock slams into the earth or the nukes are let fly, we're dust and bones, with survivors dying from starvation or radiation poisoning. It'll be the insects and virii that will survive us. Our incredible amazing brains that have helped us rule the planet will be paltry gifts compared to their simplicity, microscopic size and infinitessimal energy demands. Those will be the winning traits then.

Autism, Asperger's, because Stephen Hawking is such a good example, cerebral palsy. This may force a person to concentrate on ideas that benefit humanity. Out of those weakenesses, the species can benefit. And in a world that was truly overpopulated, perhaps it would be in the best interests of the state to randomly choose a certain percentage of the population and gayify them.
Let me just clarify: I didn't intend to imply that Newton was necessarily autistic. He was socially inept, intensely focused on his work, and an excellent scientist. I don't like the idea that everyone who does not lead a "normal" life necessarily suffers from a pathology.

To make it clear, it's my opinion (not a fact, I'm not a scientist) from looking at things like the Kinsey report and more so from historical cultures, most people are born neither straight nor gay, but sexual and the life forced on them and the choices they make shape the direction of that sexuality. It doesn't make orientation a conscious choice ("Today I'm gonna be a furry!"), but if you're genetically limited, perhaps we ought to remove that limitation unless it's inherently dangerous or whatever. The capacity to be afraid of things like snakes is healthy, but if we could nip phobias and obsessive compulsions in the biological bud, that would be a good thing for the individuals.
I think there are two aspects to the issue, that of society and that of the individual. I don't think there are any benefits to society of this change. The state does not pay out huge sums to support gays and lesbians, as it does the chronically ill. Homosexuality stays at a steady percentage of the population over time; there is no risk of extinction because of this. As for the individual, I'm not sure what benefit they receive from the change. The liabilities so far cited seem more to do with society's attitudes than anything inherent in the trait itself.

I sometimes try and move the debate to eye color, because I think it's equally arbitrary with no inherent benefit to the inheritor whatever the color, without inciting the passionate differences that homosexuality does. I don't believe that trait should be altered either, only because I take a very conservative attitude on any such alterations due to the law of unintended consequences.

[Septic_Porpoise]

You've missed the point. The traits that keep a species from dying off are not constant. A space rock slams into the earth or the nukes are let fly, we're dust and bones, with survivors dying from starvation or radiation poisoning. It'll be the insects and virii that will survive us. Our incredible amazing brains that have helped us rule the planet will be paltry gifts compared to their simplicity, microscopic size and infinitessimal energy demands. Those will be the winning traits then.

no, i do understand your point, i just very strongly disagree with it. without assuming your beliefs, you seem to be of the opinion that science is a totally neutral bystander. it can help or hurt a species, but ultimately it doesn't take sides. at least that is what it appears you seem to believe. if i am wrong feel free to correct me.

me, i believe that science serves mankind. why? because we are the ones that use it and it is part of our survival mechanism. there are other more primitive lifeforms that use rudimentary forms of science or tools to help them survive and thrive, man just does it better and garnishes more results. if man dies off and other species continue to exist, i don't really care. if man dies off then who cares what species survives and what traits enabled them to do so. the only thing i care about those traits is what man can use to help him survive.

the beauty of man is that we have what can be considered focused and quick evolution. our knowledge is what fuels our progress. we don't have to wait for nature to give us 5 asses or a digestive system that can claim nutrients from poop. we can make our own asses and make our own machines to harvest poop.

[freegood]

Homosexuality doesn't hinder the species survival as long as it's a minority.

If anything, science allows gays to spread their seed and opens the possibility of a gay society.

Science=ubergay

[Mustard]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that neither of you bothered to read all of the opposing opinion posts in this thread. Ignorance can be forgiven. Bigotry cannot. Correct the former lest you be accused of the latter.
Your assumption is correct, I have a few village idiots on ignore, who have also managed to post in this thread; therefore I missed (albeit gladly) seeing their verbal dirrahea they spewed onto GMF's server. Unfortunatley, some members have decided to quote some of these individuals, and in the course of reading I have managed to accidentally view their manifest ignoramus (or is that ignorami?).

Now, if that makes me ignorant, then I suppose I'm guilty as charged. As a counter-point, me making it a point NOT to visually infect myself with hallucinatingly preposterous nonsense and mindless drivle is more or less (in my opinion) the opposite of the act of being ignorant. In addition, selective ignorance alone doesn't make me a fucking bigot Pharon, and since I refuse to correct this by viewing their less than worthless words, I am not guilty of your secondary accusation of bigotry.

