The "turn off homosexuality" button

[SAMAS]

I'd break the button with a hammer. POLAND tried Appeasement in 1939; look what it got them </Godwin's Law>.

Technically, Appeasement only fails like that if the party being appeased knows about it.

But while there might be a few arguments for pushing the button, I don't think there are nearly enough to justify it.

Although I'd like to know who made it, because there are some other behaviours I could easily justify erasing with the push of a button.

One question though. Would this change have simply been immediate, or retroactive?

[Lisa]

I might push the button, being different isn't always a good thing.

[FSTargetDrone]

I could see making all of humanity gay as eliminating heterosexual instincts (that is, attraction to the opposite sex)...but how the heck would increasing all humans' attraction to the same sex fall under that label? It would be increasing their level of homosexuality, I suppose, but it wouldn't make them like the other gender any less.

This is no better than the hypothetical "make 'em all straight" button. In fact, it's much worse, given that we now have the small problem of the remaining humans dying off within 100 years and ending the species! I sure as hell don't want to be made homosexual anymore than I want to suddenly have sexual urges towards shrubbery. Nothing agaisnt gay people, but I have no interest in that.

I'm presuming our button with godlike powers eliminates the memories of the homosexual experiences? Even if that is the case, it is still wrong to meddle with people's past to suit the vocal bunch who find it so bothersome.

Personally, I'm convinced that at least 60% (probably much more) of humanity is at least potentially bisexual, and the individuals in question are simply too committed to their own particular gay or straight identity to acknowledge the fact that they might not fit into that particular box as neatly as they think. I know from (anecdotal personal) experience that that's what kept me from realizing my bisexuality for a good couple of years longer than I would have otherwise.

These sorts of arguments lose me quickly. What does this mean that people are "too committed" to their individual sexual identitiy? Commitment has nothing to do with it. Aside from all the biological reasons mentioned above, I am simply straight. While I have no problem with those who do, I have no inclination towards other males, nor do I want any such leanings. It's not something I've remotely thought about. I am committed to many things, but sexuality doesn't apply in this case. It's like saying I'm "committed" to walking or breathing. Committment is relevant towards things involving choice, like political or religious beliefs. I didn't choose to be straight, no more than homosexuals choose to be gay.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Does this have the moral equivalency of a hypothetical futuretech capable of determining and altering the sexual orientation of a person before they are born?

[Molyneux]

I could see making all of humanity gay as eliminating heterosexual instincts (that is, attraction to the opposite sex)...but how the heck would increasing all humans' attraction to the same sex fall under that label? It would be increasing their level of homosexuality, I suppose, but it wouldn't make them like the other gender any less.

This is no better than the hypothetical "make 'em all straight" button. In fact, it's much worse, given that we now have the small problem of the remaining humans dying off within 100 years and ending the species! I sure as hell don't want to be made homosexual anymore than I want to suddenly have sexual urges towards shrubbery. Nothing agaisnt gay people, but I have no interest in that.

...read my post if you're going to reply to it, please. I never mentioned making all of humanity gay - I can see how easily that would lead to species extinction (unless people were forced to breed) - just bisexual.

I could see making all of humanity gay as eliminating heterosexual instincts (that is, attraction to the opposite sex)...but how the heck would increasing all humans' attraction to the same sex fall under that label?

You do understand that males and females have myriad instincts which are gender-specific, right? Males are more attracted to women who are ovulating, females are more attracted to men with higher testosterone. Care to explain how those instincts would be translated to same-sex relationships? They are clearly and specifically optimized for opposite-sex mating.

It's one thing to oppose discrimination against homosexuals; I completely agree with that. But pretending that homosexuality is not an evolutionary sub-optimal trait is just politically correct bullshit. Our species evolved to reproduce sexually, it has countless instincts to serve that particular goal, and it cannot be compared to ants or any other species where a large portion of the population is actually supposed to be non-breeding.

I agree that homosexuality rather decreases the chances for passing one's genetic material on down the line.

What I suggested was bisexuality - leaving peoples' feelings towards the opposite gender unchanged and adding the ability to feel physically attracted to the same gender.

[Darth Wong]

I agree that homosexuality rather decreases the chances for passing one's genetic material on down the line.

What I suggested was bisexuality - leaving peoples' feelings towards the opposite gender unchanged and adding the ability to feel physically attracted to the same gender.

Everyone already has that ability, but only under duress, ie- prison or the Navy.

Personally, I don't see why you have the right to shove your attitude down my throat. I like the fact that I have no sexual attraction to half the population. I like the fact that I experience no sexual tension at all when I'm with a male acquaintance.

[Molyneux]

I agree that homosexuality rather decreases the chances for passing one's genetic material on down the line.

What I suggested was bisexuality - leaving peoples' feelings towards the opposite gender unchanged and adding the ability to feel physically attracted to the same gender.

Everyone already has that ability, but only under duress, ie- prison or the Navy.

Personally, I don't see why you have the right to shove your attitude down my throat. I like the fact that I have no sexual attraction to half the population. I like the fact that I experience no sexual tension at all when I'm with a male acquaintance.

Okay - the bisexuality button would still be unethical monkeying-around with your brain. Cancel my earlier statement about being willing to push one.

Would you agree that bisexuality is not necessarily a disadvantageous trait (as homosexuality is)?

[FSTargetDrone]

...read my post if you're going to reply to it, please. I never mentioned making all of humanity gay - I can see how easily that would lead to species extinction (unless people were forced to breed) - just bisexual.

I apologize for misreading your post.

[The Guid]

One question though. Would this change have simply been immediate, or retroactive?

