Homosexuality

[Pindar]

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.

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.

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.

[A.Saturnus]

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.

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.

[Pindar]

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

I think so.

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.

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

[rasoforos]

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...




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


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...