The "turn off homosexuality" button

Sun Wukung · Post by **Sun Wukung** » 2006-08-17 07:40pm

Someone could construct this to be "What would happen if we pressed a button and changed all _____ people to white people". Then I guess the whole intent of it changes when you see it in that light. The problem lies in the desire to change the people intstead of accepting them as they already are.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-08-17 07:46pm

Fuck that!

If I were given a "Make everyone bisexual" button, I might very well press it; it wouldn't subtract anything from peoples' personalities, just open their horizons a little. But I'll be damned if I'm going to forcibly change a good fraction of humanity to limit them, when they're not the ones with the problem.

Hm...how about a "Give every bashed gay person on Earth a gun, training and a few dozen boxes of ammo" button?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-08-17 09:19pm

Molyneux wrote:Fuck that!

If I were given a "Make everyone bisexual" button, I might very well press it; it wouldn't subtract anything from peoples' personalities, just open their horizons a little. But I'll be damned if I'm going to forcibly change a good fraction of humanity to limit them, when they're not the ones with the problem.

Would this button also magically make them bisexuals at ease with their homosexual urges? Rather than say repressed types who resort to vicious homophobia convinced that everybody else is trying to ‘turn them gay’?

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-08-17 09:37pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Molyneux wrote:Fuck that!

If I were given a "Make everyone bisexual" button, I might very well press it; it wouldn't subtract anything from peoples' personalities, just open their horizons a little. But I'll be damned if I'm going to forcibly change a good fraction of humanity to limit them, when they're not the ones with the problem.
Would this button also magically make them bisexuals at ease with their homosexual urges? Rather than say repressed types who resort to vicious homophobia convinced that everybody else is trying to ‘turn them gay’?

Hm...you have a point there. It would still be monkeying with their minds...

I'll just say that it would be really damn nice if people stopped repressing their non-harmful (no NAMBLA, please!) urges.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-08-17 09:55pm

^That reminds of the that link showing that homophobes were most likely to pop a boner when made to watch gay porn.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2006-08-17 09:56pm

Molyneux wrote: Hm...how about a "Give every bashed gay person on Earth a gun, training and a few dozen boxes of ammo" button?

I like this button. Let's have that. Rainbow Panthers.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-08-17 10:57pm

No, most definately not. I would mash that "make everyone bisexual" button instead.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-08-18 01:29am

Darth Raptor wrote:No, most definately not. I would mash that "make everyone bisexual" button instead.

How is it your business to change my sexual preference any more than it's my business to change yours?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-08-18 02:03am

RedImperator wrote:How is it your business to change my sexual preference any more than it's my business to change yours?

The difference lies in the nature of the change inacted. By making everyone exclusively heterosexual, you're limiting them. Making everyone bisexual, however, expands their relationship opportunities. Not to mention eliminating the problem instead of the victims. I don't see any difference between that and other kinds of physical or mental augmentation. Am I missing something?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2006-08-18 02:21am

Darth Raptor wrote:The difference lies in the nature of the change inacted. By making everyone exclusively heterosexual, you're limiting them. Making everyone bisexual, however, expands their relationship opportunities. Not to mention eliminating the problem instead of the victims. I don't see any difference between that and other kinds of physical or mental augmentation. Am I missing something?

How does that eliminate the problem?

Wouldn't a lot of the people against homosexuality just see their new feelings as sinful urges which must be resisted?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-08-18 02:24am

Gandalf wrote:How does that eliminate the problem?

Wouldn't a lot of the people against homosexuality just see their new feelings as sinful urges which must be resisted?

Probably, but everyone else will be dramatically less inclined to listen to what they have to say.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-18 02:24am

Darth Raptor wrote:
RedImperator wrote:How is it your business to change my sexual preference any more than it's my business to change yours?
The difference lies in the nature of the change inacted. By making everyone exclusively heterosexual, you're limiting them. Making everyone bisexual, however, expands their relationship opportunities. Not to mention eliminating the problem instead of the victims. I don't see any difference between that and other kinds of physical or mental augmentation. Am I missing something?

Yes. You're missing the part where you show how you have the right to interfere with other peoples' lives and memories in order to make them suit your tastes. There is no fucking difference at all; you're simply saying "well, when I do it, it's OK because my change is for the better!" Guess what the homophobes would say too, genius.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-08-18 02:37am

Darth Wong wrote:Yes. You're missing the part where you show how you have the right to interfere with other peoples' lives and memories in order to make them suit your tastes.

