Homosexuality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

http://www.alan-partridge.co.uk/mult...Gay%20Desk.mpg

---

Ahh, The Day Today. Utterly brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ianofsmeg16

Bad experiences in a Back street night club?:laugh4:

Seriously though, I think the homophobes are just scared of something different

---

Technically they're scared of something the same :dizzy2:

so then something like nearsightedness does fit within your definition. i seriously doubt you'd promote death-in-the-womb (the only current "correction" available at the detection stage) for something like that. i don't think homosexuality, if it is a gene, fits any definition of physiological defect, in that it does not hamper the normal functioning of being a person - quite the contrary - the only people who seem to have affected living with homosexuality are the ones who don't have this (theoretical) "genetic issue".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I mean by genetic defect just what the notion implies: a defect based on a physiological failing. If you wish to argue there are no such things we can discuss it, but your position will be difficult.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

so then something like nearsightedness does fit within your definition. i seriously doubt you'd promote death-in-the-womb (the only current "correction" available at the detection stage) for something like that. i don't think homosexuality, if it is a gene, fits any definition of physiological defect, in that it does not hamper the normal functioning of being a person - quite the contrary - the only people who seem to have affected living with homosexuality are the ones who don't have this (theoretical) "genetic issue".

---

No one mentioned death as a correction. Death is an elimination.

Normal functioning begs the question. If someone were born blind due to a genetic failing should or should not energies be spent on giving the person sight? If pedophilia were shown to be a genetic defect should the stance be: no attempt to change the impulse should be undertaken as pedophiles live normally otherwise: the only ones who seem to have "affected living are the ones who don't have this genetic issue"? In the Twenty-First Century most see pedophilia as negative, but a cultural history will demonstrate that was not always so. The point is the issue turns on a moral stance. Whether one sees the genetically blind, gay or pedophilic as needing any kind of corrective may depend on a moral standard over and above base functionality. Though one could argue the one impacts the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I bet some people turn gay so they can have more clothes

---

You post these seemingly random one-liners in every backroom thread you post don't you ?

Makes me laugh each and every time.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faust|

Edit: and actually the selection mechanism is really based on the phenotypes of individuals; if a specific gene happens to be "in" an individual with a successful phenotype (viril, dominant, efficient, etc within the environment of reference) then so be it.

---

I disagree, but that would lead off topic now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Of course the more interesting question, assuming a genetic cause could be found, is whether that should be considered a defect and then fixed where possible.

---

One should not assume that something like a "gay gene" exists. If homosexuality has a genetic component, it would still be multifactorial, so probably several genes would be involved. Since these genes can have other functions as well, it can't be considered a defect in a classical way. It may of course be possible - if one allows for gene manipulations at all - to decrease predispositions for homosexuality. The same would be true for other traits with genetical components, such as religiousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

One should not assume that something like a "gay gene" exists.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

If homosexuality has a genetic component, it would still be multifactorial, so probably several genes would be involved. Since these genes can have other functions as well, it can't be considered a defect in a classical way.

---

Any multifactorial standing does not, in and of itself, escape judgment. It merely indicates complexity.

Quote:

---

It may of course be possible - if one allows for gene manipulations at all - to decrease predispositions for homosexuality. The same would be true for other traits with genetical components, such as religiousness.

---

This of course lends itself back to my initial post: "Of course the more interesting question, assuming a genetic cause could be found, is whether that should be considered a defect and then fixed where possible."

(in theory) changing genetic data so as to change a person/infant/foetus/whatever from homosexual to heterosexual is also elimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No one mentioned death as a correction. Death is an elimination.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

(in theory) changing genetic data so as to change a person/infant/foetus/whatever from homosexual to heterosexual is also elimination.

---

Are you suggesting the whole is understood in terms of a part and that the removal of a part constitutes the ending of the whole? If so, then you must be opposed to hair cuts.

a haircut is not the same as altering genetic dat to result in a different person. your constant method of selecting only a small part of my argument and then applying your own definition in an effort to lead the conversation isn't going to work here. you need to answer my original question of whether your theory of being gay as a detectable physiological flaw holds parity with other, documented unwanted genetic flaws. pretty much a yes/no question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Are you suggesting the whole is understood in terms of a part and that the removal of a part constitutes the ending of the whole? If so, then you must be opposed to hair cuts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

a haircut is not the same as altering genetic dat to result in a different person.

---

Based on what you wrote they are parallel: any change of a part constitutes a change (and in fact elimination) of the whole. Thus, a hair cut means the end of the person whose hair was cut.

