Playing God with the Homosexual Gene (if it exists)

[Darth Wong]

I never claimed there was a correlation between the two ... <snip bullshit>

If your example was not intended to be analogous to the idea (an obvious lie on your part but I digress), then it was a red herring to introduce it to this thread, asshole. So shut the fuck up before I make you shut the fuck up. Understand?

[Zero]

In case you missed it, I already gave up that piece of shit. But I was actually just trying to establish the idea that the fetus was more then just an extension of the self, and there are modifications that may be seen as wrong. I just couldn't make the jump from that to saying that there's something wrong with altering a gene that will change who a person becomes. Essentially, I ended up having no point, but I didn't know that a while ago. I've already pretty much shut the fuck up on the matter.

While I'm posting this, I may as well ask, what the hell is a red herring? I see that pointed out a lot, but I really don't have a goddamned clue what it means.

[Darth Wong]

While I'm posting this, I may as well ask, what the hell is a red herring? I see that pointed out a lot, but I really don't have a goddamned clue what it means.

You don't have Google?

A red-herring is a fact or argument which is irrelevant to the debate. Red-herrings are usually employed as deliberate distraction tactics by skilled but dishonest debaters, or inadvertently by unskilled debaters.

As for changing the fetus, the point remains: a change which cannot be established to cause any harm to the fetus is morally neutral, unless you subscribe to the completely unjustified notion that any change is intrinsically bad (which is a "playing God" argument that has no place in rational discussion).

So while you might be able to argue that deliberately making a child homosexual is a harmful change (in the sense that the child loses the presumably valued ability to naturally conceive children with a spouse, even if we leave aside the cultural victimization issues), no one has been able to construct anything resembling an argument for considering heterosexuality to be a harmful change. This is not a condemnation of homosexuals; simply a recognition that they are deprived of something valuable which heterosexuals have (unless you declare that there is zero value in being able to conceive children naturally with your spouse).

[Zero]

I agree. As I said in a previous post (less previous then the ones you appear to be pissed at me for), I was just falling into that assumption that we shouldn't be allowed to alter ourselves, even though there's no harm in it, and there are potential benefits. As others here have said, it doesn't quite sit right, because we're taught that we shouldn't play God. It's not a moral argument, just something we feel, and I'm sorry for propagating this bullshit.

[Darth Wong]

I agree. As I said in a previous post (less previous then the ones you appear to be pissed at me for)

Yes, because I expect you to get it after it's explained to you once, rather than forcing people to waste most of a page explaining it to you repeatedly.

I was just falling into that assumption that we shouldn't be allowed to alter ourselves, even though there's no harm in it, and there are potential benefits. As others here have said, it doesn't quite sit right, because we're taught that we shouldn't play God. It's not a moral argument, just something we feel, and I'm sorry for propagating this bullshit.

OK.

[tharkûn]

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.

This "gay community" is a direct result of people living in an intolerant world, not being homosexual. As you yourself note there are people who aren't homosexual in this community, nothing would prevent these people from continuing fight for equality and tolerance in diversity. Further not all homosexuals are members of this community, for instance Rohm was both a Nazi leader and a homosexual. Being homosexual is zero garuntee that one will not also be racist (like Russell Veh), ethnocentric (like Pim Fortuyn), or some other form of bigot.

Frankly this entire arguement is junk. If gay children are born into racists families they stand a good chance of being racists, particularly if the family is gay tolerant. Fighting for tolerance is a social, not genetic, activity.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

This "gay community" is a direct result of people living in an intolerant world, not being homosexual. As you yourself note there are people who aren't homosexual in this community, nothing would prevent these people from continuing fight for equality and tolerance in diversity.

Uh... hello?? Is anyone home? The affects of homophobic intolerance would be non-existent if homosexuality didn't exist! You're telling me that in a world absent of homosexuals, Stonewall would happen anyways?

Further not all homosexuals are members of this community, for instance Rohm was both a Nazi leader and a homosexual. Being homosexual is zero garuntee that one will not also be racist (like Russell Veh), ethnocentric (like Pim Fortuyn), or some other form of bigot.