Okay, I'll admit that magically and retroactiely altering human characteristics is a bad thing. But what about making the changes before life begins? If sexual orientation is indeed exclusively within the domain of biology, what's the harm of making changes that could potentially cure social ills and make happiness easier to find for the individual?

There is no fucking difference at all; you're simply saying "well, when I do it, it's OK because my change is for the better!" Guess what the homophobes would say too, genius.

That's unfair. I gave an actual reason for it with reality-based results in mind. Would not being limited to finding a mate within a specific gender be an improvement?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-18 02:39am

Darth Raptor wrote:Okay, I'll admit that magically and retroactiely altering human characteristics is a bad thing. But what about making the changes before life begins? If sexual orientation is indeed exclusively within the domain of biology, what's the harm of making changes that could potentially cure social ills and make happiness easier to find for the individual?

You realize that the exact same argument could be made for getting rid of homosexuality, right?

That's unfair. I gave an actual reason for it with reality-based results in mind.

And they can do the same.

Would not being limited to finding a mate within a specific gender be an improvement?

Why? Because you say so? What objective imperative is served by doing this?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-08-18 02:49am

Darth Wong wrote:You realize that the exact same argument could be made for getting rid of homosexuality, right?

Not with any degree of actual parity. Getting rid of homosexuality removes beneign traits and behavior for no reason. Limiting individuals and subtracting elements from civilization. Adding bisexuality introduces new, benign behavior that makes the individual more versitile, acts as an impediment to homophobia and retains the elements of culture in question.

And they can do the same.

Not without making a massive concession to bigotry, erasing whole subsects of modern culture and limiting people's opportunities to find a mate.

Why? Because you say so? What objective imperative is served by doing this?

Making it easier (by increasing potential mates by over three billion people) for the individual to find happiness?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-18 02:55am

Darth Raptor wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You realize that the exact same argument could be made for getting rid of homosexuality, right?
Not with any degree of actual parity. Getting rid of homosexuality removes beneign traits and behavior for no reason. Limiting individuals and subtracting elements from civilization. Adding bisexuality introduces new, benign behavior that makes the individual more versitile, acts as an impediment to homophobia and retains the elements of culture in question.

Your whole argument is based on the idea that any instinct which is "limiting" is bad, and should be eliminated. Care to explain why that is the case?

And they can do the same.
Not without making a massive concession to bigotry, erasing whole subsects of modern culture and limiting people's opportunities to find a mate.

Gee, maybe we should also remove everyones' ability to differentiate between potential mates based on appearance, personality, or body odour. After all, that's "limiting" too.

Why? Because you say so? What objective imperative is served by doing this?
Making it easier (by increasing potential mates by over three billion people) for the individual to find happiness?

So you feel that any alteration to the human being which would make him less discriminatory in his choice of mates would be acceptable? Men and women have plenty of mating instincts which are related to the breeding imperative; do you propose that we eliminate them all?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-08-18 03:10am

Darth Wong wrote:Your whole argument is based on the idea that any instinct which is "limiting" is bad, and should be eliminated. Care to explain why that is the case?

No, because it's not the case. There are useful instincts that limit human behavior, even in regards to reproduction. This isn't one of them, because no benefit is incurred by ruling out an entire gender based on that alone. Love/sex != reproduction. Of course, if raising children that are genetically yours is your goal, then you will want to seek out a partner of the opposite sex. But as technology improves, that eventually won't be a consideration either.

Gee, maybe we should also remove everyones' ability to differentiate between potential mates based on appearance, personality, or body odour. After all, that's "limiting" too.

That's not the same thing. I'm not making generalizations here, and every one of those specific traits is distinct from gender. Personality and body odor are indicators of compatibility and health, respectively. They should most definately be taken into consideration when considering potential mates. Appearance is a dodgier issue, because being discriminated against because you're ugly is indeed tragic. A better alternative would be to get rid of ugliness, and if we're at the point where we can adjust orientation prenatally, a monumentally easier feat to accomplish.

So you feel that any alteration to the human being which would make him less discriminatory in his choice of mates would be acceptable? Men and women have plenty of mating instincts which are related to the breeding imperative; do you propose that we eliminate them all?

