The "turn off homosexuality" button

[l33telboi]

Removal is by definition loss. Loss of diversity, loss of different ways of thinking, loss of creativity. That's your "otherwise 'bad' stuff" right there.

Let's just see if i understood your train of thought right here, removing something that causes mankind as a whole to be more diverse, is a loss? Because i tend to think that a person, either gay or straight, can be creative, diverse and be able think differently.

Bigots will simply retarget their hate on some other arbitrary difference.

This, i agree with wholeheartedly, i've seen it in action too many times not too.

Are you suggesting that all differences amongst people, however slight, should be removed on the off chance someone will use it as an excuse for bigotry?

No.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I notice you've decided to completely ignore this point:

And this: Removing the target of bigotry is Surrender to bigotry; a thoroughly unwholesome and destructive concept.

Removal is by definition loss. Loss of diversity, loss of different ways of thinking, loss of creativity. That's your "otherwise 'bad' stuff" right there.

Concession Accepted.

Let's just see if i understood your train of thought right here, removing something that causes mankind as a whole to be more diverse, is a loss? Because i tend to think that a person, either gay or straight, can be creative, diverse and be able think differently.

It is not my 'train of thought' (code for 'opinion' anyway), it is a fact.

Concession Accepted.

Bigots will simply retarget their hate on some other arbitrary difference.

This, i agree with wholeheartedly, i've seen it in action too many times not too.

Concession Accepted.

Are you suggesting that all differences amongst people, however slight, should be removed on the off chance someone will use it as an excuse for bigotry?

No.

Then why did you say this?

I'd have to say, i don't know.

On the one side, I'd like to push the button. The way i see it, if there never was anyone gay, and nobody even knew of such a thing, then no real harm would come from it. Gay people would be just as happy being straight, possibly more so since no homophobia enters the picture.

But then again. I think someone who was actually gay would be better suited to decide weather to press the button. So i might not press it just because i'd think it shouldn't be me making the choice.

Concession Accepted.

[haas mark]

Albeit a somewhat selfish thing to say, I would have to say no. While no, I don't think that the persecution against gay people is justifiable in the least, or enjoyable, I rather prefer the way I live now. Pushing a button for those that are not "normal" to "become normal" is the same, as far as I can tell, as pretending.

On a broader aspect of this, what would this do to long-time loving same-sex couples? How could anyone make that choice? It's like having parents that have been married for, say, 50 years and suddenly making a drastic change to each of their mindsets... how would this affect them?

[l33telboi]

I notice you've decided to completely ignore this point:

And this: Removing the target of bigotry is Surrender to bigotry; a thoroughly unwholesome and destructive concept.

More likely i missed it, since you decided to add it first after your inital post. I was probably writing my response during that time.

Surrender to biggotry, i guess you could see it as that. But if, note the word if, a gain would be made by surrendering, and something not wanted would be removed, would it be so wrong to "surrender"?

Removal is by definition loss. Loss of diversity, loss of different ways of thinking, loss of creativity. That's your "otherwise 'bad' stuff" right there.

Concession Accepted.

Let's just see if i understood your train of thought right here, removing something that causes mankind as a whole to be more diverse, is a loss? Because i tend to think that a person, either gay or straight, can be creative, diverse and be able think differently.

It is not my 'train of thought' (code for 'opinion' anyway), it is a fact.

Concession Accepted.

I'm sorry but i just don't agree with the notion that all diversety is for the better. There are instances where some diverse characteristics would be best terminated. Like say, Pedophilia. Or is it a 'fact' that pedophilia in some way betters mankind?

And before you even think to claim that i just compared Pedophilia to different sexual orientations, don't, because i didn't.

Are you suggesting that all differences amongst people, however slight, should be removed on the off chance someone will use it as an excuse for bigotry?

No.

Then why did you say this?

I'd have to say, i don't know.

On the one side, I'd like to push the button. The way i see it, if there never was anyone gay, and nobody even knew of such a thing, then no real harm would come from it. Gay people would be just as happy being straight, possibly more so since no homophobia enters the picture.

But then again. I think someone who was actually gay would be better suited to decide weather to press the button. So i might not press it just because i'd think it shouldn't be me making the choice.

Concession Accepted.

How do you go from:

"I don't know weather i would remove different sexual orientations, in the hopes that it would lower biggotry, if the guarantee that no one would be hurt from the change."

