Playing God with the Homosexual Gene (if it exists)

[The Guid]

Question for the people who say it shouldn't be allowed:

If we were to disallow this, as you seem to suggest, how would we go about doing so? Would we criminalize genetic research? Would we make it illegal to perform these tests on a fetus? What penalties would we apply for people developing or using this technology, and what ethical justification would we employ for these penalties?

I would make it illegal to perform these tests on a fetus. I would make the penalty for the Doctor taking away the liscence to practise and incur a prison sentence on to the couple. My argument and justification for this would be that it is a law to protect the homosexual minority from discrimination.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

OK, take the scenario where it's as easy as flipping a switch. Every pregnant woman is asked "do you want to pay $2 to make sure your child is heterosexual". In that case, I could see the practice being extremely common, perhaps near-universal.

So let us follow this scenario through to its logical conclusion: why would this necessarily be a bad thing? The reason homophobia is immoral is the fact that it makes its victims miserable. It is unjust, and cruel. But in the case of simply taking a fetus which would have become homosexual and "flipping a switch" to make it heterosexual, what's the harm? Who's the victim? What reason is there to say that this is immoral?

Presuming the situation presented above is the case, it would literally mean the disappearance of the gay community and further alienation of whatever homosexuals are left on this earth. Does this translate into harm that is greater than letting gays grow up in an intolerant society? Not necessarily. However, I will admit that I am a little biased when I say the gay community means a lot to myself and others. It would almost be as if decades of work and fighting for equality and tolerance would be in vain.

Is there some ethical imperative to ensure that homosexuals will always exist? I suppose one could make the "genetic diversity" argument, but it seems rather doubtful that the particular gene identified in this scenario will ever become crucial to the survival of the human species.

At this point, I doubt that the survival of the human species is an important ethical imperative.

Is it any more rational to bemoan the potential disappearance of homosexuals than it is for white supremacists to bemoan the disappearance of pure Aryans from humanity as a result of interbreeding? No homosexual would actually be killed or locked in a prison camp here; they just wouldn't be replaced by new ones as the generations pass.

The difference between the gay community and white supremacists is what they both stand for. White supremacists fights for hatred and racism. The gay community fights for tolerance and equality. While I simply have no sympathy for the disappearance for a group whose efforts have been socially regressive, the same can't be said for the group whose efforts have been the opposite.

I have no answer when dealing with enforcing the prohibition of this practice only because of the impracticality of it. I certainly don't like the idea and as much harm as we're preventing by eliminating the need to fight homophobia, I don't think we're being completely honest by saying that nothing is being sacrificed.

[Darth Wong]

I would make it illegal to perform these tests on a fetus. I would make the penalty for the Doctor taking away the liscence to practise and incur a prison sentence on to the couple.

That's fucking retarded. You would actually throw people in prison for trying to find out something about their own child?

My argument and justification for this would be that it is a law to protect the homosexual minority from discrimination.

So while it's not actually illegal to be a homophobe, you would throw people in prison for doing tests to see if their child will be homosexual. Right. So the ethical principle you're using is ... what, exactly? That anything which might potentially be used to identify minorities for the purpose of discrimination should be outlawed? Why not burn out everyones' eyes so they can't tell whether you're black or white?

[Darth Wong]

Presuming the situation presented above is the case, it would literally mean the disappearance of the gay community and further alienation of whatever homosexuals are left on this earth. Does this translate into harm that is greater than letting gays grow up in an intolerant society? Not necessarily. However, I will admit that I am a little biased when I say the gay community means a lot to myself and others. It would almost be as if decades of work and fighting for equality and tolerance would be in vain.

The purpose of fighting for equality and tolerance is to prevent mistreatment of gays, not to ensure that there will always be lots of gays around. The number of gays in society has historically been essentially unaltered by the presence or absence of homophobia; this scenario changes that.

The difference between the gay community and white supremacists is what they both stand for. White supremacists fights for hatred and racism. The gay community fights for tolerance and equality.

You're misinterpreting the point. I'm not talking about the disappearance of white supremacists; I'm talking about the disappearance of the white race itself. Over time, if sufficient interbreeding occurs, so-called "pure Aryans" could theoretically cease to exist. This is what terrifies white supremacists and why they are so adamant that racial interbreeding should be outlawed. In both cases, people are terrified about the disappearance of a minority over time, using the premise that there is some ethical imperative to keep every minority's numbers up. Remember: for the second time, no one is being killed or injured or otherwise harmed here.