I don't see how this is relevant considering no one ever claimed nor implied that all homosexuals are members of the gay community.

Frankly this entire arguement is junk. If gay children are born into racists families they stand a good chance of being racists, particularly if the family is gay tolerant. Fighting for tolerance is a social, not genetic, activity.

And who do you think fuels the fight for tolerance? Given the hypothetical scenario of an easy, do-it-yourself prevention of homosexuality, there's a good bet that a large segment of the homosexual population will fade away. However, we all know that there's a good chance that homosexuals will still exist but in much smaller numbers for a number of reasons (A small minority who doesn't believe in eugenics whatsoever or those in 3rd world countries that don't have access to it). Think of the complications given that specific, though reasonable scenario.

The gay community would essentially shrink to the point of non-existence. The motivation to fight against homophobia comes from someone who is discriminated or someone who knows someone who is discriminated. Guess what? With a far smaller homosexual population, apathy reigns! Without a voice of its own, the extreme minority would not only suffer from a severely decreased number of potential romantic partners but would be crushed by the overwhelming homophobic population.

Do you think that African Americans are now suddenly sympathetic to the gay community just because they lived under intolerance? HA! Yeah right. They're sympathetic to racial intolerance. Homophobic intolerance? They're just as apathetic as anyone else.

[Darth Wong]

The motivation to fight against homophobia comes from someone who is discriminated or someone who knows someone who is discriminated.

So you do not recognize the possibility of non-selfish motives in this case? I don't know any homosexuals in real-life, yet I have advocated gay-rights for quite a while.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The motivation to fight against homophobia comes from someone who is discriminated or someone who knows someone who is discriminated.

So you do not recognize the possibility of non-selfish motives in this case? I don't know any homosexuals in real-life, yet I have advocated gay-rights for quite a while.

No, I do recognize them. However, there aren't a lot of your kind in my experience. While there are always a few exceptions, it's hard for me to believe that with the sudden disappearance of the gay community that people like you will suddenly take up the fight in any realistic, practical way.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Bah, I still think Homosexuality is something that evolved naturally to fulfil a niche in society. I like my argument, it validates Homosexuals as something useful and not just a 'flauk' As wel las the fact that Homosexuality appears rampantly in other species, especially more developed ones (Chimps/Dolphins)

[wolveraptor]

Homosexuality appears to me like a male bonding trait than anything else. Obviously there is no evolutionary value in lusting after males. Furthermore, most species do not display homosexuality, but rather bisexuality. This includes bonobos (not Chimps so much, as their relationships are more dominant-follower) and dolphins. Hell, the only case I have heard of involving purely homosexual animals was a group of penguins in some zoo who refused to reproduce with females. I hypothesize that these penguins never came into contact with other females until after maturity, and thus developed a tendency for pure homosexuality.

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.

So...basically, they're non-right-wing fundies. And the sudden dissappearance of gays would irreparably diminish the world, and stop people from fighting for tolerance. Bigotry is wrong in all its forms, and any one who was formerly part of the "gay community" would continue to fight for tolerance for the few gays that were left, and anyone else who is oppressed/discriminated against. You haven't explained why gays need to be around in large numbers for people to be against tolerance.

[tharkûn]

Uh... hello?? Is anyone home? The affects of homophobic intolerance would be non-existent if homosexuality didn't exist! You're telling me that in a world absent of homosexuals, Stonewall would happen anyways?

Yes of course because there is no homosexual intolerance there will be no community fighting against racism, religious intolerance, etc. As long as there is bigotry there will be people fighting for diversity and tolerance, if only because they are the victims of bigotry.

The voluntary elimination of the homosexual phenotype will not quash this community of tolerance. Conversely preserving the homosexual phenotype, in and of itself, will not foster tolerance. In the extreme case if only members of the Gays Against Semitism had homosexual children what do you think the odds would be that these children would be members of your "gay community"?

I don't see how this is relevant considering no one ever claimed nor implied that all homosexuals are members of the gay community.

This is the first, ever, and only time I've heard the gay community defined as you have done so. But aside from that, merely flipping the genetic switch will not automaticly bring more members into the "gay community", it depends on who is raising these children and in what society.