To:

"Every single diverse trait amongst people should be eliminated and everyone should be identical."

You seem to be of the mistaken impression that i have said yes to pusing the button.

[Ryushikaze]

No, on the grounds that 1- I would not want the same done to me for any trait of mine, 2- Homosexuality does not actually cause harm, 3- It would be supporting of bigotry, and 4- I see no real net positive. The gay bashers would merely find a new issue to vent on, and the gays would have been forcibly converted for what amounted to no real purpose.

[l33telboi]

The gay bashers would merely find a new issue to vent on, and the gays would have been forcibly converted for what amounted to no real purpose.

Because of this, i've decided to not push the button. The possiblity of a gain is just too small.

Though it was an interesting thing you brought up, that you wouldn't want anybody changing you. I think i'd actually want that to happen, if it benefitted me in some way and i'd be unaware of if afterwards.

[haas mark]

Though it was an interesting thing you brought up, that you wouldn't want anybody changing you. I think i'd actually want that to happen, if it benefitted me in some way and i'd be unaware of if afterwards.

Regardless of this, what would happen (as I said before) happen to the couples that have been together for however long, and are happy and stable? It would make little, if any, sense to do such. However, there are those that would choose not to be changed, if they had the option.

[Ryushikaze]

Even if beneficial, I wouldn't want something done to me without my knowledge. I like who I am, and though I'm not opposed to self improvement, there seems to be something that would violate 'self' if it were done without m knowledge.

[l33telboi]

Regardless of this, what would happen (as I said before) happen to the couples that have been together for however long, and are happy and stable? It would make little, if any, sense to do such. However, there are those that would choose not to be changed, if they had the option.

I thought the op was more along the lines of the very idea of homosexuality being thrown into non-existance, and it being retroactive?

That way there wouldn't be any such couples, right?

In a sense it would re-write the entire history of mankind, cause and effect and all that.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Regardless of this, what would happen (as I said before) happen to the couples that have been together for however long, and are happy and stable? It would make little, if any, sense to do such. However, there are those that would choose not to be changed, if they had the option.

I thought the op was more along the lines of the very idea of homosexuality being thrown into non-existance, and it being retroactive?

That way there wouldn't be any such couples, right?

In a sense it would re-write the entire history of mankind, cause and effect and all that.

That's even more of an argument not to push it. I like existing exactly the way I am because history is the way it is, whether I'm gay or straight is irrelevant to that.

[l33telboi]

Even if beneficial, I wouldn't want something done to me without my knowledge. I like who I am, and though I'm not opposed to self improvement, there seems to be something that would violate 'self' if it were done without m knowledge.

Here's a thought, what if at first you were straight and then changed to gay and all memory erased. And then someone asks you the very question that the topic is about right now, "would you like to be changed to straight, ending biggotry against you, if you'd have no knowledge of it afterwards."

Do you think you would respond exactly like you did just now?

"No, i like who i am, i don't want to be changed."

And would it at this time, be right or wrong, to change you back?

[Darth Garden Gnome]

I don't think it's appropriate to try and dissect this hypothetical (as with most). Forget re-writing history. Assume that if this button is pushed that the Earth is pretty much the same. Assume that all of those happy gay couples will be replaced with happy straight couples.

In this way, we boil the question down to its core: Do you want gays to go away?

To which I answer, "No."

[haas mark]

Regardless of this, what would happen (as I said before) happen to the couples that have been together for however long, and are happy and stable? It would make little, if any, sense to do such. However, there are those that would choose not to be changed, if they had the option.

I thought the op was more along the lines of the very idea of homosexuality being thrown into non-existance, and it being retroactive?

My mistake, I misread it. Even so, this would affect the world in potentially terminally drastic ways (hell, even with such things as Alexander the Great). Thus, as Ein said, more reason not to push any said button.

[l33telboi]

My mistake, I misread it. Even so, this would affect the world in potentially terminally drastic ways (hell, even with such things as Alexander the Great). Thus, as Ein said, more reason not to push any said button.

Don't forget, that even if the world as we recognises it now ceases to exist, there would still be another one here, although different. You, me and even Einy would be gone. But there would be others in our place. And they too would most likely say "No, i don't want to cease to exist."

Or you could go with what DGG said, that everything would be the same only gay couples would be straight and that history would remain the same. I think this version would be better then the re-written history one. As it serves the spirit of the question better.

