Homosexuality - curable or not?

[MobBoss]

I would be disgusted at anyone who would alter their children's genes over something as much of a non-issue as this.

I am disgusted at people who pierce their baby girls ears, but I see it done all the time.

 

[mitsho]

No, if you read what I said, it precisely means that it is a choice.



Dude, you most certainly make choices...both ways. You precisely prove my point for me.

Social issues impact biological choices. /shrug.

Ok, since it seems not advisable to make a good clear lined out argument with some caveats, I'll go to one liners again.

1. What do you not understand of the distinction between the social and the biological level?

2. What are biological choices? Biological in this context means "predetermined" functions of the body related to hormones, chemicals and else while social means anything having something to do with our relationships to our environment including our view of ourselves. Thus, any choices we make are social.

3. Since you seem to understand that a choice is made by any homosexual to either show or not show it (

Spoiler :

Humans can control such urges and even make conscious choices in direct contrast to them. Its part of what separates us from other animals.

), homosexuality must therefore be a social issue.

[4. Regarding animals, neither showing animal homosexual behaviour nor listing up the reasons and not attributing them reason (in contrast to us humans) does prove anything. How do you measure sexual attraction? With "brain waves"? Perhaps possible, but it is not the perfect method yet and as far as I know there hasn't been made any big studies on it, certainly not with animals. We know when a person is "sexually attracted" and can thus deduct the biological reasons, but we cannot transfer that to animals, can we. Thus, we have no way to "prove" what causes the homosexual acts in the animal world, it might be a evolutionary strategy, some sort of aggression loss programm, maybe a way of showing hierarchy or - if animals experience "love" - it might really be (to a little percentage) homosexual love. But we cannot know that at the moment and thus this is a moot argument point.]


mick

PS: In my post I said "We have A which leads to B, but be aware of C." I used the word choice in A and C and you quoted everything of my post but B and thus took out the whole meaning of my post. Now that is rethorics! Congratulations...

 

[illram]

You miss the point of the entire thread. The question is if homosexuality is indeed found to be genetic (not something I proposed, but the OP did), would you make the choice to alter your childs genes to prevent homosexuality?

No, I get the point of the thread. I am questioning your reasoning behind genetically altering behavior in such a way. For instance, you posit that rising HIV rates are a reason to prevent your child from being gay via genetic manipulation. To reiterate my response, you get AIDS because you don't use a condom, not because you are gay. Therefore modifying genes for this reason seems unnecessary and not actually related to the cause of the problem in the first place.

Another thread on here says 1/4 of teenage girls have STDs. Is that because they are women, or because they are making poor choices when it comes to safe sex? Do women need genetic manipulation to somehow change their sexual behavior?

The points of the downside of being gay are merely reasons I offer up as why someone would make such a choice.

I see your point. My point is why would you genetically modify your child when the problem isn't with your child. If genetic manipulation was around 100 years ago, would it have been reasonable to make black-kids white to prevent potential future harm to them?

 

[Trajan12]

I see your point. My point is why would you genetically modify your child when the problem isn't with your child. If genetic manipulation was around 100 years ago, would it have been reasonable to make black-kids white to prevent potential future harm to them?

You simply don't understand the level of racism and homophobia in this society!

Would you raise a child in that condition? I don't guess so. So genetic modification would be the best choice. In a world where we've eliminated all potentially targeted diversity, we won't have to worry about our children being subject to discrimination. So instead of going through the arduous and seemingly impossible task of reducing racism/bigotry/xenophobia/homophobia(ad nauseum), we should simply give them what they want: homogeneous society. And in doing so, though it may seem disingenuous, counter-intuitive, and a wee genocidal, we will actually have prevailed!

 

[MobBoss]

No, I get the point of the thread. I am questioning your reasoning behind genetically altering behavior in such a way.

Wait a sec. If its genetic, is it behavior? I think in this arguement we are making a distinction between the two are we not?

For instance, you posit that rising HIV rates are a reason to prevent your child from being gay via genetic manipulation.

Not quite. I posit that why subject your child to a condition which is subject to an increased chance of HIV, suicide, etc. etc.

To reiterate my response, you get AIDS because you don't use a condom, not because you are gay.

However, if you are gay you are more predisposed to engage in unsafe sex. Because lets face it, many heterosexuals dont use condoms either, but they dont have the same infection rates.

Another thread on here says 1/4 of teenage girls have STDs. Is that because they are women, or because they are making poor choices when it comes to safe sex? Do women need genetic manipulation to somehow change their sexual behavior?

Not an adequate comparison, since there isnt really a question that STDs are a result of their genetics.

