Playing God with the Homosexual Gene (if it exists)

[Crossroads Inc.]

And that changes the over all point how?

[Darth Servo]

And that changes the over all point how?

The point your post was apparently trying to make was "homosexuals only contribute to society without taking away from it"

The truth is that the only difference is having offspring or not. Homosexuals DO engage in every OTHER distracting activity listed in the post. And in primitive argarian sicieties where most of the children died, lack of them is not an advantage.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Well, it is just a summary of my fathers observations, Im sure he could defend it far better then I. But in truth its not just offspring. Many homosexuals are weathier, make more money, are more socially active.

I guess I can't really proove this, or make cites, ore referances, or those other things. But it sounds good!

[Xero Cool Down]

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.

Uh what the fuck are you smoking? A gene can be doing the wrong thing or not performing its function ( aka malfunctioning) for a varity of reasons, and yes, they do have a correct function.

[The Guid]

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?

Well an unneccessary change could include making sure a child is more intelligent, better at sport, blond haired, blue eyed, easily able to tan. 'Designer' babies. By your theory there is nothing wrong with that surely because unneccessary change does not become immoral.

[Kuroneko]

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

That's actually explicitly stated in this scenario: the parents do.

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... 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.

Well, the claim that homosexuals frequently contribute positively to society is completely unproblematic, but this depends on something stronger: that their contributions are made more positive in part because they are homosexual, rather than simply being good and talented people. But even if this is the case (whether or not it is, I'll leave it to Mr. Wong to argue, since he seems to have taken an interest in that), it does not follow that the actions are immoral--at the most, it proves that universally forcing heterosexuality would be immoral. Since by your own admission, there is a substantial interest in preserving homosexuality on the part of some persons, it does not follow that homosexuality would disappear. (I already anticipated objections along these lines; see my 'universality' post on page two.)

A homosexual, by nature, will never create offspring, so they never introduce energy consumers (children) into society. ... 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.

But in a developed societies, the overall trend is that of underpopulation rather than overpopulation--this is true for the majority of developed countries, the few exceptions (e.g., United States) have nondeclining populations in virtue of massive immigration. Despite being celibate and thus functionally a homosexual in this regard, I cannot say that non-reproduction would actually be a good thing here.

The point your post was apparently trying to make was "homosexuals only contribute to society without taking away from it" ... And in primitive argarian sicieties where most of the children died, lack of them is not an advantage.

His point would make sense in terms of the problems of overpopulation. Additionally, homosexuality might be valuable in primitive societies as well. It was, for example, common among the Spartan warriors. This was actually encouraged because it was seen as making them more effective fighters, because their loved ones were fighting right alongside them, and thus they were more motivated to protect each other as well as having less incentive to go back home instead of doing battle.

Well an unneccessary change could include making sure a child is more intelligent, better at sport, blond haired, blue eyed, easily able to tan. 'Designer' babies. By your theory there is nothing wrong with that surely because unneccessary change does not become immoral.

Yes, that's exactly correct.

[Zero]

If there's no problem with changing a mindless zygote, as some of you have stated, then would you have any problems with, say, giving the zygote the gene for diabetes, or perhaps a gene to cause certain types of cancer to appear, something to decrease the quality of life? How does that work out with the claim that a mindless zygote isn't a person, and shouldn't be treated as such?

[SirNitram]

If there's no problem with changing a mindless zygote, as some of you have stated, then would you have any problems with, say, giving the zygote the gene for diabetes, or perhaps a gene to cause certain types of cancer to appear, something to decrease the quality of life? How does that work out with the claim that a mindless zygote isn't a person, and shouldn't be treated as such?

Thank you for dumping a hot steaming load of shit into the thread. If you can't reply to a SLAM topic without logical fallacies, don't reply.

[Zero]

Thank you for dumping a hot steaming load of shit into the thread. If you can't reply to a SLAM topic without logical fallacies, don't reply.

Which logical fallacy am I guilty of, and how does that change the fact that the mindless zygote ought be seen in this kind of scenario as a future person?

[Zero]

Fact was the wrong word there.. facts are verifiable. This belongs in the 'claim' catagory.

[Kuroneko]

Which logical fallacy am I guilty of, and how does that change the fact that the mindless zygote ought be seen in this kind of scenario as a future person?