[Ryushikaze]

Even if beneficial, I wouldn't want something done to me without my knowledge. I like who I am, and though I'm not opposed to self improvement, there seems to be something that would violate 'self' if it were done without m knowledge.

Here's a thought, what if at first you were straight and then changed to gay and all memory erased. And then someone asks you the very question that the topic is about right now, "would you like to be changed to straight, ending biggotry against you, if you'd have no knowledge of it afterwards."

Do you think you would respond exactly like you did just now?

"No, i like who i am, i don't want to be changed."

And would it at this time, be right or wrong, to change you back?

It was unethical to change me in the first place. This is kind of the hitch in your premise. While it might be unethical to change me again without me knowing, it was unethical to change me without me knowing, period.

Of course, this would be a reset to standard, as would doing the reverse to a gay person. Now, would the second unethical act- though restoring us to how we used to be- negate the initial? Or would it simply compound?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I'm sure he did. So what? Does he provide any evidence whatsoever that in a species that generates near 50/50 male/female birth ratios, we evolved to be anything other than optimally heterosexual? Or just a half-baked explanation based on the assumption that there must be some good reason for every trait and variation?

I support gay rights but I don't support politically correct bullshit, and arguing that homosexuals can still make themselves useful in society does not mean that there is some grand purpose behind their existence.

His evidence is this:

1. No other animal has members that are exclusively homosexual. Other animals may engage in homosexual behavior, but it is not exclusive and is much less common than in humans.

2. The number of people who admitted to being gay in societies were this was not frowned upon (ancient Greeks) was about 8-13%, so it seems reasonable to think that about 8-13% of men are gay. This is about the same percentage of men who are bald, and a couple of other traits (don't have the book handy so I can't check).

3. Since people function best in squads of 8-12 (military squads and most sports have this number), it is reasonable to think that hunting squads were also composed of 8-12 men. This means that roughly one member of each squad would have these characteristics (baldness, gayness, etc.).

4. The bald guy would be useful as a forward scout, since the first thing an animal hiding in the grass would see is a shock of head hair. If they learned to run at the sight of this, a bald man would be an asset to the squad. The gay man would take home meat, but would distribute it to others' children rather than his own, as he has none.

I don't have the book, so I can't quote it, but that more or less sums it up. It does include many assumptions, and may be a stretch, but the fact that humans have a constant, relatively high percentage of gays that don't get bred out requires explanation, especially when it's not observed in any other animal. Yes, there are negative traits that persist, but not in such high percentages.

[UCBooties]

I could never do it because it would mean seperating millions of people from the ones that they love forever. The suggestion that I should destroy the relationship that two people have built together and "replace" it is terrible to me. I know it has a crazy retroactive mindwash thin, and maby this is partly because I just finished watching the Read or Die TV series, but there just seems to be somthing so horrible about changing somthing so fundamental about a person, even if it is ostensibly for their own good.

[Frank Hipper]

The "it will end bigotry" slant of this is moronic; it's like saying you can cure the disease by killing the patient.

The only way it addresses the problem of bigotry is that it endorses bigotry.
If you remove the subject that is irrationally hated by the bigot, you hand the bigot victory.

[Lord Woodlouse]

The "it will end bigotry" slant of this is moronic; it's like saying you can cure the disease by killing the patient.

The only way it addresses the problem of bigotry is that it endorses bigotry.
If you remove the subject that is irrationally hated by the bigot, you hand the bigot victory.

As I say earlier this is more a matter of stubborn principles than a matter of practical benefits. So long as I'm the only person who knows I made homosexuality disapear it's not exactly a victory the bigots are able to claim.

It's only particularly bad if these people that previously had homosexual desires are shown to be worse-off with their new heterosexual ones. But I can't see why that would be the case if this is a retroactive "fix".

[Rye]

1. No other animal has members that are exclusively homosexual. Other animals may engage in homosexual behavior, but it is not exclusive and is much less common than in humans.

This is false, there are examples of homosexual animals that always show a preference towards the same sex when that option is open to them, to the exclusion of any number of opposite sex. There's a rather famous example in sheep in that they definitively show preferences.

I'm sure he did. So what? Does he provide any evidence whatsoever that in a species that generates near 50/50 male/female birth ratios, we evolved to be anything other than optimally heterosexual? Or just a half-baked explanation based on the assumption that there must be some good reason for every trait and variation?