If genetic manipulation was around 100 years ago, would it have been reasonable to make black-kids white to prevent potential future harm to them?

Do you doubt that some black families might have made such a choice? Who are you to blame them for it?

 

[jeps]

I would rather have my child be natural than universally accepted (and they wont be anyways, as BH' a jew or at least the child of a jew). If he or she is gay/lesbian/bisexual, thats one more reason, but I would rather it be that than changing them to avoid bigots. and honestly, making society homogenous disgusts me in all that would encompass. Our differences make us better, not worse, and we should not give in because some idiots hate people unlike them. They only want people to be like them and I would die before living in a world of people ONLY like that.

---

However, if you are gay you are more predisposed to engage in unsafe sex. Because lets face it, many heterosexuals dont use condoms either, but they dont have the same infection rates.

That is a lie. Unsafe sex happens regardless of orientation. The truthful reason for higher AIDS rates is a lack of gay marriage. If gays were married, the relationships would last, and they would not have as many partners. However, with nothing keeping a relationship together, they move on to others. It is the higher PARTNER rate, NOT a higher unsafe sex rate, that is the reason for a higher AIDS infection rate. this could be EASILY taken care of by gay marriage.

 

[MobBoss]

I would rather have my child be natural than universally accepted (and they wont be anyways, as BH' a jew or at least the child of a jew).

Thats fine. But you need to deal with the simple fact that not everyone is going to see it the way you do. And the fact that they are not necessarily wrong in how they see it.

That is a lie. Unsafe sex happens regardless of orientation. The truthful reason for higher AIDS rates is a lack of gay marriage.

Well, you really just went off the beaten path there. If this is true, then why do gays in countries that allow gay marriage still experience higher infection rates in the gay community?

Bottom line. Your wrong.

If gays were married, the relationships would last, and they would not have as many partners.

Gays can already be in monogamous relationships regardless of the legality of marriage. You do understand this dont you? Even in the USA they can still perform a commitment ceremony in which they are supposed to be monogamous. The lack of a state recognized piece of paper isnt the reason for a higher HIV rate. The CDC would laugh at you.

However, with nothing keeping a relationship together, they move on to others. It is the higher PARTNER rate, NOT a higher unsafe sex rate, that is the reason for a higher AIDS infection rate. this could be EASILY taken care of by gay marriage.

Again, correlation =/= casuation. I encourage you to go to the Centers for Disease control and study up a bit.

 

[robo-snickers]

You can't change something like sexual orientation.

On the other hand, you can change your hobbies, the way you dress, and even your name.

not true,
if Mr. Bill3000 ever got with a girl im sure she would change the team she is on

 

[jeps]

I will link you to some studies soon, but rest assured I did not pull that idea out of my @$$.

keep in mind that gay marriage has been in effect NOWHERE long enough for any significant effect to be immediately shown, since 7 years cannot drasticly change anything. will get back to you though.

 

[MobBoss]

I will link you to some studies soon, but rest assured I did not pull that idea out of my @$$.

keep in mind that gay marriage has been in effect NOWHERE long enough for any significant effect to be immediately shown, since 7 years cannot drasticly change anything. will get back to you though.

7 years is more than enough time to recognize a downward trend in rate, as opposed to an upward trend.

I have a feeling you know this to be true.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

The argument that gays have higher rates of being ostracized by their families is analogous to the argument that blacks have higher rates of being lynched. While superficially true, it's not the being gay or black that's the problem. It's a simple moral question: bigotry is evil; being a member of a class towards which people direct their bigotry is not. It doesn't matter if it would be easier just to get rid of the latter, there's really only one moral option.

Cleo

 

[classical_hero]

I will link you to some studies soon, but rest assured I did not pull that idea out of my @$$.

keep in mind that gay marriage has been in effect NOWHERE long enough for any significant effect to be immediately shown, since 7 years cannot drasticly change anything. will get back to you though.

Every single study that has been done on this issue has not been replicated, meaning that they are still in closer in finding what actually causes homosexuality. It seems to be a random thing from a scientific POV.
http://healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm

What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?
No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

If it is such a natural thing to be gay, then why are diseases more likely to be spread by them, rather than heterosexuals? Here are two reports on Gay health issues.
Gay Men More Likely to Contract 'Superbug'

HealthDay

By Robert Preidt

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

TUESDAY, Jan. 15 (HealthDay News) -- Sexually active gay men are much more likely than others to be infected by a highly resistant strain of staph bacteria, warns a study led by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

The scientists analyzed patient medical charts and found that sexually active gay men in San Francisco are about 13 time more likely to be infected with multidrug-resistant, community-associated MRSA bacteria than people in the general population.