Unless actually walking up to the village idiot and asking their opinion every time an issue comes up is necessary to avoid being labled a bigot, then I'm just gonna go ahead and refrain.
Homosexuality doesn't hinder the species survival as long as it's a minority.

If anything, science allows gays to spread their seed and opens the possibility of a gay society.

Science=ubergay
Totally ubergay.

[Archetype]

something existing is not proof that it is good or efficient. plenty of passable things exist that could easily be improved upon, and which are honestly quite bad at what they do.

The fact is that bonobos are more peaceful within their species than both humans and chimpanzees, their closest relatives; hunting and meat-sharing is still far more common than their homosexual relations. Despite the cultural exchange of war, killing your own species is bad for survival. Since we can only measure relatively, I repeat, yes, it is.

why is it okay for what if's to be given in defense of the gay, but it is not acceptable to attack them with them?

Innocent until proven guilty. If there's doubt in guilt, you can't be guilty, because the consequences are more severe.

i don't see why not. good and desirable traits make a species survive and thrive. if something is getting killed off by another species to a point where it's entire population is in jeopardy, then obviously it isn't working properly. if ball-licking was that beneficial, then it would somehow give animals an evolutionary edge and make man less likely to kill them off. maybe NOT licking balls would increase their population by making man not as likely to kill them for being gay.


The only thing on this planet that can survive the destructive path of humans is the virus. Which don't even produce sexually. If homo is bad for survival, so is hetero. Or like Vasili mentioned, insects exist in far greater numbers than humans, and will exist long after us. In fact, the smaller the animal, often times with exception of the great white and the crocodile, means a far higher degree of adaptation. Organisms with very limited "brains," designed purely for survival. So intelligence is actually a detriment because of the extra energy it requires, historically.


Let me just clarify: I didn't intend to imply that Newton was necessarily autistic. He was socially inept, intensely focused on his work, and an excellent scientist. I don't like the idea that everyone who does not lead a "normal" life necessarily suffers from a pathology.

Neither did Guattari and Deleuze, part of the handful of postmodernists that I actually like.
A schizophrenic out for a walk is a better model than a neurotic lying on the analyst's couch.
The argument of Stephen Hawking with legs seems hindsight-ish to me. Stephen Hawking would be one of the inferior stock. He'd never exist far enough to prove his genius.

You mean he wouldn't have worked as hard with the use of his body? His ridiculously high interest in physics actually started before his body started deteriorating; he wasn't necessarily compensating, but then if that wasn't your point, I retract mine.

[redsox39]

Isn't being a parent, molding your child and manipulating their behavior the same thing anyways?

This whole thing only makes sense if the child grows up alone in a vacuum. Taking my child to the doctor, taking my child to school, using "reward and punishment" to modify behavior...all of these things change my childs life forever.

But making sure he is not gay in the womb infringes on his rights? I could raise him to be a racist Jehovah Wittness who hates Jews and thinks fighting solves all problems, but making sure he is not gay makes me a bad person?

[Stax]

Isn't being a parent, molding your child and manipulating their behavior the same thing anyways?

This whole thing only makes sense if the child grows up alone in a vacuum. Taking my child to the doctor, taking my child to school, using "reward and punishment" to modify behavior...all of these things change my childs life forever.

But making sure he is not gay in the womb infringes on his rights? I could raise him to be a racist Jehovah Wittness who hates Jews and thinks fighting solves all problems, but making sure he is not gay makes me a bad person?

Modification of behavior is a softer thing, it is still not 100%. It's the difference between the genocide of the Jewish people and Jewish parents generally teaching their kids to be Christian instead. One still leaves the option of variability, one is coldly absolute.

And even the softer side of modifying behavior, most of the people saying it would be wrong would probably think even heavily parenting your child against homosexuality would be wrong (sending them to those get-straight church camps, making them feel guilty, etc).

[Archetype]

Both make you a bad person.

[freegood]

You mean he wouldn't have worked as hard with the use of his body? His ridiculously high interest in physics actually started before his body started deteriorating; he wasn't necessarily compensating, but then if that wasn't your point, I retract mine.

I meant he could've been aborted if his parents knew about his Lou Gherig's from an instant gene test they bought at Wal-Mart.

[redsox39]

I meant he could've been aborted if his parents knew about his Lou Gherig's from an instant gene test they bought at Wal-Mart.

From the looks of this, it might not matter, heard he's about to die.

*Pours out some liquor for his Homey SH*