No and no, only the useless ones like sexism. Health, compatibility and fertility are perfectly acceptable traits to consider. Again, my entire argument is argued from a hypothetical POV at the zenith of biotechnology. I make no claims to its tenability in the modern world.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-08-18 03:14am

Darth Raptor, you're usually a reasonable guy; why are you having such a hard time understanding that heterosexuals don't want their "horizons expanded" and don't view heterosexuality as something that ought to be eliminated in favor of bisexuality. I'm not attracted to men and I don't care to be attracted to men. I'm not attracted to women with shaved heads, either, and I don't particularly need my horizons expanded by someone pressing a button that will give me a shaved head fetish.

As for changing everyone who hasn't been born yet, the same fundamental question I asked you before still applies: what gives you the right to decide my childrens' sexual orientation? If they turn out to be bisexual on their own, that's one thing. If they're made to be bisexual because you made a decision for the entire world based on your personal sociological theories, that's entirely another. I'm still waiting to hear what you think gives you the right to meddle in other people's lives in such a drastic, fundamental way.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-18 03:18am

Darth Raptor wrote:No, because it's not the case. There are useful instincts that limit human behavior, even in regards to reproduction. This isn't one of them, because no benefit is incurred by ruling out an entire gender based on that alone.

How the fuck could you eliminate heterosexual instincts without also fucking up the mating instincts?

Love/sex != reproduction. Of course, if raising children that are genetically yours is your goal, then you will want to seek out a partner of the opposite sex. But as technology improves, that eventually won't be a consideration either.

That sounds like the words of someone for whom all of this is mere theory.

Gee, maybe we should also remove everyones' ability to differentiate between potential mates based on appearance, personality, or body odour. After all, that's "limiting" too.
That's not the same thing.

Bullshit. It's exactly the same thing. We have preferences. While I don't begrudge the rights of others to have crippled non-reproductive relationships, I don't see why the instincts related to a fully enabled (ie- breeding) relationship should be eliminated in order to serve your sense of gender freedom.

I'm not making generalizations here, and every one of those specific traits is distinct from gender. Personality and body odor are indicators of compatibility and health, respectively. They should most definately be taken into consideration when considering potential mates. Appearance is a dodgier issue, because being discriminated against because you're ugly is indeed tragic. A better alternative would be to get rid of ugliness, and if we're at the point where we can adjust orientation prenatally, a monumentally easier feat to accomplish.

So you figure that the solution to attractiveness discrimination is to get rid of the ugly people, but the solution to homosexual discrimination is to mangle the entire breeding instinct of humanity because it would be morally unacceptable to simply get rid of the undesired trait? Nice double-standard, moron.

So you feel that any alteration to the human being which would make him less discriminatory in his choice of mates would be acceptable? Men and women have plenty of mating instincts which are related to the breeding imperative; do you propose that we eliminate them all?
No and no, only the useless ones like sexism.

Classifying gender discrimination as an instinct useless to mating and the breeding imperative is perhaps the dumbest fucking thing I've seen on the entire Internet all week.

Health, compatibility and fertility are perfectly acceptable traits to consider. Again, my entire argument is argued from a hypothetical POV at the zenith of biotechnology. I make no claims to its tenability in the modern world.

Gee, if you're going to completely alter the context, why not just get rid of humans and assume we're talking about genderless robots?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-08-18 03:38am

RedImperator wrote:Darth Raptor, you're usually a reasonable guy; why are you having such a hard time understanding that heterosexuals don't want their "horizons expanded" and don't view heterosexuality as something that ought to be eliminated in favor of bisexuality. I'm not attracted to men and I don't care to be attracted to men. I'm not attracted to women with shaved heads, either, and I don't particularly need my horizons expanded by someone pressing a button that will give me a shaved head fetish.

Okay, I can accept that. I already conceded the retroactive alteration agrument though.

As for changing everyone who hasn't been born yet, the same fundamental question I asked you before still applies: what gives you the right to decide my childrens' sexual orientation? If they turn out to be bisexual on their own, that's one thing. If they're made to be bisexual because you made a decision for the entire world based on your personal sociological theories, that's entirely another. I'm still waiting to hear what you think gives you the right to meddle in other people's lives in such a drastic, fundamental way.

