Playing God with the Homosexual Gene (if it exists)

[Darth Wong]

As for the question of whether homosexuality is a "defect" or not, that's a loaded question. If you say yes, then you are opening yourself up to the charge of homophobia, and you will be lumped in with the Fred Phelpses of this world. If you say no, then people could ask why you think there is zero value in natural reproductive function, since that is the logical implication of declaring that heterosexuality versus homosexuality is completely meaningless. One way, you run the risk of looking like a bigot; the other way, you run the risk of looking like you are trying to be politically correct rather than logical.

[Broomstick]

Does anybody else have a problem with fucktards who insist on translating "allow people to select for their children" to "government campaign of elimination" in order to lump it in with eugenics? Despite multiple prior corrections in this thread on that very subject?

Somewhat.

However, eugneics in the United States didn't start as a government effort - it started with private organizations of like-minded people who, with the addition of some wealth, later gained enough influence to affect government decisions on the local, state, and even federal levels. So history does show that it is possible for something like eugenics to start as "parents making choices to benefit their children" and evolve into something less than desireable.

If it had remained as individual parents making individual choices it probably wouldn't have mattered as much. It was when people started wanting to make choices for other families outside their eugenics groups that the trouble got started.

[Darth Wong]

The only difference, really, would be that it would be enforced by the people itself, and not by any kind of government.

I believe Zero was referring to the fact that we are probably looking at an elimination scenario if a choice is given - or that is a presumption that has been made by many.

Do you understand why eugenics was wrong? It wasn't because it would be bad for mentally retarded people to disappear; if there was some magical way to "fix" all Down's Syndrome children, only a lunatic would be against it.

[The Dark]

I personally am against any non-medically necessary genetic modification at present, due to our lack of understanding of the inter-relatedness of genetics.

In this hypothetical scenario, the technical problems have been ironed out.

In that case, I wouldn't choose to do it for any of my own children, but I wouldn't disapprove of others making the choice either way.

I have no problem with attempts to fix damaged genetics (Downs syndrome, other chromosomal defects that cause serious health problems), but designer babies, including predetermined sexual inclination, tread too closely to eugenics for my liking.

That would only be a valid comparison if the government tells you what you can and can't choose for your baby. Otherwise the "eugenics" comparison is nothing but a scurrilous attempt at guilt by association.

I wasn't aware eugenics required government interference, given that the Carnegie Institution sponsored the Station for Experimental Evolution and the Eugenics Record Office was a private institution. Graham's "genius sperm bank" was also a privately funded eugenics experiment.

[Darth Wong]

I wasn't aware eugenics required government interference, given that the Carnegie Institution sponsored the Station for Experimental Evolution and the Eugenics Record Office was a private institution. Graham's "genius sperm bank" was also a privately funded eugenics experiment.

Don't play sophistry games with me, punk. The exact definition of eugenics is "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed". By the exact definition, it would be disturbing eugenics to eliminate the Down's Syndrome gene. So feel free to shove your sophistic bullshit and deal with the fact that by using eugenics as a perjorative term, you are obviously referring to the morally charged government campaigns which characterized movements such as the Nazis. Unless you plan on going to scientists trying to cure Down's Syndrome and accuse them of being evil eugenics researchers.

[Mobiboros]

Actually, if you are going by what happens in reality, everyone would have this gene, and the majority of the people in the world would not be expressing it if they had it. While it's not what was stated in the OP, my senario is the more likely case if such a gene exists at all.

Your scenario mentioned a 'malfunction' of genetics. To be more accurate it's a gene that is designed to designate someone's sexuality, so 'homosexual' would be a perfectly valid function of the gene if the gene is meant to determine sexuality.

Is it moral to break the law? In come cases perhaps, but probably not in the case of an elective change that only has to do with the preference of the parents, and not the health of the child.

Is it moral to break the law? It would entirely depend on the law. What ethical tenets is tehe law based on? In this case, how is it moral or immoral to alter the childs genetics. Adding on the legality, in this case, is a red herring and still has no moral bearing on whether or not the act itself is moral or immoral.

[The Dark]

I wasn't aware eugenics required government interference, given that the Carnegie Institution sponsored the Station for Experimental Evolution and the Eugenics Record Office was a private institution. Graham's "genius sperm bank" was also a privately funded eugenics experiment.

Don't play sophistry games with me, punk. The exact definition of eugenics is "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed". By the exact definition, it would be disturbing eugenics to eliminate the Down's Syndrome gene. So feel free to shove your sophistic bullshit and deal with the fact that by using eugenics as a perjorative term, you are obviously referring to the morally charged government campaigns which characterized movements such as the Nazis. Unless you plan on going to scientists trying to cure Down's Syndrome and accuse them of being evil eugenics researchers.