[Molyneux]

The difference between the gay community and white supremacists is what they both stand for. White supremacists fights for hatred and racism. The gay community fights for tolerance and equality.

You're misinterpreting the point. I'm not talking about the disappearance of white supremacists; I'm talking about the disappearance of the white race itself. Over time, if sufficient interbreeding occurs, so-called "pure Aryans" could theoretically cease to exist. This is what terrifies white supremacists and why they are so adamant that racial interbreeding should be outlawed. In both cases, people are terrified about the disappearance of a minority over time, using the premise that there is some ethical imperative to keep every minority's numbers up. Remember: for the second time, no one is being killed or injured or otherwise harmed here.

I'd like to disagree...I think that the child in question is being harmed. Parental prerogative over their children has limits (could a parent legally choose to have their child neutered?), and I think that this is outside of them.

[The Guid]

I would make it illegal to perform these tests on a fetus. I would make the penalty for the Doctor taking away the liscence to practise and incur a prison sentence on to the couple.

That's fucking retarded. You would actually throw people in prison for trying to find out something about their own child?

Err... yeah. Something which is against the law. Something which could lead to further desires to change children. I hate to call the "slippery slope" or "thin end of the wedge" on you, but I think that a line must be drawn as to what can be changed on a child and what can not and one will need to punish for that.

My argument and justification for this would be that it is a law to protect the homosexual minority from discrimination.

So while it's not actually illegal to be a homophobe, you would throw people in prison for doing tests to see if their child will be homosexual. Right. So the ethical principle you're using is ... what, exactly? That anything which might potentially be used to identify minorities for the purpose of discrimination should be outlawed? Why not burn out everyones' eyes so they can't tell whether you're black or white?[/quote]
There's a discrepency there. I can see whether someone is black or white but I can't change it. The fact is that the only reason one find out about something in the womb, it seems to me, is to change it.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Neutering is hardly a good comparison, since after birth, that's doing objective damage to the child, and will probably cause suffering and misery. Getting rid of a gay gene does not do that.

[Mobiboros]

I don't even see how the testing itself is ethical or not. It's a morally neutral thing in my opinion. You're simply screening for certain genetic markers. They do it now for all kinds of other things (mainly possible defects or diseases, but they can reliably do it for sex now with a simple blood test). I don't think morality or ethics enters into the testing process. It's just a test for data.

The 'moral' part would be in the use of the data.
For my opinion on it, I don't see anything immoral about altering the genes prior to birth. It can be done for eye colour and hair colour, why not sexual preference? Are we obligated to keep up the 'brown eyed' population? The 'blonde' population?

As long as it's not mandatory it's not even an attack on a minority group if it's left up to the parents to decide on their own.

I have another question though. Assuming they do pinpoint the gene, how will the fundie population react? A lot of the basis for the argument against homosexuality is that they are making a choice and turningagainst Gods will. Well, if it's shown to be a genetic trait that can be altered wouldn't that mean it was "God's plan" to make them homosexual? And then wouldn't it follow that altering that genetics would be 'playing god'?

[Xero Cool Down]

Imagine the uproar if gay parents adopting a fetus chose to alter it's gene's such that the child would be a homosexual.

[Mobiboros]

Imagine the uproar if gay parents adopting a fetus chose to alter it's gene's such that the child would be a homosexual.

Can you adopt a fetus? I thought the child had to actually be born and put up for adoption. Being still a fetus would indicate it's still unborn.

[Xero Cool Down]

You can have a host mother impregnated with donated fetus, or in the case that the couple is female just have artifical insemination done.

[Mobiboros]

You can have a host mother impregnated with donated fetus, or in the case that the couple is female just have artifical insemination done.

Assuming that the child had the gene in the first place. And assuming that all people involved were in agreement, then I'd say it would indeed cause an uproar.

Who cares?

Public objection to something doesn't necessarily make the decision moral or immoral.

[Xero Cool Down]

Assuming that the child had the gene in the first place.

I'm assuming this is something that is common to all humans and that someone becomes a homosexual through the malfunction of the gene, which in this case could be controlled by a genetist..

Who cares?

If the public uproar is sufficient to cause the procedure to be outlawed, I'd say the parents.