Frankly I suspect that were homosexualty to stop existing tommorrow you would STILL have groups working towards tolerance and diversity - because there still are groups being dicked over by bigots.

The gay community would essentially shrink to the point of non-existence. The motivation to fight against homophobia comes from someone who is discriminated or someone who knows someone who is discriminated. Guess what? With a far smaller homosexual population, apathy reigns! Without a voice of its own, the extreme minority would not only suffer from a severely decreased number of potential romantic partners but would be crushed by the overwhelming homophobic population.

Of course no one tries to hold a consistent moral position unless they know a homosexual individual Likewise people develop a phobia simply because they don't personally know any homosexuals

Apathy, by definition, precludes homophobia which is a product of antipathy. Frankly ludicriously small minorities tend not be the subject of gratutiious hate. When was the last anti-Livonian riot? When did anyone give a diatribe about the Maltese? Where are the waves of anti-quadruplet hysteria? Obscenely small minorities aren't hated because they are impotent and they can no longer serve the purpose of a hated minority - a handy scapegoat for the masses. Apathy over such small populations PROTECTS them.

You are correct that the number of potential partners would be reduced, however I'd view this as yet another plus for making your child heterosexual - increasing the number of potential partners ninefold has more utility for your own child.

But let's look at a real world example. The Samaritan Jews are small community in Israel that follow an obscure form of Judiasm (whom the orthodox Jews detest and have also run afoul of Islamicists nutjobs). Presently there are under 1,000 Samaritans. In order to be a Samaritan both parents had to be Samaritan. Should parents be forced to have Samaritan children? I mean if a Samaritan woman doesn't have Samaritan children there are fewer potential children which means fewer potential mates for the next generation. Likewise as their numbers dwindle they have less and less of voice. Frankly I find the idea that parents should be forced to raise children within ANY minority they have the ability to withdraw from abhorrent. Wether that minority is religious, linguistic, cultural, or biological - if the option exists for parents to opt their children out - let them.

Do you think that African Americans are now suddenly sympathetic to the gay community just because they lived under intolerance? HA! Yeah right. They're sympathetic to racial intolerance. Homophobic intolerance? They're just as apathetic as anyone else.

No more than I think homosexuals will always be supporters of diversity and tolerance. If society is already gay tolerant then flipping the gay switch will accomplish exactly nothing. Advocating tolerance and diversity is something you do for social reasons: you are being discriminated against unfairly, you hold to a rational system of ethics, or whatever - the state of your genetics has nothing to do with it.

Bah, I still think Homosexuality is something that evolved naturally to fulfil a niche in society. I like my argument, it validates Homosexuals as something useful and not just a 'flauk' As wel las the fact that Homosexuality appears rampantly in other species, especially more developed ones (Chimps/Dolphins)

Most of those animals tend to be bisexual, at least from the literature I've read. Very few animals which engage in same gender sex do so exclusively.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Yes of course because there is no homosexual intolerance there will be no community fighting against racism, religious intolerance, etc. As long as there is bigotry there will be people fighting for diversity and tolerance, if only because they are the victims of bigotry.

The voluntary elimination of the homosexual phenotype will not quash this community of tolerance. Conversely preserving the homosexual phenotype, in and of itself, will not foster tolerance. In the extreme case if only members of the Gays Against Semitism had homosexual children what do you think the odds would be that these children would be members of your "gay community"?

Your notion of a universal movement for complete diversity and tolerance is downright laughable. Reality doesn't work like that. How many Mike Wongs do you think are out there that will actually champion for tolerance and rights that do not affect them? Also considering the hideous lies the Religious Right spreads about homosexuality, do you think people are going to be so sympathetic to tolerance pedophilic, sexually deviant homosexuals?

This is the first, ever, and only time I've heard the gay community defined as you have done so. But aside from that, merely flipping the genetic switch will not automaticly bring more members into the "gay community", it depends on who is raising these children and in what society.

Defined as what?? That all homosexuals belong to the gay community? Because I certainly don't remember saying or even implying that silly assertion. Either I'm having a severe case of amnesia or you're putting your own words in my mouth.

