Print

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

[Realmfighter]

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?

Because Intolerance is a lot less tangible then homosexuality.

[Phmcw]

Anyway, the very idea that homosexuality is genetic is ridiculous, and fit only for ignorantamus. As said before, some combinations of genes could eventually make you more likely to be gay, but it's far from certain.
The finding of a "gay gene" is as stupid that the finding of a "gene of violence" and nothing more that poor wording from a bad journalist lacking an audience.

[Eagleon]

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.

Sometimes pain helps you learn to help others. I don't think social stigma is any reason at all to change your kid into what he or she isn't. If you're willing to go this far, why not castrate them while you're at it and let them reproduce with cloning? At some point, as a parent, you have to accept that not everyone will love your kid, that he won't be perfect, and that you just have to do the best you can to make sure he finds a place in the world.

[Cthulhu]

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

Yeah.

So is it the parents' right to make that decision for the baby?

[Criptfeind]

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?

Because Intolerance is a lot less tangible then homosexuality.

Source?

Every thing is really fucked up in the head. I don't see why Homosexuality would be easier to find then Intolerance.

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

Yeah.

So is it the parents' right to make that decision for the baby?

I am arguing on the side of no.

[Cthulhu]

Why not?

Isn't intolerance just the emotional reaction to something you find wrong?  How would you only cure intolerance for things you think are okay, and why is that morally different from curing homosexuality?

[Realmfighter]

Source?

I thought that we were assuming that there was a Gay Gene, it could be removed completely and easily and homosexuality was completely genetic.

[CoughDrop]

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?

The latter.

To me it seems that unless you can somehow make it that two people of the same sex can't have physically pleasurable activities together, then there is no way to completely abolish gay outliers in the first place.

Also, so what if a gene can be turned off to "cure the gay"? It would be like one of today's vaccines that would only be handed to people who can afford it = gay not "cured". And even if everyone could have it, not everyone would take it/give it to their children.

The entire deal is just some fascist's wet dream.

[Willfor]

What happened to the start of this topic when we were all more or less agreed? I mean, you can even find Christians actively trying to stop homophobia.

[Criptfeind]

Source?

I thought that we were assuming that there was a Gay Gene, it could be removed completely and easily and homosexuality was completely genetic.

To be fair, I am not reading the thread.

So maybe.

At any rate I believe if that was true it would still be preferable to take out the intolerance over the easier and reduced cost of taking out the homosexuality.

Why not?

Isn't intolerance just the emotional reaction to something you find wrong?  How would you only cure intolerance for things you think are okay, and why is that morally different from curing homosexuality?

Presumably, we would have to find out what causes people to be averted to homosexuality rather then just emotionally deaden people.

As for the moral aspect, it is not good, but it is better then taking out homosexuality.

Take as a example sending people to prison for the crime of kidnapping and holding people against their will.

[CoughDrop]

Genetics has little to do with bigotry...

It's a learned aspect.

[Criptfeind]

Eh. Maybe.

This is more likely not the place to get into nature vs nurture.

[Cthulhu]

So let's say both homosexuality and intolerance are genetically identified and curable. 

If we cure intolerance entirely, people would be okay with things like murder and rape.  If we cure it partially, what metric do we use to determine what's to be cured and not cured?

Also, because I don't like people getting hung up on this kind of thing to the detriment of the argument, when I use the word "cure" in the context of this discussion, I am not implying that the thing being "cured" is a disease or somehow wrong.

[GlyphGryph]

For example, I'm sure their are parents out there who would "cure" their child's blue eyes or lack of a tail or blonde hair or, for a for-reals conflict area, deafness.

But if something is genetic (the crux of this argument being whether or not its actually genetic, and what that entails), you can't really argue that modifying their genes removes any "choice" they may have in the matter. And frankly, I'd support it - there are hands down perfectly logical reasons to want to be heterosexual over homosexual if you are concerned about maximizing their opportunity, because you would in fact be giving your child MORE choice, simply by virtue of allowing them the opportunity to actually have a baby with their partner that is equal parts "theirs".

Of course, you benefit them even more on that front by making them bisexual, so instead of identifying and removing the gay gene, we need to find the genes that cause bisexuality and shove those into people, obviously.

[Criptfeind]

So let's say both homosexuality and intolerance are genetically identified and curable. 

If we cure intolerance entirely, people would be okay with things like murder and rape.  If we cure it partially, what metric do we use to determine what's to be cured and not cured?

Also, because I don't like people getting hung up on this kind of thing to the detriment of the argument, when I use the word "cure" in the context of this discussion, I am not implying that the thing being "cured" is a disease or somehow wrong.

Yes, so lets not much around with anyone DNA.