Public objection to something doesn't necessarily make the decision moral or immoral.

But it can make it legal or illegal.

[Mobiboros]

I'm assuming this is something that is common to all humans and that someone becomes a homosexual through the malfunction of the gene, which in this case could be controlled by a genetist..

That wasn't in the OP. The OP implied that there is a gene, that when active, would make the person homosexual. It said nothing about a malfunctioning gene. It implies that making someone gay IS the function of the gene. So, my point still stands that not everyone would be born with this gene to begin with and some might be born with it inactive naturally.

If the public uproar is sufficient to cause the procedure to be outlawed, I'd say the parents.

But it can make it legal or illegal.

But the question isn't whether popular opinion makes something illegal. The question was is it moral or immoral? Legality doesn't equal morality.

[The Dark]

Question for the people who say it shouldn't be allowed:

If we were to disallow this, as you seem to suggest, how would we go about doing so? Would we criminalize genetic research? Would we make it illegal to perform these tests on a fetus? What penalties would we apply for people developing or using this technology, and what ethical justification would we employ for these penalties?

I personally am against any non-medically necessary genetic modification at present, due to our lack of understanding of the inter-relatedness of genetics. 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. As long at the fetus/embryo/potential human has the ability for neocortical function, self-consciousness, relational ability, and potential happiness, I'm wary of unnecessary genetic modification. That said, my stand on this is similar to my stand on other issues: I would not have it done myself, but I also would not restrict others from making the decision for themselves.

[Xero Cool Down]

That wasn't in the OP. The OP implied that there is a gene, that when active, would make the person homosexual. It said nothing about a malfunctioning gene. It implies that making someone gay IS the function of the gene. So, my point still stands that not everyone would be born with this gene to begin with and some might be born with it inactive naturally.

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.

If the public uproar is sufficient to cause the procedure to be outlawed, I'd say the parents.

But it can make it legal or illegal.

But the question isn't whether popular opinion makes something illegal. The question was is it moral or immoral? Legality doesn't equal morality.[/quote]


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.

[Zero]

Does anybody else think that elimination of a disagreeable sector of society sounds anything like eugenics? The only difference, really, would be that it would be enforced by the people itself, and not by any kind of government.

Besides this, isn't it possible that, because of these tests, homosexuality will simply never arise in bigoted areas where it's so thouroughly shunned already? Isn't it possible that we'd lose a potential foothold against this same bigotry?

Of course, possibilities mean less then realities, but the entire premise of this thread is a possibility.

[Justforfun000]

This is a very thorny issue.....you really are dealing in quite grey areas. It's difficult for me to sum up an easy answer, but I'll give my take and figure out where I stand on it as I go...

Ok, starting from the premise that the gene is a natural part of the foetus, one could argue that because homosexuality is not INTRINSICALLY harmful, that it would be unethical to alter it. Why? Well you would have to have the general belief that you shouldn't tamper with other people's genes for any personal preference on what YOU want your child to be. If it ain't "broke", don't fix it.

Now if it was shown that homosexuality was in fact a "damaged" or "malfunctioning" gene, (and I have no idea how genetics are rated in this way), then it could be argued that it is in fact CORRECTING a child back to normal development, and in this scenario, it would be justified to allow parents and doctors to in fact do so.

Does anybody else think that elimination of a disagreeable sector of society sounds anything like eugenics? The only difference, really, would be that it would be enforced by the people itself, and not by any kind of government.

It's EXACTLY Eugenics.

Of course, possibilities mean less then realities, but the entire premise of this thread is a possibility.

Is it? I don't know.....I'm deeply skeptical that homosexuality is as simple as a gene. The very presence of differing degrees of bisexuality seems quite indicative of that.

[Zero]

Is it? I don't know.....I'm deeply skeptical that homosexuality is as simple as a gene. The very presence of differing degrees of bisexuality seems quite indicative of that.

Actually, there was a thread recently about how most bisexuals were actually either primarily straight or gay. They did tests on which kind of porn caused greater arousal, and it seems more likely that most bisexuals are gay.

Of course, I too agree that genetics may not be the only issue here. It's possible that they could find a gene that causes greater tendency towards homosexuality, but environment obviously effects our sexuality. Not necessarily in terms of which gender we prefer, but it certainly effects what we find attractive, so I imagine social influences are probably quite significant towards our sexuality.