I can give a few examples of the potential benefits for a biological homosexuality trait:

1) Though it wouldn't work for the majority in our society, due to attachment to abrahamic religious culture, in most human societies, guy on guy sex reinforced social bonds, hierarchy and morale. Having a few social "facilitators" that would actually choose this over breeding would help an overall population, it would reflect well genetically on his family if it got the society to look favourably on the family, and would be more likely to get his brothers mates (having more older brothers makes you more likely to be homosexual), if the family was in good stead.

2) The biology that contributes to homosexuality in men might have a beneficial outcome in women, and might be an evolutionary trade-off, like sickle cell anemia.

3) Most human societies wouldn't have had access to enough resources to provide for all their adults either breeding or looking after growing children, therefore, if you keep having male children, having all of them breeders could endanger their success, having a gay brother would have another hunter/gatherer/warrior/nurturer in the society, with a genetic attachment to his brothers and the rest of his family without resources being sapped by new offspring.

[Lusankya]

And I don't know how prevalent this is amongst different cultures, but recently in the West (before WWII), it was common for families to have one unwed woman in each generation, who would generally care for the rest of the family.

It could be that humans reproduce better if not everybody is a breeder.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Darth Wong]

How is this any different from creationists assuming that every trait in the human body must have been designed because we tend to find ways to use them? The fact that we can find uses for non-breeding people does not mean that homosexuals are an evolutionary benefit to the species, since it's quite possible to have a non-breeding heterosexual and creative utility does not necessarily mean evolutionary optimization.

Honestly, this is exactly like saying that infertility is not an evolutionary sub-optimal trait just because it doesn't go away and you can think of uses for non-breeders. Hell, you could make up similar bullshit reasons to justify people who are born with congenital diseases that kill them in their twenties: gee, they can work but they die off before they become a burden to the tribe!

[Rye]

Wait, do you think that if a female of a species had too many litters, making the superfluous litters infertile/homosexual wouldn't be a successful evolutionary change? They could help out the society and ensure the survival of similar genes by being that way. How is that not a potentially beneficial trait to have, as a mother?

The mother is still breeding, she still has successful offspring that don't use up too many resources to adversely affect her genetic line, whereas other females would not have these benefits and their offspring or their offspring may die.

Sickle cell anemia actually kills, it kills several people before breeding age. Sickle cell trait often allows people in malaria-infested areas to survive till breeding age better than normal haemaglobin genes. Now, I presume you will agree with the majority of people and say that killing offspring is even worse for a genetic line than having workers around that merely don't breed, but that do support the society, and that sickle cell trait is actually a evolutionary beneficial mutation.

I'm saying that the homosexuality trait, though it expresses itself as an equivalent of infertility in some offspring, it helps the survival of other offspring and is thus passed on as a beneficial trait presumably down the female side of the family line (since it appears to be connected to womb conditions rather than flat out genetics).

[Darth Wong]

Wait, do you think that if a female of a species had too many litters, making the superfluous litters infertile/homosexual wouldn't be a successful evolutionary change? They could help out the society and ensure the survival of similar genes by being that way. How is that not a potentially beneficial trait to have, as a mother?

And fertile offspring can't help out the society? As I said, no one has any trouble classifying infertility as a defect, yet people screech when someone dares say that homosexuality is an evolutionary sub-optimal trait even though the only arguments they can come up with are identical.

If this is the justification for homosexuality, why aren't there more asexuals? Asexuals are even more beneficial to society if you need a non-breeding subset, because they don't waste time or energy chasing tail of either gender.

[Molyneux]

Wait, do you think that if a female of a species had too many litters, making the superfluous litters infertile/homosexual wouldn't be a successful evolutionary change? They could help out the society and ensure the survival of similar genes by being that way. How is that not a potentially beneficial trait to have, as a mother?

And fertile offspring can't help out the society? As I said, no one has any trouble classifying infertility as a defect, yet people screech when someone dares say that homosexuality is an evolutionary sub-optimal trait even though the only arguments they can come up with are identical.

If this is the justification for homosexuality, why aren't there more asexuals? Asexuals are even more beneficial to society if you need a non-breeding subset, because they don't waste time or energy chasing tail of either gender.

Perhaps because sex has evolutionary uses beyond procreation?

Look at bonobo society, for example.