Retroactive. As if it was never there in the first place. So, as you said, nobody would know they were being appeased.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

It's one thing to oppose discrimination against homosexuals; I completely agree with that. But pretending that homosexuality is not an evolutionary sub-optimal trait is just politically correct bullshit. Our species evolved to reproduce sexually, it has countless instincts to serve that particular goal, and it cannot be compared to ants or any other species where a large portion of the population is actually supposed to be non-breeding.

In the book Sex, Time, and Power by Leonard Shlain, he proposes that gays are no accident, but that it was advantageous to have some men who did not produce children, as their hunting, gathering, and care would allow their nieces and nephews to survive and thrive.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

For the topic, it should be pointed out that many of history's greatest geniuses were gay. While this hypothetical button would ease suffering for people who would have been gay, it could also rob us of great thinkers.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I'd prefer a turn off homophobia button, as Mike says earlier. I think I would press the button so long as I know no harm will come of it. I reckon it would have an overall positive effect and I can't imagine a negative one.

You can call it capitulation to hatred, I suppose. But then that turns the whole thing into a mere matter of principle. So long as there is no slippery slope involved, and so long there is a net benefit, I don't think it's an especially important principle, myself.

[wolveraptor]

For the topic, it should be pointed out that many of history's greatest geniuses were gay. While this hypothetical button would ease suffering for people who would have been gay, it could also rob us of great thinkers.

That's ridiculous. Why should their genius have been influenced in the slightest by their sexual orientation? They might have very well been genii as heterosexuals as well. There are good reasons not to push this button, but this isn't one of them.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

It may seem ridiculous, but it's true that creative geniuses are over-represented among gays.

[l33telboi]

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.

[The Guid]

For the topic, it should be pointed out that many of history's greatest geniuses were gay. While this hypothetical button would ease suffering for people who would have been gay, it could also rob us of great thinkers.

That's ridiculous. Why should their genius have been influenced in the slightest by their sexual orientation?

Because contentment is the enemy of invention. Presumably.

[Big Orange]

And homosexuality is over-represented in the "arts" as well with many creative people are as camp as Christmas (Ian McKellan, Stephen Fry, Matt Lucas, Russel T Davis, Kevin Spacey, Elton John and many others). Do homosexuals only make up between 3% or 0.5% of the overall human population?

And I vote for the off switch for homophobia as well - I knew some homophobic kids at high school and they were pretty much the most vicious, sociopathic and reactionary pinheads I had the bad misfortune of knowing on a daily basis. I know homophobic teens can "grow up" and except other people as different, but the ones I knew seemed to be pretty fucked in the head anyway.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

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.

Let's try word substitution:

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 Asian, and nobody even knew of such a thing, then no real harm would come from it. Asian people would be just as happy being white, possibly more so since no racism enters the picture.

But then again. I think someone who was actually Asian 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.

And a different direction:

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 atheist, and nobody even knew of such a thing, then no real harm would come from it. Atheist people would be just as happy being Wahabbist Islamic, possibly more so since no religious wars enters the picture.

But then again. I think someone who was actually atheist 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.

See?

[l33telboi]

-snip substitutions-

Even if you want to substitute what i said for your examples, isn't the underlying thought still true.

If you never knew something existed, you couldn't miss it. Therefore, no harm would be done and no one would be hurt, and a few problems would dissapear.

That's the pragmatic view of it, the moral part is another story, and that's why i can't decide what i would do in the situation.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

-snip substitutions-

Even if you want to substitute what i said for your examples, isn't the underlying thought still true.

If you never knew something existed, you couldn't miss it. Therefore, no harm would be done and no one would be hurt, and a few problems would dissapear.

That's the pragmatic view of it, the moral part is another story, and that's why i can't decide what i would do in the situation.

So essentially you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater; i.e. removing the bigotry by removing the object of bigotry.

Just a roundabout way of Blaming the Victim.

Mad pr0pz to Hipper for helping me with this.

[Darth Wong]

It's one thing to oppose discrimination against homosexuals; I completely agree with that. But pretending that homosexuality is not an evolutionary sub-optimal trait is just politically correct bullshit. Our species evolved to reproduce sexually, it has countless instincts to serve that particular goal, and it cannot be compared to ants or any other species where a large portion of the population is actually supposed to be non-breeding.

In the book Sex, Time, and Power by Leonard Shlain, he proposes that gays are no accident, but that it was advantageous to have some men who did not produce children, as their hunting, gathering, and care would allow their nieces and nephews to survive and thrive.

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.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

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

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

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.

My thoughts exactly. I believe some thing just are the way they are because there's no reason for them not to be.

[l33telboi]

So essentially you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater; i.e. removing the bigotry by removing the object of bigotry.

An accurate description yes, as long as the removal causes no pain, loss or otherwise 'bad' stuff to happen.

Just a roundabout way of Blaming the Victim.

If any blame is to be me made, it's on the biggots/racists. But the fact remains, there has been biggotry and probably always will, even though it is wrong. So is removing it, without any other problems occuring, wrong?

That's basically what i can't decide, since it still entitles a change to be made, even though nobody would know about it.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

So essentially you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater; i.e. removing the bigotry by removing the object of bigotry.

An accurate description yes, as long as the removal causes no pain, loss or otherwise 'bad' stuff to happen.

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.

Just a roundabout way of Blaming the Victim.

If any blame is to be me made, it's on the biggots/racists. But the fact remains, there has been biggotry and probably always will, even though it is wrong. So is removing it, without any other problems occuring, wrong?

That's basically what i can't decide, since it still entitles a change to be made, even though nobody would know about it.

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

Here's an idea: look up the word 'Monoculture' and find out why such a thing is very bad.