Fine, so the Downs syndrome researchers are doing eugenics, and not all eugenics is evil. Removal of disease is not the same as trait enhancement, and biologists are quite clear about making the distinction. Of course, even that can be problematic, given that some genetic diseases have benefits also (cf sickle cell anemia or Tay-Sachs against malaria and tuberculosis respectively). Eugenics may not be a term people agree with, but it is an accurate description of gene therapy.

[wolveraptor]

Would people cry "Eugenics" if it was possible to ensure that a child who would've grown up to be retarded was given a chance at a fuller life? Hell no. Nor would people whine if you could change your baby's eye-color. Personally I think it's a dumbass thing to do, but do what you want.

Unless you can prove they have more value than any other community, stop bitching about, "Saving the homosexual community." Just because there would be fewer gays in the world, wouldn't mean people would increase bigotry against them (unless you consider manipulation of a mindless zygote "bigotry"). It's wrong to discriminate against homosexuals who are already alive because that causes them pain. This procedure would not.

[Molyneux]

Unless you can prove they have more value than any other community, stop bitching about, "Saving the homosexual community." Just because there would be fewer gays in the world, wouldn't mean people would increase bigotry against them (unless you consider manipulation of a mindless zygote "bigotry"). It's wrong to discriminate against homosexuals who are already alive because that causes them pain. This procedure would not.

The zygote is mindless.
The child into which said zygote will grow if carried to term will NOT be.
I'm not sure of the ethicality of causing harm to something that doesn't exist yet - but to me, it doesn't seem like a very nice thing to do.

[Darth Servo]

So for all the people who think that this procedure would fall under the umbrella of homophobia, lets look at a slightly different scenario. If you could tell during pregnancy that your child would be sterrile and could fix that, would you?

[wolveraptor]

but to me, it doesn't seem like a very nice thing to do.

Uh, why not? Through out this thread you've been going on and on about how it just doesn't "feel" right. Who gives a flying fuck if it doesn't "feel" right to you? I'll do it if I damn well want.

[Molyneux]

So for all the people who think that this procedure would fall under the umbrella of homophobia, lets look at a slightly different scenario. If you could tell during pregnancy that your child would be sterrile and could fix that, would you?

If it's solely a physical defect? Yes, I would. If they're asexual for some reason (an asexual gene, like the hypothetical homosexual gene), then no, I would not.

but to me, it doesn't seem like a very nice thing to do.

Uh, why not? Through out this thread you've been going on and on about how it just doesn't "feel" right. Who gives a flying fuck if it doesn't "feel" right to you? I'll do it if I damn well want.

Let me elaborate; by altering the child's genes in order to make a change that is not related to fixing a physical defect or genetic disorder, you are making a permanent change to the person that child will become. You are forcing the child to be straight, for no reason other than your whim.

It's not a matter of a danger to the child; moreover, it is an IRREPARABLE change. You, as the parent, do not have right to do that to your child.


I'd say this entire thread is bollocks, though, anyway, because the idea of homosexuality (or heterosexuality) being solely determined by genetics is patently absurd.

[wolveraptor]

As a parent, I don't have a right to do something that's 100% harmless to my child on my whim? Do I no longer have the right to cut my child's hair because it appears unruly?

Btw, the thread is just an ethic excercise; it doesn't need to match real life.

[Molyneux]

As a parent, I don't have a right to do something that's 100% harmless to my child on my whim? Do I no longer have the right to cut my child's hair because it appears unruly?

Btw, the thread is just an ethic excercise; it doesn't need to match real life.

I know it's just an exercise, I'm just a wee bit sleep-deprived...not at my most rational.

I'd say that changing a child's genetics to switch them from gay to straight *is* more harm than good - it'd be better to leave well enough alone on principle.

[Kuroneko]

Let me elaborate; by altering the child's genes in order to make a change that is not related to fixing a physical defect or genetic disorder, you are making a permanent change to the person that child will become. You are forcing the child to be straight, for no reason other than your whim.

That elaborates nothing at all; in fact, you simply restate your claims back from page two, the criticism of which you had never addressed. It seems to me that to actually prove your case, you must either (a) prove that there is an entity whose will was violated by this action, or (b) prove that generally there will be an entity directly harmed by this action. The former involves showing that the fetus has a will, and the latter would involve showing that being heterosexual is generally more harmful than being homosexual. None of them are coherent. If you have some other way of showing actions immoral, do state it.