Frankly I suspect that were homosexualty to stop existing tommorrow you would STILL have groups working towards tolerance and diversity - because there still are groups being dicked over by bigots.

Yeah, right. If the gay community disappeared, we'd still have PRIDE and court battles. You give far too little credit to the gay community for what they have done. If it weren't for the gay community, there would be no Stonewall. No pride. No better ease of coming out. Sure, there will be small pockets of groups working towards tolerance and diversity but that will mean JACKSHIT compared to the mountainous lies that the religious right shits to the public. You clearly have no fucking clue how fucking hard it is for the gay community to fight against their bullshit. I find it humorous that you actually think that third-party tolerance promoters can actually pick up the gay community's fight in any realistic and practical way.

Of course no one tries to hold a consistent moral position unless they know a homosexual individual Likewise people develop a phobia simply because they don't personally know any homosexuals

You must be shitting me. Are you completely oblivious to reality? Do you honestly think that the Religious Right has no influence whatsoever on the opinions of the American public over homosexuality, regardless of their contact with homosexuals? What fucking cave did you just crawl out from?

Apathy, by definition, precludes homophobia which is a product of antipathy. Frankly ludicriously small minorities tend not be the subject of gratutiious hate. When was the last anti-Livonian riot? When did anyone give a diatribe about the Maltese? Where are the waves of anti-quadruplet hysteria? Obscenely small minorities aren't hated because they are impotent and they can no longer serve the purpose of a hated minority - a handy scapegoat for the masses. Apathy over such small populations PROTECTS them.

The last time I checked, there are no anti-Livonian diatribes preached in major organized religions. Or anti-Maltese ones for that matter.

You are correct that the number of potential partners would be reduced, however I'd view this as yet another plus for making your child heterosexual - increasing the number of potential partners ninefold has more utility for your own child.

How does that change the fact that there probably WILL be an existent and much smaller homosexual population who will have this major disadvantage?

But let's look at a real world example. The Samaritan Jews are small community in Israel that follow an obscure form of Judiasm (whom the orthodox Jews detest and have also run afoul of Islamicists nutjobs). Presently there are under 1,000 Samaritans. In order to be a Samaritan both parents had to be Samaritan. Should parents be forced to have Samaritan children? I mean if a Samaritan woman doesn't have Samaritan children there are fewer potential children which means fewer potential mates for the next generation. Likewise as their numbers dwindle they have less and less of voice. Frankly I find the idea that parents should be forced to raise children within ANY minority they have the ability to withdraw from abhorrent. Wether that minority is religious, linguistic, cultural, or biological - if the option exists for parents to opt their children out - let them.

What a shit-ridden strawman. Who the fuck said anything about forcing their children into a minority? If a parent decided not to ensure their kids' heterosexuality, that doesn't mean they are confirmed homosexuals. It only means there is a chance for homosexuality. And those who don't have access to that kind of eugenical practice are fucked when they learn their children are born homosexual since their romantic prospects are now dramatically lessened and the world has grown more apathetic to their rights.

No more than I think homosexuals will always be supporters of diversity and tolerance. If society is already gay tolerant then flipping the gay switch will accomplish exactly nothing. Advocating tolerance and diversity is something you do for social reasons: you are being discriminated against unfairly, you hold to a rational system of ethics, or whatever - the state of your genetics has nothing to do with it.

Again, you show yourself to be completely out of touch with reality. Society is nowhere near gay tolerant. Sure, there are several liberal countries that have vastly improved but worldwide?

[wolveraptor]

You do realize that since, under this scenario, homosexuality is likely to be severely reduced, such that any caring parent, straight or gay, would make their child hetero, so that he/she may have the chance of finding a significant other. Thus, in the long run, homosexuality would probably damn-near die out, so this problem of apathy would only really be confined to a single generation. After all, right wing fundies will have nothing to bitch about when they can barely detect homosexual presence in society.

I'm not saying it makes the problem any less significant, but it won't be this horriffic oppression that'll go on for the rest of Western civilization.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

You do realize that since, under this scenario, homosexuality is likely to be severely reduced, such that any caring parent, straight or gay, would make their child hetero, so that he/she may have the chance of finding a significant other. Thus, in the long run, homosexuality would probably damn-near die out, so this problem of apathy would only really be confined to a single generation.