You made a strawman of the actual position which you attempted to argue against. A lack of harm is an essential component of that position, and has been emphasized repeatedly. I have trouble believing that you have even read the thread.

[SirNitram]

Thank you for dumping a hot steaming load of shit into the thread. If you can't reply to a SLAM topic without logical fallacies, don't reply.

Which logical fallacy am I guilty of, and how does that change the fact that the mindless zygote ought be seen in this kind of scenario as a future person?

Strawmanning, as Kur pointed out. Non-Sequitor, as engineering out a, at best, neutral feature is not even close to engineering in known harmful ones. And just being a trolling asshat on top of that.

[Zero]

I wasn't trying to argue anything, but I was trying to explain that there may be something to assigning value to what the fetus will become. Since this fetus never had the ability to make its own choices about sexuality, you are altering the life of a real person without that person's consent. That's the point I was trying to make, I was not trying to draw a comparison between the two scenarios. I never made the claim that giving the fetus diabetes and making it heterosexual were on the same level, I was merely trying to establish that the fetus isn't just a mindless sack of crap, but something that will someday be a person.

[SirNitram]

I wasn't trying to argue anything, but I was trying to explain that there may be something to assigning value to what the fetus will become.

Then perhaps you could try without shovelling bullshit around, hrm, little boy?

Since this fetus never had the ability to make its own choices about sexuality, you are altering the life of a real person without that person's consent. That's the point I was trying to make, I was not trying to draw a comparison between the two scenarios. I never made the claim that giving the fetus diabetes and making it heterosexual were on the same level, I was merely trying to establish that the fetus isn't just a mindless sack of crap, but something that will someday be a person.

Then perhaps you could stop being a fucking troll and explain why altering a, at best, neutral factor in the person-to-be's development is such a travesty we need to compare it to making someone purposefully fucking a human over.

[Zero]

You're missing my point. I didn't make those statements in an attempt to provide a comparison, just to establish that the fetus will become a person, and that you're altering this person without any possibility of consent on their part. I haven't even said this is bad. Hell, I specifically said I wasn't trying to draw a comparison between the two different situations.

My only point is that I'm not sure why it ought to be the parent's right to make a change in something that could vastly alter the way somebody lives their life, and how they see the world. I don't see why anybody should have that right.

[SirNitram]

You're missing my point. I didn't make those statements in an attempt to provide a comparison, just to establish that the fetus will become a person, and that you're altering this person without any possibility of consent on their part. I haven't even said this is bad. Hell, I specifically said I wasn't trying to draw a comparison between the two different situations.

So why the fuck did you post it, you ignorant little dipshit? Just trying to appeal to emotions? Jesus Christ, you wiggle alot for a deceptive little asshat.

My only point is that I'm not sure why it ought to be the parent's right to make a change in something that could vastly alter the way somebody lives their life, and how they see the world. I don't see why anybody should have that right.

So in other words you can't provide a single retort to my question, and will just slither off.

[Zero]

The second thing you quoted was the response to the first thing you said, and the second thing you said doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I've said.

Why is it up to the parents to decide the sexuality of their children? What about gender, eye color, skin color, hair color, intelligence, all that good shit that we'd like to program into each other? Altering any one of these things isn't really harmfull, but it may still effect what social groupings the son/daughter will find him/herself in, and will likely effect the overall outcome of their lives. Why is it up to the parents to choose any arbitrary feature that's considered neutral, when it could affect the child in any number of ways?

[SirNitram]

The second thing you quoted was the response to the first thing you said, and the second thing you said doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I've said.

It's a challenge for you to stop babbling your non-sequitors, your slippery-slope fallacies, and actually fucking make some sense.

Why is it up to the parents to decide the sexuality of their children? What about gender, eye color, skin color, hair color, intelligence, all that good shit that we'd like to program into each other? Altering any one of these things isn't really harmfull, but it may still effect what social groupings the son/daughter will find him/herself in, and will likely effect the overall outcome of their lives. Why is it up to the parents to choose any arbitrary feature that's considered neutral, when it could affect the child in any number of ways?

Because it's their child. You know, the same thing that gives them the right to raise them by their judgement, not yours.