Overall, about one in 3,800 people in San Francisco is infected with this very potent strain of MRSA.

The findings were published in the Jan. 14 early online edition of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

"These multi-drug resistant infections often affect gay men at body sites in which skin-to-skin contact occurs during sexual activities," lead author Binh Diep, a UCSF postdoctoral scientist at San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center, said in a prepared statement.

"But because the bacteria can be spread by more casual contact, we are also very concerned about a potential spread of this strain into the general population," Diep said.

MRSA invades skin and tissue beneath the skin, causing abscesses and ulcerations that can turn into life-threatening infections. In people who become infected, prompt diagnosis and treatment are crucial.

Diep said a thorough scrubbing with soap and water may be the most effective way to prevent skin-to-skin transmission, especially after sex.

U.S. Syphilis Rate Grows for 7th Year in Row

Increase largely driven by new cases among gay, bisexual men, CDC reports.

You can clearly see that being gay is actually a very risky assignment, especially considering that it should be natural. Homosexuality is a dangerous thing for those who practice it. The fact back that up in every study of Gay men and disease.

 

[JollyRoger]

The 25% of teenage females with a std must have got them from gay men.

 

[Winner]

Homosexuality has been a part of human sexuality for as long as the historybooks go back. The reason why some these days consider homosexuality inmoral and unnatural could possibly be traced back to Christianity and Islam taking over.

It depends. It has not been considered 'equal' to heterosexual orientation. It used to be tolerated, but I doubt people saw it as something perfectly normal.

70 years ago some people in Germany tried to analyse and 'alter' the human inheritance with very primitive and cruel means, meaning cancelling those elements they believed to be unnatural and weak. It didn't turn out so well - thankfully. Lets not make the same mistakes just because technology is catching up.

Depends on the perspective. If the Germans had won the war, you'd now be praising the Nazi eugenic policy.

 

[Winner]

Anyway, if I had the means, I'd definitely make sure that my children are "straight".

 

[bardolph]

Even if a "gay gene" was discovered, and even if it could be selectively avoided, it would not prevent homosexuality. Biology is only one component of lifestyle choice, and even among homosexuals, different people will point to different reasons for the choices that they make.

Given the option to tinker with the genes of my children, and given reasonable assurances that the biological risks were low, I would probably do it. If I decided I wanted grandchildren, I would want "straight" children. Seems obvious to me.

If I could choose the handedness of my child before birth, why wouldn't I want to choose right-handed? This isn't "handist" bigotry, it's simply making sensible choices based on convenience and ease of lifestyle.

However, the method of such eugenic choices would have a large impact on my decision-making. Would these decisions be made based on "pre-selection" of sperm, or would they be made after conception? I bring this up, because if you eliminate the competition between sperm that happens in the fallopian tubes, then you are likely to choose weak sperm based on "fashion." In this scenario, I predict that people conceived the "natural" way would probably be better off overall (due to greater variety) than genetically-engineered "trendy-babies."

 

[jeps]

Depends on the perspective. If the Germans had won the war, you'd now be praising the Nazi eugenic policy.

that's a nice assumption to make. firstly not everyone IN GERMANY agreed with that policy to start with, but you cant voice your opinion in a police state. HOWEVER you CAN teach your kids your opinion, and they would learn it.

Also, some of us would never have the opportunity to praise said policy, myself included (I honestly think that it was their work that made me so against it)

 

[.Shane.]

The argument that gays have higher rates of being ostracized by their families is analogous to the argument that blacks have higher rates of being lynched. While superficially true, it's not the being gay or black that's the problem. It's a simple moral question: bigotry is evil; being a member of a class towards which people direct their bigotry is not. It doesn't matter if it would be easier just to get rid of the latter, there's really only one moral option.

Cleo

Likewise the argument about gays having higher rates of HIV being analogous to the fact that blacks have a higher rate of incarceration. Is this merely because they are black? Of course not.

 

[Winner]

that's a nice assumption to make. firstly not everyone IN GERMANY agreed with that policy to start with, but you cant voice your opinion in a police state. HOWEVER you CAN teach your kids your opinion, and they would learn it.

Also, some of us would never have the opportunity to praise said policy, myself included (I honestly think that it was their work that made me so against it)

Neither of us would exist.

I meant that if you were raised in Nazi society, you'd probably agree that eugenics (both positive and negative) is a good thing.

 

[bardolph]

Also, the notion that homosexuality is based on genetics is patently absurd, on the face of it, since straight people are much more likely to reproduce.