Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Spare the tears, don't think it'll get any better anytime soon.

Meh, I'm young.  Plenty of time to be brave when I'm done crying over humanity's blindness.

[Realmfighter]

I don't really see the problem with finding and removing the "Gay" gene, assuming that it would happen before Puberty (EI before it would be missed)

Its not like your grabbing some kid off the street and using a hatchet to destroy a facet of his being. (Assuming it's an in the womb thing) Your taking the possibility of him being gay away, lowering the total number of people he could grow up to be from an uncountable number to a slightly lower uncountable number.

But I can see how no one would be amused if someone tried to cure Homosexuality in an already Gay person.

[Vector]

Because eugenics got us just that far last time.

There is no good reason to get rid of homosexuality.  It's like if the gay folks said "Okay, guys, you are never allowed to show your children the existence of Leviticus in the Bible.  You can keep thinking whatever you want, but we're pruning this aspect of Christianity at the root, period, forever, and the future generations will not know this part of your book."

"Your children will never know your experience.  The future generations will never understand you.  You are the last generation, and after you, there will be no more--because we decided that you are unneeded on this earth."

Furthermore, who are we to say that homosexuality isn't attached to "good" and "valued" effects?  We don't know yet.  I don't think it's worth it to screw around in the genetic pool just to get rid of a few "undesirables."


Also, because that follows the technical definition of genocide.

[Criptfeind]

Yeah. Even if you don't see the stunning moral issues with such a act, you can at least see the economic issues of going though all that expense for nothing at all.

[Realmfighter]

There is no good reason to get rid of homosexuality.  It's like if the gay folks said "Okay, guys, you are never allowed to show your children the existence of Leviticus in the Bible.  You can keep thinking whatever you want, but we're pruning this aspect of Christianity at the root, period, forever, and the future generations will not know this part of your book."

It may not be a good reason for you, but unless the social stigma towards homosexuality is gone by this point (Which could happen) this would help the child avoid the pain of being reviled for who he is.

Furthermore, who are we to say that homosexuality isn't attached to "good" and "valued" effects?  We don't know yet.  I don't think it's worth it to screw around in the genetic pool just to get rid of a few "undesirables."

This isn't really related to the argument of if its moral or not, as we can't know for sure if its even possible or not, and the idea that it may be linked to other genes is more for the peer review proses.

[Vector]

It may not be a good reason for you, but unless the social stigma towards homosexuality is gone by this point (Which could happen) this would help the child avoid the pain of being reviled for who he is.

I am going to make this completely, utterly clear with an example.  I do not intend to equivocate acts, but perception.  I just want to make that clear for everyone.

A woman is raped by a man.  She was dressed "provocatively."

Whose fault was it?

[Criptfeind]

Obviously the man.

But, the question Realm is asking. If this was some fantasy world where that is what gets peopled raped and not metal sicknesses, then would it have been better if she was not dressed as such?

Or something? I feel like I lost that somewhere, but the point stands.





My answer is yes but it is not worth forcing all people to dress a certain way.

[CoughDrop]

There is no good reason to get rid of homosexuality.  It's like if the gay folks said "Okay, guys, you are never allowed to show your children the existence of Leviticus in the Bible.  You can keep thinking whatever you want, but we're pruning this aspect of Christianity at the root, period, forever, and the future generations will not know this part of your book."

It may not be a good reason for you, but unless the social stigma towards homosexuality is gone by this point (Which could happen) this would help the child avoid the pain of being reviled for who he is.

Hehe, but then the social stigma towards homosexuality wouldn't subside anyway.

[Mindmaker]

It may not be a good reason for you, but unless the social stigma towards homosexuality is gone by this point (Which could happen) this would help the child avoid the pain of being reviled for who he is.

I am going to make this completely, utterly clear with an example.  I do not intend to equivocate acts, but perception.  I just want to make that clear for everyone.

A woman is raped by a man.  She was dressed "provocatively."

Whose fault was it?

The man will be found guilty, but in some backyard corner of their minds people might think "She deserved it".
We live in a sad and depressing world...

[Vector]

But, the question Realm is asking. If this was some fantasy world where that is what gets peopled raped and not metal sicknesses, then would it have been better if she was not dressed as such?

Or something? I feel like I lost that somewhere, but the point stands.

I think what you lost is that until recently, this was a world where it was the woman's fault for being dressed provocatively.  Because it is her duty to protect herself, more than it is the man's duty to abstain from raping her.

Just as it is the duty of the homosexual to refrain from being gay, rather than it is the duty of the public to get off their high moral horses and deal.

Previously, the advice was "stop dressing provocatively, then, if you don't want to be raped," much as the advice now seems to be "stop being gay if you don't want to be stigmatized."  However, dressing provocatively cannot be passed off as a genetic issue... it is a choice.  Why do we respect the choice of the women, while failing to respect the "inborn quality" of the homosexual?  How is this logical?

How is this acceptable?

The man will be found guilty, but in some backyard corner of their minds people might think "She deserved it".

Yeah, but we still call Muslims crazy.  *shrug*

"Be sexy, but not that sexy.  Okay... there.  Good.  You're the good kind of 'I can't control myself around you.'"

[Realmfighter]

Before this continues, I just want to make it clear that I see absolutely nothing wrong with brainwashing, given that the brainwashing techniques actually worked instead of being Stockholm Syndromey bullshit. Just wanted to get that out there.

My answer is yes but it is not worth forcing all people to dress a certain way.

Your not taking away the choice, your taking away the want. There is nothing to miss if you don't want it back.

Hehe, but then the social stigma towards homosexuality wouldn't subside anyway.

What? are you saying there is no chance of it subsiding, or that if there were no more homosexual then the bias towards homosexual would be just as strong as always?

How is this acceptable?

Because the "inborn quality" is one of a million qualities that could be, that your getting rid of to benefit the child (No matter how superficial the benefit)

[Cthulhu]

Are we talking about genetic therapy on a fetus to "cure the gay?"

[Criptfeind]

Your not taking away the choice, your taking away the want. There is nothing to miss if you don't want it back.

You are taking away the choice to want.

Before this continues, I just want to make it clear that I see absolutely nothing wrong with brainwashing, given that the brainwashing techniques actually worked instead of being Stockholm Syndromey bullshit.

Why? I mean, I can understand why you are okay with brainwashing, but why not 'Stockholm Syndromey bullshit'?

Are we talking about genetic therapy on a fetus to "cure the gay?"

Yeah.

[Vector]

Because the "inborn quality" is one of a million qualities that could be, that your getting rid of to benefit the child (No matter how superficial the benefit)

Why are you advocating curing the symptoms of intolerance, rather than the disease?

[Criptfeind]

BAM

Vector point match?

Maaaybe?

But really, her simple statement blows everything I could say out of the water. As long as you are rooting around in peoples preborn heads why not take out intolerance?