Isn't it true that the incidence of two twins being homosexual is somewhere in the neighborhood of %50? If that's actually true (I have no idea, this is just a partially remembered thingy. May be more, or less), then it's obvious that genes aren't the only issue.

Either way, the OP describes a hypothetical situation, and talking about how genetics may not actually be as important as we imagine is derailing the thread, so... um... wow, I feel like a jackass.

[Broomstick]

Isn't it true that the incidence of two twins being homosexual is somewhere in the neighborhood of %50? If that's actually true (I have no idea, this is just a partially remembered thingy. May be more, or less), then it's obvious that genes aren't the only issue.

For identical twins, that is, two individuals who arose from one fertilized egg and thus share their genotype, if one twin is homosexual it is 50/50 the other one is, too.

For fraternal twins, the ones from two separate eggs who just happened to be womb-mates, if one is homsexual the other is neither more nor less likely to homosexual than any other sibling.

There may (and likely is) a congenital component (which isn't necessarially genetic), but it's not the sole determining factor.

[Justforfun000]

Actually, there was a thread recently about how most bisexuals were actually either primarily straight or gay. They did tests on which kind of porn caused greater arousal, and it seems more likely that most bisexuals are gay.

Yeah I'm aware of it, but there was also doubt cast on the researcher and his history of "questionable" conclusions....In any event even IF this was true, women seem to be much more like a true bisexual.

Either way, the OP describes a hypothetical situation, and talking about how genetics may not actually be as important as we imagine is derailing the thread, so... um... wow, I feel like a jackass.

Very easy to do when one point leads to another.

But it's still on topic because the OP was asking about a hypo with genetics being the major factor. You kinda have to dance around the subject to fully examine the idea of ethics and morality.

[Darth Wong]

Does anybody else think that elimination of a disagreeable sector of society sounds anything like eugenics? The only difference, really, would be that it would be enforced by the people itself, and not by any kind of government.

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?

[Broomstick]

Now if it was shown that homosexuality was in fact a "damaged" or "malfunctioning" gene, (and I have no idea how genetics are rated in this way), then it could be argued that it is in fact CORRECTING a child back to normal development, and in this scenario, it would be justified to allow parents and doctors to in fact do so.

What is and isn't "defective" isn't as clear-cut as people like to think. Which is why geneticists discuss things in terms of variation. Virtually all genes come in multiple varieties - that is, after all, why eyes come in many colors (blue, gray, green, various browns, almost black); hair comes in various colors and textures; adults wind up various heights; and so forth.

Unquestionably, environment is extremely important in determining what is and isn't "good". Genes do not exist in isolation, they exist in context. Take the "hemachromatosis gene" - this is a variant in how the body handles iron in food. If you have this gene and eat a modern Western diet rich in iron-fortified food you're headed for trouble: multiple organ damage by your 40's and early death if untreated (fortunately, treatment is very easy). If, however, you live somewhere where the diet is iron-poor this becomes a survival trait, and may mean the difference between death and survival, particularly for women who give birth.

Perhaps a good analogy with homsexuality is left-handedness. There is a genetic component at work here - left-handedness can run in families - however, there's no guarantee that two lefties won't have a righty child, or vice versa. If you're born into a society that doesn't care much about these things it's not much of a handicap at all. In such a society, the idea of "correcting" this "defect" before birth would ludicrous, or at least eccentric. If you're born into a society that is anti-lefthanded there may be many pressures to "convert" a child to using his/her right hand. Historically, in some societies beating a child for using the "wrong" hand has occurred, and left-handedness could be used against a person in many detrimental ways. In such a society correcting lefthandedness before birth may be a very valid choice.

OK, let's look at homosexuality. If you're in a tolerant society that doesn't care much, with easy access to reproductive technology, and that may regard homosexuals as being unsually creative or having a greater portion of certain desirable traits - well, what's the fuss over? Who cares what gender the kid will grow up to desire?

Ah, but if you're in an intolerant society - one, perhaps, where homosexuality is a capital crimes (and such societies have existed, and continue to exist).... Well! Changing the little queers over to straights is the act of a loving parent who wants their child to live a natural lifespan.

What makes this a conundrum is that we live in a society between those two extremes, so the answers aren't so clear cut.

[Darth Wong]

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.

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.

[The Guid]

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.