Oh? And what about people who simply do not believe in eugenics at all? Or people who do not have access to this sort of practice? I think it's a pretty hard to defend the position that ALL homosexuals will fade out.

After all, right wing fundies will have nothing to bitch about when they can barely detect homosexual presence in society.

I'm not saying it makes the problem any less significant, but it won't be this horriffic oppression that'll go on for the rest of Western civilization.

Wrong. Right wing fundies come out in oppression mode when homosexuals start fighting for their rights. The only reason why right wing fundies stay silent is because they are happy with the current status; that is, the homosexuals are already oppressed. Lack of attention != lack of oppression. Go back a few hundred years, many homosexuals were charged, tried and even executed for the crime of "sodomy". No one really paid attention to them and the church merely muffled their existence as stray, sexual deviants. Does that mean they weren't oppressed? I don't think so.

[Darth Wong]

Pint0, there aren't that many gays as it is. Certainly, the number of gays and friends of gays is nowhere near enough to represent a powerful voting bloc. So you are already dependent upon people like myself who have no vested interest in gay issues but support gay rights anyway. Telling yourself that all support for gay rights would disappear without this imaginary (and completely fictional) large voting bloc of yours is a self-delusion and quite frankly, it's insulting to all of us heteros who have principles.

[tharkûn]

Your notion of a universal movement for complete diversity and tolerance is downright laughable. Reality doesn't work like that. How many Mike Wongs do you think are out there that will actually champion for tolerance and rights that do not affect them?

I think they are the majority. Most abolitionists in the 19th century were affluent whites. A majority of those voting in favor of the civil rights amendments of the 20th century were white. Realisticly how many homosexuals were in the Canadian parliament when they legalized gay marriage. You are a single digit minority, if you DON'T have support of people like Mike you are ALREADY screwed.

Also considering the hideous lies the Religious Right spreads about homosexuality, do you think people are going to be so sympathetic to tolerance pedophilic, sexually deviant homosexuals?

I expect them to be apathetic. There are many targets of religious intolerance, only those significant enough to be viable scapegoats get really targeted. Further we are positing a 100% effective genetic switch which will dampen the credibility of lies significantly.

Defined as what?? That all homosexuals belong to the gay community? Because I certainly don't remember saying or even implying that silly assertion.

In my experience, in the local liberal mecca of Ann Arbor, MI has been that the gay community consists of all those participating in the "gay lifestyle" tolerance advocacy, marching in PRIDE parades, etc. is not a requiremen for admittance.

Yeah, right. If the gay community disappeared, we'd still have PRIDE and court battles.

We wouldn't need them. Having PRIDE and court battles is a suboptimal outcome. It would be far preferable to NOT TO NEED these things.

I find it humorous that you actually think that third-party tolerance promoters can actually pick up the gay community's fight in any realistic and practical way.

In several states that "third party tolerance" has won national parliamentary votes. There is no way in bloody hell gays can win those fight WITHOUT third-party tolerance.

Do you honestly think that the Religious Right has no influence whatsoever on the opinions of the American public over homosexuality, regardless of their contact with homosexuals?

Gays are conveinent scapegoat, there have been innumerable other religious scapegoats in the future. If the number of homosexuals drops to nil then I expect somebody else will become the new target: porn stars, open marriages, Mormons, etc. In order for a bogeyman to be effective it has to seem like it could exert influence, an obscure community cannot do so.

The last time I checked, there are no anti-Livonian diatribes preached in major organized religions.

Well then your history education is deficient. The Catholic Chruch went on a frikken crusade against them; the Russian Orthodox Chruch had words against them. Of course that was back when the Livonians were more than a minority fast approaching extinction. Perhaps you'd prefer one of the remarkedly well tolerated cults that the Abrahamic religions preach against? The points is obscure minorities are poor targets for hating, they are too impotent to distract the sheep from their other problems.

How does that change the fact that there probably WILL be an existent and much smaller homosexual population who will have this major disadvantage?

There are two ways to remove this disadvantage, if there is a moral imperative to do so:
1. Force parents to have homosexual children.
2. Force parents to have heterosexual children.