I reminded you of this back on page two. Please don't ignore it and simply keep on asserting your claims without proof.

[Molyneux]

Let me elaborate; by altering the child's genes in order to make a change that is not related to fixing a physical defect or genetic disorder, you are making a permanent change to the person that child will become. You are forcing the child to be straight, for no reason other than your whim.

That elaborates nothing at all; in fact, you simply restate your claims back from page two, the criticism of which you had never addressed. It seems to me that to actually prove your case, you must either (a) prove that there is an entity whose will was violated by this action, or (b) prove that generally there will be an entity directly harmed by this action. The former involves showing that the fetus has a will, and the latter would involve showing that being heterosexual is generally more harmful than being homosexual. None of them are coherent. If you have some other way of showing actions immoral, do state it.

I reminded you of this back on page two. Please don't ignore it and simply keep on asserting your claims without proof.

Sorry...as I said before, I'm somewhat sleep-deprived due to a summer chem class. -_-

My argument tended more towards (b); I don't intend to say that heterosexuality is 'more harmful' than homosexuality, but rather that the idea of forcing a child into either route is harmful. As someone said earlier, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"; making serious changes to a developing human being without good cause is something I regard as harmful at worst, and overstepping parental bounds at best.

[Kuroneko]

My argument tended more towards (b); I don't intend to say that heterosexuality is 'more harmful' than homosexuality, but rather that the idea of forcing a child into either route is harmful.

Alright. If there is harm, then there must be something that was harmed. What is it? If it is was the child that was harmed, and the parent's choice harmed him or her, then why is having one's sexual orientation determined by a parent any worse than have it determined by genetics (recall that in this scenario, genetics are assumed to determine it)? Either way, there never was nor ever would be any choice on the part of the child. Unless heterosexuality is worse than homosexuality, it becomes at worst a trivial and ethically irrelevant substitution.

As someone said earlier, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"; making serious changes to a developing human being without good cause is something I regard as harmful at worst, and overstepping parental bounds at best.

Yet again, the question at this point is not what you believe, but whether or not you could justify this belief.

[Justforfun000]

Alright. If there is harm, then there must be something that was harmed. What is it? If it is was the child that was harmed, and the parent's choice harmed him or her, then why is having one's sexual orientation determined by a parent any worse than have it determined by genetics (recall that in this scenario, genetics are assumed to determine it)? Either way, there never was nor ever would be any choice on the part of the child. Unless heterosexuality is worse than homosexuality, it becomes at worst a trivial and ethically irrelevant substitution.

See this is where the real nitty gritty is....Someone like Kuroneko and his extremely impressive intellect and the knowledge to back him up is able to force people to truly confront their emotional reactions and hold them up to the light of scrutiny. Unquestionably this ethical dilemma is not a simple matter because it's breaking totally new ground as to mans right to interfere with other people, children or not.

Starting from the first sensible square of remembering that no action and belief of human beings is "Right" in a universal sense unless you DO have some kind of divine assurance. Otherwise, you have little choice but to accept the fact that morals are fluid and based on agreeance more then objective right and wrong.

So in my OPINION I said that since being gay is not intrinsically harmful, it should be considered immoral to alter that quality because then you are using your OWN selfish desire to pick and choose an "ideal" human being. I think my general viewpoint centers around motive. If it's a selfish desire to change someone, then that ALONE should not be justifiable. Even the altruistic argument about saving gays from persecution and discrimination by removing them from that potential situation is still problematic because then it's hard to draw the line? As someone said earlier, if you could start changing all black race pigment in parents to be nullified so each successive generation is white to prevent racism, this is a terrible precedent.

The big problem here, is WHO decides what is "ideal"? Who makes the decisions as to what characteristics are desirable, reprehensible, indifferent, etc?

Deluded as they are, fundies have it easy because they HAVE a yardstick to use and say "THIS is wrong because it's against our teachings as to what is natural and unnatural". However people like the majority crowd here have to back up REASONS as to why something should be right or wrong.

Yet again, the question at this point is not what you believe, but whether or not you could justify this belief.

Yes, how CAN you justify this? Without the factor of "divine assent" being involved, what is the best way to approach this?

From a purely opinionated point of view, I would hate to see the homosexual community vanish. Since I am gay myself, I have been exposed to an extremely different and enlightening group of people that while is not always something I'm proud of, is nevertheless responsible for many happy and beneficial contributions to my life.