Okay, you're right. I can't justify making drastic, fundamental changes to humanity as a testbed for sociological hypotheses.

Darth Wong wrote:How the fuck could you eliminate heterosexual instincts without also fucking up the mating instincts?

I can not and will not propose a mechanism for a magical, hypothetical scenario. Massive assumptions are in effect here; namely, that orientation is 100% biological. Frankly, I really doubt that is the case.

That sounds like the words of someone for whom all of this is mere theory.

Theories are meant to be tested. That's what I'm doing here by subjecting it to peer review. If the theory proves to be untenable (as it appears to be), it will be discarded.

Bullshit. It's exactly the same thing. We have preferences. While I don't begrudge the rights of others to have crippled non-reproductive relationships, I don't see why the instincts related to a fully enabled (ie- breeding) relationship should be eliminated in order to serve your sense of gender freedom.

And what if same-sex couples were reporductive?

So you figure that the solution to attractiveness discrimination is to get rid of the ugly people, but the solution to homosexual discrimination is to mangle the entire breeding instinct of humanity because it would be morally unacceptable to simply get rid of the undesired trait? Nice double-standard, moron.

Alright, I see that now. Conceded.

Classifying gender discrimination as an instinct useless to mating and the breeding imperative is perhaps the dumbest fucking thing I've seen on the entire Internet all week.

Did you miss the part where I assumed that a civilization advanced enough to manipulate sexual orienation would easily be able to render same-sex pairings reproductively viable? Because if not, then yeah. It sounds pretty fucking stupid.

Gee, if you're going to completely alter the context, why not just get rid of humans and assume we're talking about genderless robots?

The context changed when I originally conceded that retroactive changes were indefensible. Every argument posited after that has been in regards to an alternative hypothetical in which the changes were brought about by wank tech as opposed to just magic. I apologize for not being clear, but it's a moot point now anyway. I concede to a thorough trouncing.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-08-18 04:17am

I'd break the button with a hammer. POLAND tried Appeasement in 1939; look what it got them </Godwin's Law>.

Invictus ChiKen · Post by **Invictus ChiKen** » 2006-08-18 05:33am

No. No. No. HELL NO!!!

At least three of my best friends are gay. Two of them I set up...

One of them was even willing to give up being a lesbian and be with me, I said no and set her up with a girl that makes her happy. So while pressing the "You no gay now" button would most likely land me one of the sweetest an hottest girls on the Earth as mine...

I am once again rejecting it because darn it she's happy and I have no right to change who she is

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-08-18 06:59am

Darth Wong wrote:How the fuck could you eliminate heterosexual instincts without also fucking up the mating instincts?

This sentence, frankly, made me go "Huh?"

I could see making all of humanity gay as eliminating heterosexual instincts (that is, attraction to the opposite sex)...but how the heck would increasing all humans' attraction to the same sex fall under that label? It would be increasing their level of homosexuality, I suppose, but it wouldn't make them like the other gender any less.

Personally, I'm convinced that at least 60% (probably much more) of humanity is at least potentially bisexual, and the individuals in question are simply too committed to their own particular gay or straight identity to acknowledge the fact that they might not fit into that particular box as neatly as they think. I know from (anecdotal personal) experience that that's what kept me from realizing my bisexuality for a good couple of years longer than I would have otherwise.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-08-18 09:29am

I too would destroy the button and whatever it's connected to. Then I'd make an effort to find and... 'reason with' its creator.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-18 09:42am

Molyneux wrote:This sentence, frankly, made me go "Huh?"

So what? A lot of things make you do that.

I could see making all of humanity gay as eliminating heterosexual instincts (that is, attraction to the opposite sex)...but how the heck would increasing all humans' attraction to the same sex fall under that label?

You do understand that males and females have myriad instincts which are gender-specific, right? Males are more attracted to women who are ovulating, females are more attracted to men with higher testosterone. Care to explain how those instincts would be translated to same-sex relationships? They are clearly and specifically optimized for opposite-sex mating.

It's one thing to oppose discrimination against homosexuals; I completely agree with that. But pretending that homosexuality is not an evolutionary sub-optimal trait is just politically correct bullshit. Our species evolved to reproduce sexually, it has countless instincts to serve that particular goal, and it cannot be compared to ants or any other species where a large portion of the population is actually supposed to be non-breeding.