I view either alternative as equivalent violations of liberty, but the former requires parents to inflict a harm (though of diminishing rates) on their children while the latter does not. If we are not going to allow free choice, and you really think the mating potential is an imperative harm - then it is more moral to force heterosexuality than to force homosexuality.

If a parent decided not to ensure their kids' heterosexuality, that doesn't mean they are confirmed homosexuals. It only means there is a chance for homosexuality.

Oh please. The OP specifies that parents now have a choice. Why should one parent be denied a choice merely to offset the consequences of some other parent making their own choice?

Again, you show yourself to be completely out of touch with reality. Society is nowhere near gay tolerant. Sure, there are several liberal countries that have vastly improved but worldwide?

Notice how I never said it was The point is that the effects of turning this switch are going to depend on society when it becomes feasable to do so for cheap in mass. Frankly homosexuals will ALWAYS be dependent on a mass of third party support, their numbers simply are not sufficient to fight the number of bigots on their own.

Oh? And what about people who simply do not believe in eugenics at all? Or people who do not have access to this sort of practice? I think it's a pretty hard to defend the position that ALL homosexuals will fade out.

So what? After several generations as an obscure minority no one will care about them.

Lack of attention != lack of oppression. Go back a few hundred years, many homosexuals were charged, tried and even executed for the crime of "sodomy". No one really paid attention to them and the church merely muffled their existence as stray, sexual deviants.

Nobody paid attention? Are you kidding me? There were homosexuals in all societies and they were observed whenever they weren't secret enough. In any event several hundred years ago they weren't an obscure minority, they were a repressed minority. You'd be hard pressed to name a court in Europe that didn't have homosexuals present., and therein lies the difference - you are going from a small hidden minority which everyone knows exists to an obscure minority that is open and impotent.

[wolveraptor]

Oh? And what about people who simply do not believe in eugenics at all? Or people who do not have access to this sort of practice? I think it's a pretty hard to defend the position that ALL homosexuals will fade out.

Strawman. I said homosexuals would "damn-near die out", not completely go extinct, so-to-speak.

Wrong. Right wing fundies come out in oppression mode when homosexuals start fighting for their rights. The only reason why right wing fundies stay silent is because they are happy with the current status; that is, the homosexuals are already oppressed. Lack of attention != lack of oppression. Go back a few hundred years, many homosexuals were charged, tried and even executed for the crime of "sodomy". No one really paid attention to them and the church merely muffled their existence as stray, sexual deviants. Does that mean they weren't oppressed? I don't think so.

You're comparing the current situation to a time when the Church controlled everything? The Church was able to stifle homosexual outcry because they had near-absolute power over the populace. Furthermore, there were no reporters or spreaders of news besides the Church and the Government, which, during the early Dark Ages, was almost totally Church controlled.

And, as tharkun has frequently pointed out, gays are already such a minority that a sudden decline in their population wouldn't change the principles of those who fight for tolerance.

On a different note, what if one was able to engineer their child such that he/she was bisexual. Wouldn't that be the most beneficial, as the child would have no lack of, uh, mates?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Pint0, there aren't that many gays as it is. Certainly, the number of gays and friends of gays is nowhere near enough to represent a powerful voting bloc. So you are already dependent upon people like myself who have no vested interest in gay issues but support gay rights anyway. Telling yourself that all support for gay rights would disappear without this imaginary (and completely fictional) large voting bloc of yours is a self-delusion and quite frankly, it's insulting to all of us heteros who have principles.

Perhaps I underestimated the contributions of our straight allies and for that, I apologize. I concede that the gay community would not disappear since heterosexuals make up a good portion of it as well. However, with a much smaller homosexual representation, it would seem that it would at least weaken in voice.

[wolveraptor]

If the people supporting gay rights have any principles whatsoever, and aren't simply simply doing this because "my friend is teh homo", then a lack of actual homosexuals will not stop them from fighting for their rights. I mean who would honestly say, in public, "Well there are only X% of gays, so let's continue to be assholes towards them."? Anyone who would is already fighting against gays on religious grounds, and are incurable idiots.