And many straight friends also feel very strongly about the unique contributions gay culture brings to the world. Since non-religious persons have to have some other justifications to back up what is right or wrong, I'd submit the beneficial qualities of gay culture and how they affect both hetero and homo. I'm not listing them right now as examples because it's late and I'm driving east for two weeks tomorrow. he. But if someone needs some examples I'm sure others will think of some and if not, I'll post a catch up to the thread in a couple of days.

So ethically I would naturally argue on the side of diversity and only give credence to evidenced intrinsic detrimentalness. (Is that a word?)
Anything that might prove beneficial in some generalized way to me would seem to be a good thing to allow as a continuance.

[Darth Wong]

So in my OPINION I said that since being gay is not intrinsically harmful, it should be considered immoral to alter that quality because then you are using your OWN selfish desire to pick and choose an "ideal" human being.

And why is that immoral? Do you and Molyneux understand that you can't just keep restating the same "unnecessary change = immoral" dogma every time without justifying it?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Okay, let's clarify a few things. Eugenics is a loaded term but the definition of eugenics that I presume we are using is that of sanctioned extermination by various groups such as the Nazis. However, eugenics in fixing potential problems in unborn babies and such is not immoral since we are not causing any harm. In fact, it's causing good.

Now, eugenics in changing specific characteristics of unborn babies that are unnecessary is not immoral since it does no harm. The 'extinction' of homosexuality is not immoral since no one is harmed in the process of fading out homosexuality. And... the loss of the gay community and their contributions are ALSO not immoral because no harm is being purpetrated, right? So, in essence, the loss of something good != immoral?

[Darth Servo]

So for all the people who think that this procedure would fall under the umbrella of homophobia, lets look at a slightly different scenario. If you could tell during pregnancy that your child would be sterrile and could fix that, would you?

If it's solely a physical defect? Yes, I would. If they're asexual for some reason (an asexual gene, like the hypothetical homosexual gene), then no, I would not.

And whats the difference between a physical defect and an asexual gene? Genes are physical, you know.

[Xero Cool Down]

So for all the people who think that this procedure would fall under the umbrella of homophobia, lets look at a slightly different scenario. If you could tell during pregnancy that your child would be sterrile and could fix that, would you?

If it's solely a physical defect? Yes, I would. If they're asexual for some reason (an asexual gene, like the hypothetical homosexual gene), then no, I would not.

And whats the difference between a physical defect and an asexual gene? Genes are physical, you know.

Defects are the result of a malfunction in the genes, assuming I read Molyneux's post correctly, a hypothetical asexual gene is performing its correct function, although I see no reason why an asexual or homosexual gene would exist.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Heres’ an interesting take I received from of all people my Father. When asked, his take on all this? "Society needs Homosexuality in order to thrive"

Check this out. Basically he reasons that Homosexuality exists in most forms of life and in all societies. A homosexual, by nature, will never create offspring, so they never introduce energy consumers (children) into society. Conversely, they only put into Society energy, through money, work, and productivity. Indeed as the theory goes, Homosexuality was vital toward early man. While 90% of the males were off chasing women, fathering children, and attacking one another. The Homosexual 10% would serve the function of both Hunter and Gather. They would hunt for food, but since they never had children, they would never introduce extra burdens into the social structure. Plus, they would act as surrogate mothers, nurturing children and watch over others if there were a lack of women to serve as mothers.

So think of that! There’s' 10% of the population doing nothing but putting Money, work, and productivity Into society, while taking virtually nothing out

[Darth Servo]

Defects are the result of a malfunction in the genes, assuming I read Molyneux's post correctly, a hypothetical asexual gene is performing its correct function, although I see no reason why an asexual or homosexual gene would exist.

Its impossible for a gene to have a "correct" and "incorrect" function. It does what its nucleotide sequence tells it to do. Nothing more. Nothing less. Its a machine like any other. "Correct" vs "incorrect" functions are human inventions based on what is seen as "normal". The distinction you made above DOES NOT EXIST.

[Darth Servo]

Indeed as the theory goes, Homosexuality was vital toward early man. While 90% of the males were off chasing women, fathering children, and attacking one another. The Homosexual 10% would serve the function of both Hunter and Gather. They would hunt for food, but since they never had children, they would never introduce extra burdens into the social structure. Plus, they would act as surrogate mothers, nurturing children and watch over others if there were a lack of women to serve as mothers.

So think of that! There’s' 10% of the population doing nothing but putting Money, work, and productivity Into society, while taking virtually nothing out

Small problem. Homosexuals DO have sexual desires. Therefore, while the heterosexual males were off "chasing women" homosexual males were off chasing other males.