Quote:

---

your constant method of selecting only a small part of my argument and then applying your own definition in an effort to lead the conversation isn't going to work here.

---

Have you presented an argument? Is this it: "(in theory) changing genetic data so as to change a person/infant/foetus/whatever from homosexual to heterosexual is also elimination."?

Is there some larger argumentative strata I am missing?

I have presented no definition. I do understand rational implication however and can use it.

Quote:

---

you need to answer my original question of whether your theory of being gay as a detectable physiological flaw holds parity with other, documented unwanted genetic flaws. pretty much a yes/no question.

---

I have presented no theory of being gay. Please read more carefully. I did say that if gaydom could be consigned to a genetic state then the more interesting question would be whether such should be considered a defect and fixed where possible.

Obviously, if being gay is a genetic flaw then it would be similar to other genetic flaws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Any multifactorial standing does not, in and of itself, escape judgment. It merely indicates complexity.

---

Yes. I meant that it is not a defect in the way for example Trisomi 21 is a defect.

Quote:

---

This of course lends itself back to my initial post: "Of course the more interesting question, assuming a genetic cause could be found, is whether that should be considered a defect and then fixed where possible."

---

We're in agreement, it is an interesting question. Of course, the broader question is whether genetic manipulation of humans should be allowed at all. If it is introduced in great scale, it will be unavoidable for society to make some important decisions. Which manipulations are acceptable and which not? Should people be allowed to determine the sex of their child? Skin colour? Personality? Sexuality? Political affiliation? Of course, the answers to these questions cannot be looked for in science. They are ethical of nature. Thus, in the end, aesthetical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

We're in agreement, it is an interesting question.

---

I think so.

Quote:

---

Of course, the broader question is whether genetic manipulation of humans should be allowed at all. If it is introduced in great scale, it will be unavoidable for society to make some important decisions.

---

I agree. Of course, knowing the future via Star Trek should give us a clue which road we ought to take to take.

Quote:

---

Which manipulations are acceptable and which not? Should people be allowed to determine the sex of their child? Skin colour? Personality? Sexuality? Political affiliation? Of course, the answers to these questions cannot be looked for in science. They are ethical of nature. Thus, in the end, aesthetical.

---

Of course, the sound man rejects emotivism.

Most parents will seek any reasonable advantage for their offspring. So come the day when we can see in advance that little Timmy will have violent criminal procilvities, or little Suzie will lean towards lesbianism, I rather expect that parents will correct any and all genetic variations that will make life more difficult for their Timmy and Suzie.

The fact of the matter is that being gay is a lot of hassle and trouble. No loving parent would wish it on their child, and if there were and easy gene fix, I'm sure it would be applied more often than not.

Here's a ponderer -- what if we find out that violent and criminal behavior has a genetic origin? What will that do to our criminal justice system? If we become capable of "fixing" a rapist, should we still lock him up? Should it be for just as long as we would lock him up if he weren't capable of being fixed?

If broad personal behaviors turn out to have genetic origins, there will be a lot of questions raised that will have no easy answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here's a ponderer -- what if we find out that violent and criminal behavior has a genetic origin? What will that do to our criminal justice system? If we become capable of "fixing" a rapist, should we still lock him up? Should it be for just as long as we would lock him up if he weren't capable of being fixed?

If broad personal behaviors turn out to have genetic origins, there will be a lot of questions raised that will have no easy answers.

---

Getting a social consensus on regulating anti-social behavior would be much easier than allowing for a genetic "corrective" for behavior that has advocacy groups. The gay question is a perfect example: gay apologists, their detractors and those in the middle would still need to decide the base morality. The same issue would apply (as Saturnus pointed out) if religiosity, or the reverse a-religiosity, were tied to genetics and could be "fixed". The 'should it be fixed' issue would still need to be answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

In my view it's mainly a matter of mankind having royally screwed up the air, food, and water supply and thusly paving the way for genomes to get severely messed up.

There is so much toxic crap in there nowadays that many are born with terrible birth defects, including the desire for "homosexuality."

---

Navaros, this is just plain scary... I would get some good laughs if it was a line in Southpark but I doubt that it is your next stand up comedy line... :no:




To the main topic: What exactly do you mean 'causes homosexuality'? You make it sound like a disease...like Cholera ...or Republicanism... :inquisitive:


There is only one explanation...Veggies are known to contain estrogens...which are female hormones. Vegetables are Satan's way of making us all gay...