[wolveraptor]

Well that was pretty damn idiotic. Engineering diabetes into a child and not aborting it means that you are a sadistic bastard who apparently wants to see children suffer. Engineering heterosexuality into a child without its consent means that for whatever reason, you want a hetero child. The fact that the child does not give consent in meaningless, as no child, after having grown up would say, "Damn you Mom and Dad! I wanted to be gay!" Don't even tell me you can picture a guy saying that sincerely. He certainly could say, "Damn it, I didn't want to have diabetes!" The first is completely irrational because being gay provides no real advantage in living life happily. The second isn't irrational because being without diabetes is a good thing. I really shouldn't have to be explaining this.

You act as though the child would grow up wistfully wondering what it would be like to be gay, because Mama changed him before birth. That's patently ridiculous. Sure, being gay would affect him in many different ways. But he wouldn't give a flying fuck, because it isn't any better to be gay than it is to be hetero.

Thoughts on the whole "gay community": Can it really be said that all/most gays can be grouped into a single culture/community? How are gay people really different from straight folks besides sexual preference? Surely no one buys into that stereotype of the artsy creative flamboyant gay guy. Real gays could be indistinguishable from straight people during a light conversation. I think that view is more realistic, and puts to rest a lot of this "gay community" stuff that people use to justify their stance against pre-birth sexuality manipulation.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Thoughts on the whole "gay community": Can it really be said that all/most gays can be grouped into a single culture/community? How are gay people really different from straight folks besides sexual preference? Surely no one buys into that stereotype of the artsy creative flamboyant gay guy. Real gays could be indistinguishable from straight people during a light conversation. I think that view is more realistic, and puts to rest a lot of this "gay community" stuff that people use to justify their stance against pre-birth sexuality manipulation.

Obviously, you've never been acquianted with the gay community.

[wolveraptor]

Well duh. But are they really that different than straight people? I sort've operated under the impression that people aren't really that different at heart.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Well duh. But are they really that different than straight people? I sort've operated under the impression that people aren't really that different at heart.

Wrong. The "gay community" comprises of a community of different people, gay, transgendered or even straight, who have fought vigoriously for the past several decades for equality and tolerance in diversity. Where do you think PRIDE came from? Your implication that the gay community is comprised only of homosexuals and largely mythical only shows your ignorance of those who have fought hard with blood and tears to make this fundie-run country a better place for those who happen to be different from insane ideological views.

[Zero]

Well that was pretty damn idiotic. Engineering diabetes into a child and not aborting it means that you are a sadistic bastard who apparently wants to see children suffer. Engineering heterosexuality into a child without its consent means that for whatever reason, you want a hetero child.

I never claimed there was a correlation between the two, I was merely trying to establish that the fetus will eventually become a person, and shouldn't be veiwed merely as an extension of the woman carrying the child.

Either way, it does seem to be up to the parent what kind of child they want to have, and it appears that choosing your child's sexuality ought to be viewed the same way we view all other choices parents make, like what belief system they're introduced to, and what kind of education they get. None of these are arbitrary decisions, but each is still up to the parent. Chalk it up to me being a dipshit, insomnia, or perhaps working for 8 hours a day in > 100 degree weather... either way, it was a fucking retarded comment, and really just more of the same "don't play God" nonsense, even though there's no aparent reasons why we shouldn't.

[wolveraptor]

You're comparing something like sexuality to belief and education? You realize that if you opt out on a child's education, you're imparing him for life. If you opt out on your child's...gayness/straightness, you will not affect his life either positively or negatively. Belief system is the same. If you raise your child to be a fundie moron, you'll still be impairing him. Not the same as sexuality manipulation at all.

[Zero]

You're comparing something like sexuality to belief and education? You realize that if you opt out on a child's education, you're imparing him for life. If you opt out on your child's...gayness/straightness, you will not affect his life either positively or negatively. Belief system is the same. If you raise your child to be a fundie moron, you'll still be impairing him. Not the same as sexuality manipulation at all.

I'm comparing it in the sense that the parent has the right to choose how the child's life goes in either direction. And making your kid gay could fuck him up, especially in this situation, if the vast majority of other parents chose the opposite, and he was the only homosexual he ever knew. He may even think you're a sadistic little fuck for making him that way.